Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_01_13 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 13, 1999, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Also Present: Robert S. Davis, Counsel Anthony V. Capicotto, Consulting Engineer Michelle Nieto, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 40 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:20 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the last meeting and if there were any amendments. There being none, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, the Minutes of the December 9, 1998 Planning Board meeting were unanimously approved. Ms. Reader said the next matter on the agenda is the Public Hearing for a Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit for Christopher P. Knopp. She informed those present that a letter was received from Mr. Dichter requesting the matter be called at the end of the meeting, due to any delay that might be caused on his return from an out-of-town business trip and his wish to be present for this discussion. Ms. Reader noted that Mrs. Dichter is present, and asked Mr. Knopp if it was agreeable with him. Mr. Knopp said it is the third meeting he has been asked to step back. Ms. Reader said Mr. Knopp would only have to step back by one applicant, to give Mr. Dichter the opportunity to arrive, with which Mr. Knopp agreed. The Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Henry Compi - 19 Fenbrook Drive - Block 309 Lot 9 (adjourned 12/9/98) David Gallow, of 211 South Ridge Street, Rye Brook, New York, the attorney representing the owners of 19 Fenbrook Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Compi, appeared. On a motion was made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 2 The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Mr. Gallow informed the Board that it is his first appearance before the Planning Board. He did appear before the CZMC on November 24, 1998. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Coleman is involved in this application. Mr. Gallow said Mr. Coleman is not involved in this application. Mr. Jaehnig is the Environmental Specialist. He will be arriving shortly. Mr. Gallow said the application for the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling, which is within the 100 ft. wetlands buffer, was before the Planning Board on November 11, 1998 for consideration. It was before the Coastal Zone Management Commission(CZMC) on November 24, 1998. At that time the applicant supplied the Commission with a report delineating all the wetlands on the property prepared by Mr. Paul J. Jaehnig, a wetlands consultant/scientist, which has been supplied to the Board together with Mr. Jaehnig's summary. Also presented to the CZMC that evening was a report of an inquiry with neighboring property owners as to whether or not they had or were experiencing any related water problems. Both the neighboring property owners had reported to the builder, Mr. Volpe, also present this evening, that they had not experienced any problems. That evening a report was also given on the feasibility of moving the house forward 6 ft. to 10 ft. from the wet area and closer to Fenbrook Drive. Lastly, a report was given to the reduction of impervious surfaces for driving and parking. The CZMC submitted their report to the Planning Board. This matter was again before the Planning Board on December 9, 1998,at which time the Board requested the house be moved forward 8 ft. to 10 ft. requesting a copy and summary of the report from Mr. Jaehnig. Mr. Gallow said hopefully Mr. Jaehnig will arrive shortly to answer questions the Board may have with regard to his report. He informed the Board that Mr. Volpe is also present tonight to discuss the revised plot plan, which was submitted to the Board, and answer any questions with regard to the proposed wetlands buffer. Gregor Volpe of 410 Riverview Road, Irvington, New York, the project manager for the Compi family addressed the Board. Mr. Volpe referred to the the first page of the overlay plan and said the house was moved not only forward and but to the left by the dotted line to get it to max on the setback line on the cul-de-sac. The original placement of the house is where the broken lines are. The new line going to the curvature on the setback of the cul-de-sac is touching at the maximum of 10 ft., which is the best that can be done. The architect moved it a little more to the left and forward within the envelope. As far as the outcrop rock in the back as requested by the CZMC, they are leaving 10 ft. undisturbed from the rock and propose to go from that point as the back yard setback as noted on plan. As far as the siltation fence, wrapping the topsoil and pile of aprons of gravel, the best is being done to minimize erosion and any problems in the back. Marilyn asked if he agreed with CZMC that during construction all erosion control measures should occur outside designated area. Mr. Volpe agreed, pointing out that the plans show the siltation fence will be around the whole perimeter and the rear of the property and the stockpile of topsoil on the property which will be covered with plastic. Mr. Reader asked Mr. Davis if that negates the need for a condition, since it is shown in the plans. Mr. Davis said yes. Dr. Mason asked a question concerning the actual delineation of the wetlands. It was suggested Mr. Jaehnig take another look, as it seemed larger. Mr. Gallow said Mr. Jaehnig gave a summary letter which was submitted. