Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_02_14 Planning Board Minutes (2) • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 14, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason / "4 Absent: Edward Gonye ,+ RECMS .; Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel MR 1S WO ...yyy Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer PIITRICM A Lisa Casey, Public Stenographer µ� N. Kazazes and Associates 250 East Hartsdale Avenue, Suite 24 4' Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:22 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Ms. Harrington seconded by Dr. Mason, the amended Minutes for January 10, 1996 were unanimously approved. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Robert Stanziale - SavATree - 635 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 175 & 643 On a motion was made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Mr. Michael Leonard of SavATree and Frank Aurrichio appeared, stating Mr. Stanziale could not make this meeting. Mr. Leonard stated that he had mailed to the Town a copy of information regarding material used by SavATree, which Board members referred to. Ms. Reader said with respect to this application and the Public Hearing, at the last meeting no one was representing SavATree and it was held over to this meeting. The first meeting was for consideration which was not a Public Hearing, and there was representation that there would be no pesticides stored at this location. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Leonard if that was what he was referring to as a misrepresentation. Mr. Leonard stated that was what he was referring to and then explained what SavATree will be doing at the subject property stating SavATree is a full service tree company, i.e. tree work, fertilization, pest Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 2 management, landscaping. The site in question has an existing garage where SavATree will store some chemical equipment and some supplies used day in and day out. SavATree is not looking to stockpile any pesticides. SavATree operates twelve months out of the year, and some supplies used in the Data Sheet that was supplied by DEC regulators is basically used for the March through September treatment calendar which SavATree keeps on hand. The site in Larchmont is only going to have a couple of trucks. Ms. Reader asked if it was the intention of SavATree to store all the various chemicals on site. Mr. Leonard said it was not the intention of SavATree to store all the various chemicals, and referred to the Data Sheet submitted which lists all the types of materials which might possibly be used and the treatment windows in which it would be done. The 1996 Data Sheet has not yet been printed. No large quantities of chemicals will be kept on site. Ms. Reader asked how SavATree intends to store the products. Mr. Leonard said basically with the existing garage, in 55 gallon drums. Based on the size of the operation in Larchmont, it would mean a couple of drums stored off the floor and with a surrounding pit in case of a spill. DEC lists guidelines regarding pesticide storage and safety which SavATree would comply with. Some of the smaller products would be in box form, which would be kept in separate containers. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if raising the storage off the ground and installing a berm would be sufficient to contain spillage. Mr. Trachtman said the guidelines would require the building used for storage of chemicals has adequate ventilation. Provided those conditions were met, then it is conceivable that some form of a portable tray or storage pallet could be provided that would have sufficient containment capacity located within the garage. It would not necessarily require a separate stand-alone storage facility. There are other portable devices that are capable of providing the required containment. The Board would have to know specifically how this would be done. Mr. Leonard said the area regarding containment would be 3 ft. to 4 ft. wide by approximately 10 ft. long. Dr. Mason said SavATree would not be storing a large quantity. The specific amount stored is not the concern, but that whatever amount is stored SavATree will have adequate containment and how it will be stored. Ms. Reader said the Board would need to know more specifically what apparatus will be used for containment so that there will be no pollution.i.e. what you want to store,how much will be stored. Show a containment device (portable or stand-alone)adequate for storage that carries the appropriate approvals. Mr. Trachtman said that some of the chemicals described in the Data Sheet require mixing with other agents and asked if mixing activities will be conducted at the Larchmont location. Mr. Leonard said mixing activities will not be conducted at this location. Mr. Trachtman asked whether all of the materials will be premixed or mixed on the trucks. Mr. Leonard said the materials will be premixed or mixed as applied. Mr. Trachtman asked would there be any washing down of the equipment at the site. Mr. Leonard stated normal truck washing as far as the exterior of the truck. The tanks are never washed out, aside from the fact that what is in the tank is pumped out at the end of the day and the tank is filled up again with clear water. The materials are compatible. There is always another tank on the truck that Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 3 gets clear water, and from that tank there are different valves that take the clear water into other tanks on the truck. Ms. Harrington referred to an article in the Data Sheet, ArborGuard, a pesticide that says it is imperative that spray tanks be washed thoroughly immediately after use. Mr. Leonard said that is based on New York State law, is a copy of the actual label and explained the process referred to. Ms. Harrington then stated where and how does SavATree intend to wash the tanks. Mr. Leonard said the tanks will be washed into the existing tank and sprayed out again on trees, not on the ground. Mr. Darsky said when you switch chemicals in the tank, most of the time that tank is empty and then filled with different chemicals. What happens if one time there is residue left, what does SavATree do with it. Mr. Leonard said most of the materials used different times of the year can be used together. Chemicals are mixed pertaining to usage, and products used are basically compatible. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if it was an issue when the trucks are being cleaned externally, spraying is going on and the product is on the bottom of the truck. Mr. Trachtman said it is a valid question. It is not clear that these activities are going to take place on the site. Dr. Mason said the concern is that if there is washdown it goes through the premium marsh, which is a critical environmental area. Mr. Leonard said SavATree has worked for ten years in the area, and asked if this has ever come up with tree companies before. Mr. Trachtman said since 1993 with the adoption of pesticide guidelines,we now have a potential problem. Businesses conducting this activity should be taking precautions, as the regulations and guidelines do not specifically discuss these in transit situations. It would be appropriate that all aspects of guidelines should be met and require a washdown facility. Mr. Darsky asked if the main facility was in Bedford. Mr. Leonard said the main facility is in Bedford. The storage area is a separate metal type prefabricated garage area similar to the one proposed in Larchmont. Supplies are stored off the ground and can be moved within the site. Ms. Reader asked if there is a washdown area in Bedford. Mr. Leonard said there was no washdown area in Bedford. Ms. Reader said the presentation made was different, as originally the Board had been told there would be no pesticides or chemicals stored in Larchmont. Any chemicals to be used on the truck would be obtained from the Bedford location. The Board needs more specific information. Mr. Leonard then asked if SavATree could get a Special Use Permit for tree work, and reapply for the pesticide issue with whatever information needed. All pesticide work will be performed out of the Bedford. Planning Board February 14, 1996 • Page 4 Dr. Mason said Mr. Leonard should be very specific in his application on what SavATree is asking to store, how much, how they intend to store it and back it up with the necessary paper work. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Silverberg about the request on the application for landscaping activity as currently being performed. Mr. Silverberg indicated that landscaping includes the use of chemicals, but now is asking for a permit just for the tree service. Mr. Silverberg said this is not a problem. Originally as presented there was to be no chemical storage, and the applicant is saying he is withdrawing his request to store chemicals. The Board can make a condition that there be no storage of chemicals. The applicant can choose to reapply for chemical storage at a later time. Mr. Leonard acknowledged that he was withdrawing the request for storage of chemicals. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, a negative declaration was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Robert Stanziale submitted an application for a Special Permit for use of the premises at 635 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 175 and 643 as a landscape maintenance contractor, SavATree; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1995, January 10, 1996 and February 14, 1996 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special Permit, the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant, comments and responses to questions by the applicant, the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets; 2. The operations in connection with the Special Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations,flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Permit; Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 5 3. The proposed Special Permit use will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the application of Robert Stanziale for a Special Permit for a landscape maintenance contractor, SavATree, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. No storage of pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals on the site or in any instrument stored on the site. 2. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in 89-53 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Darsky said if Mr. Leonard could bring information from Bedford which would shed some light on chemical storage that might be beneficial when the applicant reapplies for chemical storage. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION - Winged Foot Golf Club - 851 Fenimore Road - Block 347 Lot 1 Judge Pelton appeared as Mr. Alonzi was unable to attend the meeting this evening. Judge Pelton said Mr. Alonzi has been communicating quite extensively with Mr. Trachtman regarding this matter. Ms. Reader said the Board received a letter from Mr. Trachtman and from Winged Foot and asked Mr. Trachtman to expand on his letter. Mr. Trachtman said that following last month's meeting, he had discussions with representatives from the DEC in Albany in the pesticides bureau and the department involved with the bulk storage regulations. The pesticides bureau is the agency that has jurisdiction in this particular case due to the fact that the quantity being stored is less than the amount regulated by Parts 595 through 599 referred to in his January 24, 1996 letter to the Board. The pesticides bureau has certain regulations in Part 326 of the New York State Code of Rules and Regulations. The particular paragraph dealing with storage of pesticides is very broad, and Mr. Trachtman referred the Board members to the excerpt in their packets. Because of that vagueness, the pesticide bureau last year put forward guidelines for storage of pesticides by registered businesses involved in the application of pesticides. Mr. Alonzi represented to the Board last time that Winged Foot does in fact have a permit from the DEC to apply these particular chemicals. In the spirit of being good neighbors, Winged Foot decided to erect a prefabricated storage building. The uncertainty last time was which guidelines would apply to the containment requirements. Under the guidelines applicable, the containment quantity is 25% of the amount being stored. In that case, the facility being proposed by Winged Foot is certainly providing sufficient quantity, i.e. capacity of holding approximately 1,400 gallons with a total storage capacity in this facility of approximately 8,000 gallons. Winged Foot will not be storing anything near that amount of chemicals to begin with, and the containers being provided are no larger than 55 gallon drums. In most cases the storage box will contain 2-2'h gallon containers, which will be separated from each other within the facility. The conclusion is that what Winged Foot is proposing to provide is consistent with the guidelines. Correspondence was received from the DEC, January 23, 1996, indicating that because there is no discharge of waste water, they have no jurisdiction to review this application. On that basis, the facility that Winged Foot proposes to provide is appropriate as long as the Freshwater Wetlands and Watercourses Permit includes a condition that the facility is consistent with the guidelines. Dr. Mason said that is has been apparent from the beginning that this has been an effort by Winged Foot not to do anything inappropriate, but an attempt to upgrade what is already a conforming operation. Planning Board February 14, 1996 . Page 6 Ms. Reader agrees with the voluntary effort, and noted the written material for the proposed storage unit states a 32% containment which is higher than the regs require. Judge Pelton stated that the amount to be stored is far less than full capacity. Ms. Harrington said in as much as Winged Foot is expected to store less than 150 gallons as the engineer suggests, the Board limits the amount of gallons that Winged Foot can store to 1,460. Mr. Trachtman said the facility is actually capable of storing eighty-six(86)55 gallon drums, and Winged Foot is nowhere near that volume. The containment that is provided for the prefabricated building to hold is 1,460 gallons, which represents 25% of the volume that could be stored which is sufficient because all of the chemicals are being stored in individual containers. There is a reliance on the likelihood that not all of the containers will leak at the same time. Ms. Reader said what is intended to be done is far less than the capacity, but even if you go to capacity there is still sufficient containment. Mr. Trachtman said Winged Foot will have capacity for almost ten times the volume being stored. Ms. Harrington asked if the facility will be locked at all times. Judge Pelton said the facility will be locked at all times, which is required at this point in time. Ms. Reader said Winged Foot already has washdown facilities. Mr. Trachtman said that is being provided as part of this application. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, a negative declaration was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, the following was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Winged Foot Golf Club has applied for a permit for the premises at Lot No. 851 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 347 Lot 1 pursuant to Local Law #7-1986; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type I action and that this Board is the appropriate Lead Agency with respect to Environmental Quality Review; and WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in writing regarding this application to the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined, pursuant to Local Law #7, Section 86-6(D), that the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6NYCRR 665.7; WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986 having been held on January 10, 1996 and February 14, 1996; Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 7 WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance of systems in a controlled area; 2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, because (A) the proposed activity will have only a minor impact, (B) it is the only practical alternative, and(C) it is compatible with the economic and social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or social burden on the community; 3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of any part of the wetland because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective conditions imposed by this resolution; 4. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare, because of its minor impact in the controlled area; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Winged Foot Golf Club for a permit, pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986, be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. That there be compliance with the referenced guideline 6NYCRR part 326 Part 326.11 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations and NYSDEC, Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation,specifically Pesticide Storage Guidelines for Registered Businesses dated May, 1995 as these regulations and guidelines may be modified from time to time; 2. Subject to the Freshwater Wetlands Watercourses Permit as stated in the January 10, 1996 letter from Malcolm Pirnie by Gary Trachtman; 3. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity or a combination thereof; 4. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be in accordance with the requirements of the Town Flood Damage Prevention Code and the Town Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law. 5. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM. 6. A cash deposit or bond in an amount to be fixed by the building inspector shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or disturbed area. 7. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issue whichever first occurs. Ms. Reader asked Judge Pelton to thank Mr. Alonzi for working with Mr. Trachtman to clarify the regulations pertaining to pesticide storage. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tracarico - 771 Forest Avenue - Block 210 Lot 35 Mr. Widulski, engineer for the applicant, and Mr. Tracarico appeared. Mr. Widulski, who stated he was the Town Engineer twenty-five years ago, said that he did not attend the last meeting and asked Ms. Reader for comments regarding same. Ms. Reader said the last meeting was a preliminary presentation for consideration, tonight being the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Widulski to present his case. Mr. Widulski said the application concerns an addition to the kitchen in a north elevated state above an existing deck and the proposal to construct a swinuning pool approximately at the middle of the structure extending to the rear of the building extending about 38 ft. from the edge of the existing Sheldrake Trail. It does infringe upon the flood zone, which comes almost to the rear of the existing building. Mr. Widulski does not have the impact on the flood zone because he does not have the full cross sections to supply any technical data. Ms. Reader said this had been discussed at the prior meeting. A request was made for a plan showing the impact and levels of elevation. Mr. Trachtman tried to explain to the applicant, Mrs. Tricarico, as the Board's decision has to based upon the existing maps. Mr. Widulski asked if the Board had a flood plan map. Mr. Trachtman said the Board has the 1989 flood study, and also has the seven maps generated as a result of a larger study done on the Sheldrake River which is available in the Building Department. Dr. Mason said Mr. Widulski should develop the extent of the impact and what the applicant has done to make the structure stand up to it, i.e. foundation, support. Mr. Trachtman said that if construction does take place, that would have to be reported in the flood damage prevention code that the Town has. Ms. Reader said when the Board last spoke to the applicant, the Board was told the kitchen was actually within the boundaries of the house. Mr. Widulski said the kitchen is being extended above the deck. There is a 12 ft. grade difference between the front of the house and the rear of the house. There is a story and one-half, a playroom and deck area. The kitchen is on the main level 10 ft. above grade above the footprint. Mr. Trachtman said there is an overhang of the existing open deck. Mr. Widulski said the kitchen is 14 ft. up, and it doesn't impact the flood plain. Mr. Trachtman said the purpose of the question was to determine whether or not there was any additional impervious surface. Mr. Widulski said it is above the deck. Ms. Reader said when you extend the kitchen out over the deck you add to the impervious flow of water. This matter, by necessity, will be adjourned to the next meeting because more documentation has to be given to the panel. Catherine Koppel appeared and said that in view of the fact that the matter is going to be adjourned to the next meeting, her comments not related to the flood impact are premature. Another concern Ms. Koppel has is with the short term period during the actual construction of the deck/kitchen/pool is that the house Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 9 is located at a right angle curve which is dangerous for children walking to and from Murray Avenue school. Residents at 659 and 657 Forest Avenue are all built on a cliff that goes down to the river. The houses are along the street, there are no front yards. There is no sidewalk. During construction with the trucks that will be parked there, Ms. Koppel is concerned about welfare of the children walking to Murray Avenue school and what will happen to the flow of traffic as there are no sidewalks and no yards. In the summer there is also the Badger Sports Camp. Dr. Mason said this consideration should be taken to the Traffic Committee who can recommend traffic restrictions if necessary, as the Planning Board does not deal with the traffic problems. Mr. Darsky said the Board has previously considered similar applications with traffic issues. Ms. Reader feels it is appropriate to set conditions, and then the applicant could report those conditions to the Traffic Committee. Mr. Silverberg said the applicant will be coming back with more engineering detail, and they could come back with a plan on how to address the traffic problem. Dr. Mason said the applicant mentioned there is a 12 ft. differential between the grade level front to back, and asked what is the dropoff. Mr. Widulski said the dropoff is 41/2 ft. over about 60 ft. Dr. Mason said it would be a very substantial rise in the water, and asked if the water has ever risen to that level. Mr. Widulski said he will provide sections on that matter at the next meeting. Dr. Mason said if it is 60 ft., that is going to make for a very wide river with a lot of capacity before it ever reaches the house. The applicant is not talking about a major infringement on the flow of the river, the flood plain or anything like that. Mr. Tricarico said he has been a resident for approximately twenty-seven years, and he has seen the river crest about six or seven times. Ms. Reader said at the next meeting the applicant shall address the issue of the flow of traffic, the flood plain and protecting pedestrians. Upon a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Dr. Mason it was unanimously agreed that the Public Hearing be adjourned on this application until the next meeting, March 13, 1996 at 8:15 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Guo Tong Lin/George Poline- Lucky Wok -2423 Boston Post Road - Block 505 Lot 463 Mr. Poline and Guo Tong Lin appeared. Due to the fact that Mr. Lin's English is poor, Mr. Poline spoke for him. Mr. Lin is taking over an existing store, Little Kitchen, with no changes being made, i.e. hours. Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 10 Ms. Reader asked the secretary to provide for the March 13, 1996 Public Hearing a copy of the Certification granting the Special Use Permit to Little Kitchen. Mr. Darsky asked what happened to the previous operation. Mr. Poline said the partnership to the previous operation was dissolved. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Planning Board determines this to be a Type II action; WHEREAS, this application is adjourned to a Public Hearing to be held on March 13, 1996, at 8:15 p.m. Ms. Roma, secretary to the board, informed the applicant, Mr. Poline, that he will be contacted when the Public Hearing notice is ready so he can notice the neighbors pursuant to Planning Board regulations. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 13, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9.40 p.m. Marguerite Ro a, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 14, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Absent: Edward Gonye Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Lisa Casey, 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 Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:22 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Ms. Harrington seconded by Dr. Mason, the amended Minutes for January 10, 1996 were unanimously approved. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Robert Stanziale - SavATree - 635 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 175 & 643 On a motion was made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Mr. Michael Leonard of SavATree and Frank Aurrichio appeared, stating Mr. Stanziale could not make this meeting. Mr. Leonard stated that he had mailed to the Town a copy of information regarding material used by SavATree, which Board members referred to. Ms. Reader said with respect to this application and the Public Hearing, at the last meeting no one was representing SavATree and it was held over to this meeting. The first meeting was for consideration which was not a Public Hearing, and there was representation that there would be no pesticides stored at this location. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Leonard if that was what he was referring to as a misrepresentation. Mr. Leonard stated that was what he was referring to and then explained what SavATree will be doing at the subject property stating SavATree is a full service tree company, i.e. tree work, fertilization, pest Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 2 management, landscaping. The site in question has an existing garage where SavATree will store some chemical equipment and some supplies used day in and day out. SavATree is not looking to stockpile any pesticides. SavATree operates twelve months out of the year, and some supplies used in the Data Sheet that was supplied by DEC regulators is basically used for the March through September treatment calendar which SavATree keeps on hand. The site in Larchmont is only going to have a couple of trucks. Ms. Reader asked if it was the intention of SavATree to store all the various chemicals on site. Mr. Leonard said it was not the intention of SavATree to store all the various chemicals, and referred to the Data Sheet submitted which lists all the types of materials which might possibly be used and the treatment windows in which it would be done. The 1996 Data Sheet has not yet been printed. No large quantities of chemicals will be kept on site. Ms. Reader asked how SavATree intends to store the products. Mr. Leonard said basically with the existing garage, in 55 gallon drums. Based on the size of the operation in Larchmont, it would mean a couple of drums stored off the floor and with a surrounding pit in case of a spill. DEC lists guidelines regarding pesticide storage and safety which SavATree would comply with. Some of the smaller products would be in box form, which would be kept in separate containers. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if raising the storage off the ground and installing a berm would be sufficient to contain spillage. Mr. Trachtman said the guidelines would require the building used for storage of chemicals has adequate ventilation. Provided those conditions were met, then it is conceivable that some form of a portable tray or storage pallet could be provided that would have sufficient containment capacity located within the garage. It would not necessarily require a separate stand-alone storage facility. There are other portable devices that are capable of providing the required containment. The Board would have to know specifically how this would be done. Mr. Leonard said the area regarding containment would be 3 ft. to 4 ft. wide by approximately 10 ft. long. Dr. Mason said SavATree would not be storing a large quantity. The specific amount stored is not the concern, but that whatever amount is stored SavATree will have adequate containment and how it will be stored. Ms. Reader said the Board would need to know more specifically what apparatus will be used for containment so that there will be no pollution.i.e. what you want to store, how much will be stored. Show a containment device (portable or stand-alone) adequate for storage that carries the appropriate approvals. Mr. Trachtman said that some of the chemicals described in the Data Sheet require mixing with other agents and asked if mixing activities will be conducted at the Larchmont location. Mr. Leonard said mixing activities will not be conducted at this location. Mr. Trachtman asked whether all of the materials will be premixed or mixed on the trucks. Mr. Leonard said the materials will be premixed or mixed as applied. Mr. Trachtman asked would there be any washing down of the equipment at the site. Mr. Leonard stated normal truck washing as far as the exterior of the truck. The tanks are never washed out, aside from the fact that what is in the tank is pumped out at the end of the day and the tank is filled up again with clear water. The materials are compatible. There is always another tank on the truck that Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 3 gets clear water, and from that tank there are different valves that take the clear water into other tanks on the truck. Ms. Harrington referred to an article in the Data Sheet, ArborGuard, a pesticide that says it is imperative that spray tanks be washed thoroughly immediately after use. Mr. Leonard said that is based on New York State law, is a copy of the actual label and explained the process referred to. Ms. Harrington then stated where and how does SavATree intend to wash the tanks. Mr. Leonard said the tanks will be washed into the existing tank and sprayed out again on trees, not on the ground. Mr. Darsky said when you switch chemicals in the tank, most of the time that tank is empty and then filled with different chemicals. What happens if one time there is residue left, what does SavATree do with it. Mr. Leonard said most of the materials used different times of the year can be used together. Chemicals are mixed pertaining to usage, and products used are basically compatible. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if it was an issue when the trucks are being cleaned externally, spraying is going on and the product is on the bottom of the truck. Mr. Trachtman said it is a valid question. It is not clear that these activities are going to take place on the site. Dr. Mason said the concern is that if there is washdown it goes through the premium marsh, which is a critical environmental area. Mr. Leonard said SavATree has worked for ten years in the area, and asked if this has ever come up with tree companies before. Mr. Trachtman said since 1993 with the adoption of pesticide guidelines,we now have a potential problem. Businesses conducting this activity should be taking precautions, as the regulations and guidelines do not specifically discuss these in transit situations. It would be appropriate that all aspects of guidelines should be met and require a washdown facility. Mr. Darsky asked if the main facility was in Bedford. Mr. Leonard said the main facility is in Bedford. The storage area is a separate metal type prefabricated garage area similar to the one proposed in Larchmont. Supplies are stored off the ground and can be moved within the site. Ms. Reader asked if there is a washdown area in Bedford. Mr. Leonard said there was no washdown area in Bedford. Ms. Reader said the presentation made was different, as originally the Board had been told there would be no pesticides or chemicals stored in Larchmont. Any chemicals to be used on the truck would be obtained from the Bedford location. The Board needs more specific information. Mr. Leonard then asked if SavATree could get a Special Use Permit for tree work, and reapply for the pesticide issue with whatever information needed. All pesticide work will be performed out of the Bedford. Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 4 Dr. Mason said Mr. Leonard should be very specific in his application on what SavATree is asking to store, how much, how they intend to store it and back it up with the necessary paper work. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Silverberg about the request on the application for landscaping activity as currently being performed. Mr. Silverberg indicated that landscaping includes the use of chemicals, but now is asking for a permit just for the tree service. Mr. Silverberg said this is not a problem. Originally as presented there was to be no chemical storage, and the applicant is saying he is withdrawing his request to store chemicals. The Board can make a condition that there be no storage of chemicals. The applicant can choose to reapply for chemical storage at a later time. Mr. Leonard acknowledged that he was withdrawing the request for storage of chemicals. On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, a negative declaration was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Robert Stanziale submitted an application for a Special Permit for use of the premises at 635 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 175 and 643 as a landscape maintenance contractor, SavATree; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on December 13, 1995, January 10, 1996 and February 14, 1996 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special Permit, the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant, comments and responses to questions by the applicant, the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets; 2. The operations in connection with the Special Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Permit; Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 5 3. The proposed Special Permit use will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board approves the application of Robert Stanziale for a Special Permit for a landscape maintenance contractor, SavATree, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. No storage of pesticides, herbicides or other chemicals on the site or in any instrument stored on the site. 2. This Special Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in 89-53 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Darsky said if Mr. Leonard could bring information from Bedford which would shed some light on chemical storage that might be beneficial when the applicant reapplies for chemical storage. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION - Winged Foot Golf Club - 851 Fenimore Road - Block 347 Lot 1 Judge Pelton appeared as Mr. Alonzi was unable to attend the meeting this evening. Judge Pelton said Mr. Alonzi has been communicating quite extensively with Mr. Trachtman regarding this matter. Ms. Reader said the Board received a letter from Mr. Trachtman and from Winged Foot and asked Mr. Trachtman to expand on his letter. Mr. Trachtman said that following last month's meeting, he had discussions with representatives from the DEC in Albany in the pesticides bureau and the department involved with the bulk storage regulations. The pesticides bureau is the agency that has jurisdiction in this particular case due to the fact that the quantity being stored is less than the amount regulated by Parts 595 through 599 referred to in his January 24, 1996 letter to the Board. The pesticides bureau has certain regulations in Part 326 of the New York State Code of Rules and Regulations. The particular paragraph dealing with storage of pesticides is very broad, and Mr. Trachtman referred the Board members to the excerpt in their packets. Because of that vagueness, the pesticide bureau last year put forward guidelines for storage of pesticides by registered businesses involved in the application of pesticides. Mr. Alonzi represented to the Board last time that Winged Foot does in fact have a permit from the DEC to apply these particular chemicals. In the spirit of being good neighbors, Winged Foot decided to erect a prefabricated storage building. The uncertainty last time was which guidelines would apply to the containment requirements. Under the guidelines applicable, the containment quantity is 25% of the amount being stored. In that case, the facility being proposed by Winged Foot is certainly providing sufficient quantity, i.e. capacity of holding approximately 1,400 gallons with a total storage capacity in this facility of approximately 8,000 gallons. Winged Foot will not be storing anything near that amount of chemicals to begin with, and the containers being provided are no larger than 55 gallon drums. In most cases the storage box will contain 2-21/2 gallon containers, which will be separated from each other within the facility. The conclusion is that what Winged Foot is proposing to provide is consistent with the guidelines. Correspondence was received from the DEC, January 23, 1996, indicating that because there is no discharge of waste water, they have no jurisdiction to review this application. On that basis, the facility that Winged Foot proposes to provide is appropriate as long as the Freshwater Wetlands and Watercourses Permit includes a condition that the facility is consistent with the guidelines. Dr. Mason said that is has been apparent from the beginning that this has been an effort by Winged Foot not to do anything inappropriate, but an attempt to upgrade what is already a conforming operation. Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 6 Ms. Reader agrees with the voluntary effort, and noted the written material for the proposed storage unit states a 32% containment which is higher than the regs require. Judge Pelton stated that the amount to be stored is far less than full capacity. Ms. Harrington said in as much as Winged Foot is expected to store less than 150 gallons as the engineer suggests, the Board limits the amount of gallons that Winged Foot can store to 1,460. Mr. Trachtman said the facility is actually capable of storing eighty-six(86)55 gallon drums, and Winged Foot is nowhere near that volume. The containment that is provided for the prefabricated building to hold is 1,460 gallons, which represents 25% of the volume that could be stored which is sufficient because all of the chemicals are being stored in individual containers. There is a reliance on the likelihood that not all of the containers will leak at the same time. Ms. Reader said what is intended to be done is far less than the capacity, but even if you go to capacity there is still sufficient containment. Mr. Trachtman said Winged Foot will have capacity for almost ten times the volume being stored. Ms. Harrington asked if the facility will be locked at all times. Judge Pelton said the facility will be locked at all times, which is required at this point in time. Ms. Reader said Winged Foot already has washdown facilities. Mr. Trachtman said that is being provided as part of this application. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, a negative declaration was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, the following was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Winged Foot Golf Club has applied for a permit for the premises at Lot No. 851 Fenimore Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 347 Lot 1 pursuant to Local Law #7-1986; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type I action and that this Board is the appropriate Lead Agency with respect to Environmental Quality Review; and WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town has submitted comments and recommendations in writing regarding this application to the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined, pursuant to Local Law #7, Section 86-6(D), that the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6NYCRR 665.7; WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986 having been held on January 10, 1996 and February 14, 1996; Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 7 WHEREAS, after the close of the Public Hearing the Planning Board issued a negative declaration under SEQRA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance of systems in a controlled area; 2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, because (A) the proposed activity will have only a minor impact, (B) it is the only practical alternative, and (C) it is compatible with the economic and social needs of the community and will not impose an economic or social burden on the community; 3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of any part of the wetland because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective conditions imposed by this resolution; 4. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare, because of its minor impact in the controlled area; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Winged Foot Golf Club for a permit, pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986, be and it hereby is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. That there be compliance with the referenced guideline 6NYCRR part 326 Part 326.11 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations and NYSDEC, Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation,specifically Pesticide Storage Guidelines for Registered Businesses dated May, 1995 as these regulations and guidelines may be modified from time to time; 2. Subject to the Freshwater Wetlands Watercourses Permit as stated in the January 10, 1996 letter from Malcolm Pirnie by Gary Trachtman; 3. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity or a combination thereof; 4. All debris is to be removed prior to the completion of the project. Construction must be in accordance with the requirements of the Town Flood Damage Prevention Code and the Town Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law. 5. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM. 6. A cash deposit or bond in an amount to be fixed by the building inspector shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant to ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or disturbed area. 7. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issue whichever first occurs. Ms. Reader asked Judge Pelton to thank Mr. Alonzi for working with Mr. Trachtman to clarify the regulations pertaining to pesticide storage. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tracarico - 771 Forest Avenue - Block 210 Lot 35 Mr. Widulski, engineer for the applicant, and Mr. Tracarico appeared. Mr. Widulski, who stated he was the Town Engineer twenty-five years ago, said that he did not attend the last meeting and asked Ms. Reader for comments regarding same. Ms. Reader said the last meeting was a preliminary presentation for consideration, tonight being the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Widulski to present his case. Mr. Widulski said the application concerns an addition to the kitchen in a north elevated state above an existing deck and the proposal to construct a swimming pool approximately at the middle of the structure extending to the rear of the building extending about 38 ft. from the edge of the existing Sheldrake Trail. It does infringe upon the flood zone, which comes almost to the rear of the existing building. Mr. Widulski does not have the impact on the flood zone because he does not have the full cross sections to supply any technical data. Ms. Reader said this had been discussed at the prior meeting. A request was made for a plan showing the impact and levels of elevation. Mr. Trachtman tried to explain to the applicant, Mrs. Tricarico, as the Board's decision has to based upon the existing maps. Mr. Widulski asked if the Board had a flood plan map. Mr. Trachtman said the Board has the 1989 flood study, and also has the seven maps generated as a result of a larger study done on the Sheldrake River which is available in the Building Department. Dr. Mason said Mr. Widulski should develop the extent of the impact and what the applicant has done to make the structure stand up to it, i.e. foundation, support. Mr. Trachtman said that if construction does take place, that would have to be reported in the flood damage prevention code that the Town has. Ms. Reader said when the Board last spoke to the applicant, the Board was told the kitchen was actually within the boundaries of the house. Mr. Widulski said the kitchen is being extended above the deck. There is a 12 ft. grade difference between the front of the house and the rear of the house. There is a story and one-half, a playroom and deck area. The kitchen is on the main level 10 ft. above grade above the footprint. Mr. Trachtman said there is an overhang of the existing open deck. Mr. Widulski said the kitchen is 14 ft. up, and it doesn't impact the flood plain. Mr. Trachtman said the purpose of the question was to determine whether or not there was any additional impervious surface. Mr. Widulski said it is above the deck. Ms. Reader said when you extend the kitchen out over the deck you add to the impervious flow of water. This matter, by necessity, will be adjourned to the next meeting because more documentation has to be given to the panel. Catherine Koppel appeared and said that in view of the fact that the matter is going to be adjourned to the next meeting, her comments not related to the flood impact are premature. Another concern Ms. Koppel has is with the short term period during the actual construction of the deck/kitchen/pool is that the house Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 9 is located at a right angle curve which is dangerous for children walking to and from Murray Avenue school. Residents at 659 and 657 Forest Avenue are all built on a cliff that goes down to the river. The houses are along the street, there are no front yards. There is no sidewalk. During construction with the trucks that will be parked there, Ms. Koppel is concerned about welfare of the children walking to Murray Avenue school and what will happen to the flow of traffic as there are no sidewalks and no yards. In the summer there is also the Badger Sports Camp. Dr. Mason said this consideration should be taken to the Traffic Committee who can recommend traffic restrictions if necessary, as the Planning Board does not deal with the traffic problems. Mr. Darsky said the Board has previously considered similar applications with traffic issues. Ms. Reader feels it is appropriate to set conditions, and then the applicant could report those conditions to the Traffic Committee. Mr. Silverberg said the applicant will be coming back with more engineering detail, and they could come back with a plan on how to address the traffic problem. Dr. Mason said the applicant mentioned there is a 12 ft. differential between the grade level front to back, and asked what is the dropoff. Mr. Widulski said the dropoff is 41/2 ft. over about 60 ft. Dr. Mason said it would be a very substantial rise in the water, and asked if the water has ever risen to that level. Mr. Widulski said he will provide sections on that matter at the next meeting. Dr. Mason said if it is 60 ft., that is going to make for a very wide river with a lot of capacity before it ever reaches the house. The applicant is not talking about a major infringement on the flow of the river, the flood plain or anything like that. Mr. Tricarico said he has been a resident for approximately twenty-seven years, and he has seen the river crest about six or seven times. Ms. Reader said at the next meeting the applicant shall address the issue of the flow of traffic, the flood plain and protecting pedestrians. Upon a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Dr. Mason it was unanimously agreed that the Public Hearing be adjourned on this application until the next meeting, March 13, 1996 at 8:15 p.m. On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Guo Tong Lin/George Poline- Lucky Wok -2423 Boston Post Road - Block 505 Lot 463 Mr. Poline and Guo Tong Lin appeared. Due to the fact that Mr. Lin's English is poor, Mr. Poline spoke for him. Mr. Lin is taking over an existing store, Little Kitchen, with no changes being made, i.e. hours. Planning Board February 14, 1996 Page 10 Ms. Reader asked the secretary to provide for the March 13, 1996 Public Hearing a copy of the Certification granting the Special Use Permit to Little Kitchen. Mr. Darsky asked what happened to the previous operation. Mr. Poline said the partnership to the previous operation was dissolved. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Planning Board determines this to be a Type II action; WHEREAS, this application is adjourned to a Public Hearing to be held on March 13, 1996, at 8:15 p.m. Ms. Roma, secretary to the board, informed the applicant, Mr. Poline, that he will be contacted when the Public Hearing notice is ready so he can notice the neighbors pursuant to Planning Board regulations. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 13, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9.40 p.m. Marguerite Rittna, Recording Secretary