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 3 Paul Jaehnig arrived and addressed the Board. Mr. Jaehnig said he was charged with going to the Compi site and delineating the wetlands according to the wetlands ordinance. A copy of the report was submitted to Board members. The delineated wetlands was shown out in the field with ribbons to mark the wetland boundary. A series of soil borings were taken at selected locations throughout the site to determine the extent of wetlands or hydric soils. Depicted on the map that accompanies the report was the outline of the wetlands, the location of soil borings, soil types found on the property. The report summarizes what was done, how it was done, and in the appendix of the soil borings the detail of what was found, which is a part of the record. Mr. Jaehnig said in summary it is a piece of property that has had some level of disturbance, probably in conjunction with the original development of the whole subdivision where grading was done and some fill was placed. Shown on the front portion of the property, standing at the cul-de-sac and looking in, the right-hand corner is an area depicted as Udorthents, a fill type soil. There are fragments of asphalt and typical construction type earth materials that were smoothed out onto the site subsequent to some of the trees that are overgrown. Probably in the course of ten or fifteen years or whenever some of the work was done, which can be seen on the adjacent property, that too was built up where there is now a lawn and house. On the left side in the front looking in, is clearly an undisturbed soil area called Charlton Loam, a well drained soil type. Back into the property there is a wetland type soil, Leicester Loam, that goes into a wetter area to the permanent rock outcrop which is 6 ft. high and straddles the entire breadth of the property in the back. Behind that is a small brook which flows west across the property and continues down through the subdivision and crosses Fenbrook about two or three lots down to the west. Mr. Jaehnig said that his conclusion is that in the course of the initial development of the whole area, there has been some alteration in the hydrology of the Compi property as well as the adjacent property. The wetlands soil meets the classification according to the ordinance. However, there has been some modification in the hydrology by the fact there has been grading in the front of the property to build in Fenbrook Road and some alteration of the actual stream itself,channelization. The effect of that is the dry- down of some of the original ground water table in the area. There are wetlands soils found according to the ordinance, but if you take soil borings from the front of the property and proceed toward the back, it gets wetter the further back you go on the property. Mr. Jaehnig said the original survey map was prepared by Aristotle Bournazos,who depicted a wet area in the back of the property in front of the ledge. It emphasizes the fact that it gets wetter towards the back of the property. Dr. Mason said the original survey showed the tail as wetlands and asked Mr. Jaehnig's opinion, at this time, if it is a wetland as Dr. Mason's sense is the delineation of the wetlands was oversized. Mr. Jaehnig said he recorded what he found. Dr. Mason said if Mr. Jaehnig wants to be more specific and give the Board some guidance, it should be done. Ms. Jaehnig said one thing discussed at the CZMC meeting was just this matter, what is actually the condition of the wetlands on the property. It is Mr. Jaehnig's opinion while it meets an ordinance criteria as being called wetlands, there is a more subjective view that can be taken of this area for its value. That is not necessarily addressed in the ordinance. He was asked to address what actually happened as far as the wetlands. It meets the criteria. However, it is a degraded type of wetlands particularly towards the front of the property by virtue of the grading that took place initially on the property around it and also on the site and the dry-down effect done by the channelization of the brook. It is not a pristine wetland condition. The adjacent properties to the east and west, the wetlands is considerably changed. The wetlands could have been considerably larger, but fill was brought in. Mr. Jaehnig said it is a postage stamp vestige of a much larger wetland that was modified by urban development. The applicant has offered to do some type of buffer as compensation to develop on the property. The inspection of the property on either side shows there is no type buffer of any sort. It is manicured lawn up to the edge. Mr. Jaehnig said the applicant is making the best effort to do what little can be done, with what is a bad situation. Mr. Jaehnig said the Compi property is probably the last, if not next to the last, piece of property to be developed in that subdivision. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Jaehnig presented the sketch maps emphasizing what was found. He pointed out the building envelope on three (3) sketches, marked exhibit#1, stating it is a pie within a pie. The house is clearly within the building envelope. The drainage proposed is in the pie, dry area to absorb and filter most of the water before it goes forward. A berme will be put for protection in the back and a siltation fence installed during construction. The further back the property goes along the wetlands, it gets wetter and wetter. The soil was found to be wetlands soil. It demonstrates the hydrology, the ground water table, has been altered or drawn down due to the channelization and other alterations that have been done. On any drainage structures there will be catch basins which intercepted any ground water movement that was present before. A discussion ensued regarding the building envelope being in the white area on the presentation before the Board and the tongue on that presentation. Mr. Volpe said 10 ft. will be kept from the point of the rock, a berme itself, between the stream that was run behind. Mr. Jaehnig described a series of seven (7) photographs, marked exhibit 2, each with a brief written description, which is a part of the record. Mr. Darsky asked what the blue color represents. Mr. Volpe said it indicates the actual stream. Mr. Gallow said the applicant has tried to accomplish everything that has been requested, both by the CZMC and the Board. He emphasized that this lot naturally has been supplied with a natural buffer, which they intend to enhance. Ms. Reader asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Mr. Capicotto said it is a recommended that a bond be furnished, in conjunction with erosion control bond. That plantings, from CZMC's comments, in the wetlands shall be native plantings placed in a random non-landscaped pattern. If the basement is found to be wet and a sump pump is installed and/or perimeter footing drains installed, those should be piped to a separate dry well. Mr. Volpe said they are adding to an existing system in that dry area. Mr. Capicotto reiterated it should go into a separate dry well and provided the wording for the condition upon approval. Mr. Davis said this is a Type II action. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other issues to be addressed from an engineer's point of view. Mr. Capicotto said no. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. After further discussion regarding approval of this request and appropriate conditions to be made, on a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 5 On a motion made by Ms. Reader, seconded by Mr. Darsky, the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS, Henry Compi has applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 for the premises located at Lot No. 19 Fenbrook Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 309 Lot 9; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and that no further review is required under SEQRA; 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 Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, that the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR §665.7; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 was held on December 9, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds 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 on:y 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 Henry Compi for a permit, pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, be and it hereby is GRANTED subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Subject to the plans provided as drawing A-1, last revised December 14, 1998. 2. The 10 ft. minimum buffer to be kept in a natural state and undisturbed, shall be maintained in perpetuity. 3. The plantings in the wetlands shall be native plantings placed in a random non-landscape pattern. 4. Any sump pump or footing drain discharge must be directed to a separate dry well. 5. All stockpiled topsoil shall be covered to prevent being carried into the stream. 6. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity or combination thereof. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 6 7. 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. 8. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 9. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issue whichever first occurs. The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Christopher P. Knopp 28 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52.1 (adjourned 10/14/98; 11/11/98;12/9/98) • Ms. Reader thanked Mr. Knopp and continued the public hearing. Chris Knopp said that specific question asked at the last Planning Board meeting was about the drainage system. This is the storm water drainage as designed by the Town Consultant which Mr. Knopp agreed to install across two separate pieces of property. The other property owner is 100% agreeable. If that system were to fail completely, where would the storm water go? It will go where it is going today. It will drain back across the right-hand side of this particular piece of property and underneath the adjacent property. He changed grades a bit. Half of the driveway is now pitched back towards the rear of the property towards the house, where there is a catch basin underneath the driveway. The water will run off from Bonnie Way. If this particular street drain fails in its entirety, it will run up the driveway, off the side of the driveway and back under Mr. & Mrs. McCarthy's deck, which is where the water is currently going. The original plan for this application indicated that the driveway will be pitched all the way out to Bonnie Way and that was changed. Unless there are other specific questions,he will turn the matter over to the Board. Due to inclement weather, Ms. Roma, the recording secretary, left the meeting at this time. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding this matter between members of the Board, Ms. Dichter, Mr. Dichter, Mr. Knopp and other individuals present. The discussion was recorded and transcribed by the Court Reporter and is a part of the record. On a mr!ion made by Mr. Papazian, and seconded, it was RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the February 10, 1999 Planning Board meeting. Dr. Mason objected to an adjournment, as he feels it is not appropriate. The Board has all the information required to reach a decision and the applicant is being prejudiced. Ms. Reader said before everyone leaves, the reason Ms. Aisen has made no comment, is because she lives in that community and last month appropriately recused herself from consideration of this matter. She is sitting on the dias as a non-participating, non-voting member of the Board for this particular matter. The Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-SPECIAL PERMIT -Ming's Chinese Buffet,Inc./Edward A.Davidson- 1265 Boston Post Road - Block 412 Lot 449 Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Davidson informed the Board he is representing the applicant who is applying for a special permit. It is a full-service, sit-down chinese restaurant at the location currently occupied by Nathan's. His clients intend to spend up towards $500,000 in renovations and repairs to the building. Dr. Mason informed Mr. Davidson that he stated all this at the last meeting, and asked him to proceed further along. Mr. Davidson continued stating the applicant will be spending$80,000 for odor control system. They have appeared before the Board of Architectural Review with respect to the plans, and the interior and exterior building in stone and has been approved. They have also accepted the terms and conditions of the prior special permit, which is Nathan's restaurant. Due to the fact that Ms. Reader was suffering with a cough, she asked one of the Board members to read a letter received this evening from Ms. Kirchoff. Ms. Aisen read the letter as follows: "To the Chairman Office of the Planning Board from Marsha Kirchoff. I reside at 25 Rock Ridge Road and have been since 1971. My home is directly behind the Nathan's building and the rest of my property is behind the parking lot between Nathan's and MacDonald's. Alice and Bill Ang live at 27 Rock Ridge Road. Mrs. Ang is in Houston and Mr. Ang is recuperating from eye surgery. Julius and Mary Anger own the home at 23 Rock Ridge Road. Mr. Anger recently died and Mrs. Anger is in a nursing home. The house at 21 Rock Ridge Road is in foreclosure with nobody living in it and the bank that holds the mortgage is frantically trying to sell it. I am very concerned regarding the Ming's Chinese Buffet wanting to wanting to open up in the now present Nathan's, and I, as a good neighbor, cannot prevent the owners of this building to do what they want to their property. The vendee's owners have to have the same courtesy toward their neighbors living directly behind this property. I am looking to the Planning Board for the following assurances and that these assurances be reflected in any Minutes regarding this hearing. What are the planned hours of operation of the restaurant part? I am assuming that the restaurant will be open seven (7) days a week. What are the planned hours of operation of the game room? I am assuming that the game room will be open seven (7) days a week. I have a right to enjoy all my property at all times without any inconveniences. What assurances will come from the Planning Board that my property will not be inconvenienced with adverse cooking odors and smoke at any time of the day during any time of the week? What assurances will come from the Planning Board that my property will not be inconvenienced with adverse garbage odors at any time of the day during any time of the week? What procedures are being put in place to always have the dumpster closed, no garbage bags piled in the dumpster to prevent the lid from being closed and having no garbage bags on the ground next to or near the dumpster? Is the gate around the dumpster going to be fixed to remain closed? What are the plans to keep the property free of newspaper prr'ducts? What are the plans to keep the patrons ruling in the parking lots? Does this building have enough parking spots to accommodate the 240 plus persons who could be in the restaurant at one time? If not, what is the resolution? Please have any new sign conform to the sign laws of the Town and not have bright lights that glow long into the night. Many years ago is a screening that should be placed between a commercial property and a residential property. How about some screening behind the building and get rid of the poison sumac there now? Perhaps any plans or any type of equipment producing the humming noise could be placed on the roof in the front part of the building to avoid the constant hearing of humming noises,and when the fans need servicing and start screeching that the owners of the building have the problem remedied immediately. Please have permits given out prior to placement of any equipment on the roof versus permits given out after the placements, if permits are needed. I appreciate your taking time to hear my concern. My husband, Thomas, and I want to be one of the most cooperative neighbors and expect the same with any approvals the Planning Board grants. Thank you. Marsha Kirchoff." Dr. Mason said that perhaps the Board should give Mr. Davidson the letter, so that he can go down the list and think things over. Mr. Davidson said the applicant has agreed to the conditions of Nathan's with respect to hours of operation as follows; 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday,and Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. This is a full-service restaurant, with no liquor license. It will be open for lunch and Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 8 dinner, and the applicant does not expect a late crowd. There will be a game room similar to the one that Nathan's had. The concern stated in the letter regarding odor control has been addressed. As previously stated, an $80,000 state-of-the-art odor control system will be installed. It has been submitted to Mr. Carpaneto for review. That does not include the $25,000 for wiring the system. Mr. Davidson said the applicant is conscious of the neighbors. During the summer he met with Mr. Altieri, Mr. Carpaneto, and Ms. Charlene Indelicato with respect to concerns of the neighbors regarding this property. This has been a restaurant operation since the forty's and fifty's. There has always been concerns with the neighbors since that development. With respect to garbage pickup, the conditions provide the applicant has to pickup garbage throughout the parking lot,also making sure that the containers are closed. One of the reasons the neighbors are having problems is that this operation for maintenance has not been a successful operation. They cannot afford to hire labor in order to see that it is kept as a first rate operation. His clients are putting up to $500,000 into this restaurant, which is a sizeable investment. His clients have eight (8) other restaurants. The wife is going to be hostess and one of the principles of the business, along with her husband. There are family members involved in this operation. They are capitalized. They have the money to put in to make it a first rate operation. Ms. Reader asked about the noise from the fan. Mr. Davidson said this is not a system where there is high vibration. It is a charcoal filtered system, that basically eliminates the odors that come out of the restaurant. Mr. Davidson said Ming's will abide by the conditions of the previous owners, Nathan's, and will maintain the site as a first-class operation. Mark Mustacato, the engineer, addressed the Board on the exhaust system at that location. Ms. Capicotto asked if there is currently an exhaust system for Nathan's. Mr. Mustacato said yes there is currently an exhaust system at Nathan's, but the proposed system to be installed is considerably more sophisticated. A discussion ensued regarding the operation of the exhaust system and the diagrams provided to Board members. Ms. Reader said a response was received from the State of New York Department of Transportation (DOT), who stated "The chain link fence to be removed is a good barrier, separating parked/parking cars from overhanging pedestrian sidewalk." Mr. Mustacato said the chain link fence is being removed at the request of the Town. The Town is proposing to build perimeters in their sidewalk area that will separate the parking lot from the pedestrian area. The chain link fence function will be done by these planters. Therefore there will be no cars overhanging the pedestrian area. Mr. Reader said what the DOT indicated was that "Perhaps the Town would consider having the new owners erect a more sightly fence e.g. split rail, to serve the same purpose." Ms. Reader asked if he felt the planters would do that. Mr. Mustacato said the area being be discussed with fences will be handled within the entire Post Road improvement. Mr. Altieri said the project the Town was planning for last year, will be done this year. Actually when reviewing that plan, if it calls for plantings and trees as a substitute for the fence, it will be removed. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 9 A discussion ensued regarding this matter. Dr. Mason suggested that the fence not be removed until the planters are installed, to preserve that protection. Valerie O'Keeffe asked what the purpose of the fence was, to prevent pedestrian accidents, cars hitting people, children walking on the side? Will the planters accomplish the safety requirements that the fence now provides? A discussion ensued regarding this matter. Dr. Mason said the barrier, be it planters or fence, has to be substantial. Mr. Capicotto said it will have to be in compliance with the Town codes. Mr. Davidson said the applicant has 98 parking spaces, only 81 spaces are required. With respect to seating, the plans provide for 228 seats, less than the permitted 241 seats. With respect to lighting, it is not being changed. With respect to permits, whatever is required is being done. With respect to signage, the applicant has already been before the Board of Architectural Review, will have monument signs which are substantially lower than the existing signs permitted by Nathan's. Ms. Reader asked if the signs are lit. Mr. Davidson said only the inside lettering of the sign is lit. Mr. Davidson said the lighting will remain exactly the way it is now. Mr. Davidson said with respect to building permits, he has spoken to Mr. Carpaneto to get all the appropriate approvals before permits are issued and any work is done at the site. The lighting is within the monument. Mr. Glaser of 19 Rock Ridge Road addressed the Board. He said he lives immediately behind the proposed restaurant, and is very familiar with all of the problems. He said the Town has not addressed all the issues in the Kirchoff letter. Ms. Reader said he may address the Board, but this is not a question and answer period. No comment was made by Mr. Glaser. Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the Board members. There being none, she asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Mr. Glaser got up to address the Board, at which time Ms. Reader asked if he wanted the Kirchoff letter, which was given to him. Mr. Glaser asked Mr. Alfieri, what type of planters are proposed? Mr. Davis informed Mr. Glaser that this is not an opportunity to question Mr. Altieri, but an opportunity to speak to the Board in reference to the application. Mr. Glaser said the proposal is to take down the chain link fence. It took a long time to get the chain link fence installed through many hearings, which he attended. The people who live in the area finally got the chain link fence installed. It was because of the things mentioned previously, people riding over the barriers which did not remain permanent. They got hit and eventually the pins that go through the concrete were broken, the barriers would be pushed aside, the cars would hang out over the walkway path and eventually there was no path. The fence limited the amount of parking. He has at home all the arguments Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 10 that were presented years ago when Cook's, the establishment in existence before Nathan's, did not have sufficient parking and had a variance granted. Now a new restaurant is proposed which proposes to be more successful than Nathan's and have more people within it. As he understands, the parking is supposed to be related to the number of people/seats within the restaurant. If Nathan's did not meet the specifications and had to get a variance, he does not understand how the persons making the new proposal claim they are meeting all of the standards. Is the variance now being renewed? Is it just grandfathered in? Do they just get it because Nathan's had it before? A discussion ensued, with Ms. Reader informing Mr. Glaser that whether or not a variance was granted there is a standard, a formula, which has been calculated and met. Dr. Mason informed Mr. Glaser to keep in mind that Nathan's was high density eating. He doesn't think the new applicants are planning to pack them in quite so elbow to elbow as Nathan's. Mr. Glaser wants to know why there is going to be just a planted area with low shrubs. He also said, the nature of chinese cooking is that it generates odors. They have lived with the odors from Tung Hoy for a long time, even since the move to the new location. He understands a new $80,000 odor control system is proposed,and if some specifications can be made to have it brought forward toward the Post Road. The architect indicates the kitchen is two-thirds of the way back. If it can exit closer to the Boston Post Road, it will be a help the people who live behind it as he does. If the venting system, which has some fans, can be made accessible to repair it would be helpful. He said the Town will have to regulate the garbage collection, even though they claim they will obey the laws. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Glaser to report to the Building Department if they don't. Mr. Glaser then informed the Board on various problems regarding broken laws, his repeated calls to the police for assistance and what has happened in some instances. He said the fact that there are laws, does not mean that they are obeyed nor enforced. He is trying to get the Town to install a venting system which will eliminate the problem. A discussion ensued regarding the problems emanating from Tung Hoy, the venting system and duct work. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Potter if it was possible to vent the system. Mr. Potter said it is possible to move it forward. Mr. Glaser asked if there was standard that the Town has for odors. Mr. Carpaneto said there is none. Ms. Reader said it is evident that whatever can be done will be done. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments. There being none, on a motion was made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Dr. Mason, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Mr. Davis said this is a Type II action. The matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning who had no comment. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 11 On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED, subject to the same conditions as approved for Nathan's Famous Operating Corp., Special Permit, dated June 22, 1995: WHEREAS, Ming's Chinese Buffet, Inc. submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for use of the premises at 1265 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 Lot 449 as a restaurant and game room; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on January 13, 1999 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and that no further review is required under SEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board, having considered the application for a Special Use 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; 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 Use 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 Use Permit; 3. The proposed Special Use 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 Ming's Chinese Buffet, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for a restaurant and game room subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The hours of operation shall be from 10:00 a.m. to 10 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, and from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday. 2. All garbage shall be stored in closed dumpsters. 3. The garbage collection schedule shall be a minimum of three (3) pickups a week on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. 4. The parking lot shall be made clean of paper debris and garbage products at least twice a day. 5. The exhaust fans shall be kept in good operating condition and directed away from Rock Ridge Road and towards the Boston Post Road. 6. The air conditioners shall be kept in good repair to minimize the noise to the surrounding area. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 12 7. The roof shall be kept free of debris. 8. Permit shall expire after two (2) years from the date hereof. 9. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-31B of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Ms. Reader reopened the Public Hearing for the Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit on Henry Compi, 19 Fenbrook Drive to amend the resolution to add the condition that a bond be posted in conjunction with the erosion control bond. On a motion made by Ms. Reader, seconded by Mr. Darsky, the resolution previously approved was unanimously amended to read as follows: WHEREAS, Henry Compi has applied for a permit pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 for the premises located at Lot No. 19 Fenbrook Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 309 Lot 9; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and that no further review is required under SEQRA; 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 Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, that the activity proposed is of a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR §665.7; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114 was held on December 9, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds 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 Henry Compi for a permit, pursuant to Mamaroneck Town Code Chapter 114, be and it hereby is GRANTED subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Subject to the plans provided as drawing A-1, last revised December 14, 1998. Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 13 2. The 10 ft. minimum buffer to be kept in a natural state and undisturbed, shall be maintained in perpetuity. 3. The plantings in the wetlands shall be native plantings placed in a random non-landscape pattern. 4. Any sump pump or footing drain discharge must be directed to a separate dry well. 5. All stockpiled topsoil shall be covered to prevent being carried into the stream. 6. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity or combination thereof. 7. 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. 8. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 9. A bond shall be furnished to the Town by the applicant in conjunction with the Erosion Control Bond, to ensure the satisfactory completion of the project and the rehabilitation of the affected or disturbed area. 10. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issue whichever first occurs. Mr. Davis said to inform the applicant that the application has been so amended. Ms. Reader said the applicant will be informed, through the Building Department, of the amendment made to include the bond that had not been mentioned earlier. Ms. Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Westchester Classic Builders - Fenbrook Drive - Block 309 Lot 31 Mr. Capicotto informed the Board that the wetlands was reviewed and a letter sent to Mr. Carpaneto from Malcolm Pirnie which stated the wetlands does not exceed the quarter acre requirement under which the Town regulations apply. It is much less than a quarter acre. Therefore, the department does not regulate it. In addition, it was recommended by Malcolm Pimie to the Town that this is actually a storm water detention space which has been overgrown and provisions should be made to have the sediment cleaned out of the basin by whomever is responsible, be it the Town or the property owner, because as sediment builds up in the basin it is going to reduce the amount of storm water storage and may backup the storm water and cause flooding. Ms. Reader said that means the applicant does not need to apply for a Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Permit, but Mr. Capicotto would like it cleaned out. Mr. Capicotto agreed. He said Mr. Carpaneto is going to check on who is responsible, the Town or the land owner. Ms. Reader read the next application as follows: Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 14 CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Robert Greenberg - 19 West Drive - Block 107 Lot 40 Ken Kurtz,an architect, of Stephen Tilly Architects in Dobbs Ferry, appeared, representing Joy and Robert Greenberg. The applicants are proposing to build a two-story addition to the existing house located at 19 West Drive. Erosion Control drawings were filed last week. He was advised by Mr. Carpaneto that he is on the agenda for the next CZMC meeting. Mr. Kurtz said that he has a revised survey with contour information, which will be provided if the Board so wishes. Mr. Carpaneto asked Mr. Kurtz to speak up, as the meeting is being recorded for transcription. A discussion ensued regarding the revisions made. Mr. Capicotto took a copy of the revised survey. Mr. Kurtz continued making his presentation, but due to the projection of his voice and various Board members voices, could not be adequately heard to be transcribed. Mr. Carpaneto informed those present that Malcolm Pirnie's office sent information to the Building Department,which was received this afternoon, for the proposal regarding the erosion control permit. The only comment was they needed to add silt fence to their drawing and to take care of any stock piling of soil. The calculations for the dry well were adequate and were on the plan. Mr. Carpaneto said he quickly reviewed the comments and plans, and it is seems close to getting an approval from Malcolm Pirnie for the erosion control. When the applicant's engineer contacts Malcolm Pirnie with those improvements, the plans will have to be reviewed and then approved. A discussion then ensued regarding what is proposed for the addition, and the elevations. Mr. Kurtz said the roof line will be extended on the second floor. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. There being none, on a motion made by made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. Ms. Reader said this matter is referred to the CZMC. Mr. Carpaneto said technically a referral is needed for the Planning Board, but for the timing situation, planning and zoning, he informed the Board that it has already been referred to the CZMC. Mr. Athey said it was an informal discussion. Ms. Reader said then the matter is referred to the CZMC. A discussion ensued regarding referral to Westchester County, which Mr. Athey said had already been done. On a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this matter be, and hereby is, adjourned to a Public Hearing at the February 10, 1999 Planning Board meeting. Ms. Reader read the next application as follows: Planning Board January 13, 1999 Page 15 CONSIDERATION -SPECIAL PERMIT - Peter Camaj - 170 Myrtle Boulevard-Block 133 Lot 657 Howard Cohen, the architect, appeared representing the owner, Peter Camaj. Mr. Cohen said the proposal is for a pasta and pizza restaurant going into an existing store in an existing building for which a special permit is needed. Ms. Reader asked which store Mr. Cohen was referring to. Mr. Cohen said the store is the former Plaza Pharmacy, which has been vacant for approximately two years. Mr. Papazian asked about the seating requirements. Mr. Cohen said it exceeds the seating requirement. The applicant will have to going before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special parking permit. He said there is no on-site parking, as the building occupies basically the entire width of the property. There is no driveway to the rear of the property. There is no on-site parking at all. Parking will be on the street. Mr. Papazian asked how this restaurant relates to Town regulations. Mr. Cohen said the proposed restaurant will have sit-down table service. He informed the Board that previously there was a restaurant on that block before, the Gold Lake Diner, which is no longer there and that the parking was adequate. The proposed restaurant is approximately the same size. Mr. Papazian asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Camaj said usually at a pizzeria lunch starts approximately 11:30 a.m., requiring opening at approximately 9:00/9:30 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m., except on holidays. He informed the Board that he has had another restaurant in Rye for four years, similar to what is proposed. Ms. Aisen asked if he is closing the operation in Rye. Mr. Camaj said he is not closing the operation in Rye. He said it is a family business. He runs a very clean business and is accepted in the Town of Rye. He is before this Board and proposes the same type of business in Larchmont. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Camaj that this matter cannot be approved this evening. T: must be scheduled for a public hearing and referred to the CZMC. After further discussion between counsel, Ms. Reader and the Board, on a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that this be, and hereby is, scheduled for a public hearing at the February 10, 1999 Planning Board meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 10, 1999. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 12:00 p.m. Marguerite Rota Recording Secretary Proceedings 44 1 MS . READER : The next matter 2 on the agenda is Mr . Knopp . An 3 accommodation was made to Mr . 4 Dichter . I ' m looking for my 5 agenda - - it is the Public Hearing 6 to the Freshwater - - continuation of 7 Freshwater Wetlands and Water 8 Courses Permit , Christopher 9 P . Knopp - Block 104 Lot 52 . 1 . MR . KNOPP : If it ' s okay , 10 11 which I think it will be , I ' m not 12 going to bother summarizing . MS . READER : You do need to 13 14 restate your name for the record . 15 MR . KNOPP : Chris Knopp . 16 There was a specific question asked 17 of me at the last Planning Board 18 which was , if the system as designed 19 by - - the drainage system , storm 20 water drainage system as designed by 21 the Town Consulting Engineer and 22 agreed to be put in by me across two 23 separate pieces of property , the 24 other property owner is absolutely 25 100 percent agreeable , if that were Proceedings 45 1 to fail completely, 110 percent , 2 where would the storm water go . I 3 will tell you that it will go where 4 it ' s going today . It will drain 5 back across the right -hand side of 6 1 this particular piece of property 7 and underneath the adjacent 8 property' s deck , which is where it ' s 9 going now . 10 I ' ve changed the grades a 11 little bit and first , basically half 12 of the driveway is now pitched back 13 toward the rear of the property 14 toward the house where there is a 15 catch basin underneath the driveway . 16 The water will run off and it will 17 run from Bonnie Way . If this 18 particular street drain fails in its 19 entirety, again , it will run up the 20 driveway, off the side of the 21 driveway and back under Mr . and 22 Mrs . McCarthy' s deck which is where 23 the water is going right now . 24 The original plan for this 25 application indicated that the Proceedings 46 1 driveway would be pitched all the 2 way out to Bonnie Way, so we ' ve 3 changed that a little bit . That was 4 the specific question that was asked 5 and that ' s the answer to that 6 question . 7 I guess unless there are 8 other specific questions we should 9 kind of turn it over . 10 MS . HARRINGTON : The easement 11 issue , is that resolved? 12 MR . KNOPP : It ' s kind of 13 resolved . The McCarthys have seen 14 the plans as designed by Mr . 15 Capicotto . They are absolutely 16 agreeable to having it installed the 17 way that it has been designed and 18 installed by me as I promised to do . 19 What their attorney 20 suggested, and I agree and I 21 mentioned that to Ron , is that the 22 Town Attorney should draft the 23 easement because presumably the Town 24 knows what they' re looking for 25 rather than us spending time and Proceedings 47 1 money, et cetera and not satisfying 2 what the Town is looking for . So if 3 the Town proposes an easement we 4 will sign it , whatever it is . I 5 mean obviously it has to be based on 6 what we ' re talking about . 7 MS . HARRINGTON : But I 8 thought you were the one that had 9 the easement ? 10 MR . KNOPP : There is 11 currently an easement on this 12 property in favor of the Town . 13 MS . HARRINGTON : That just 14 stops at your property , right ? 15 MR . KNOPP : Exactly . So to 16 do what has been designed here the 17 easement has to be continued . 18 DR . MASON : Across the 19 McCarthys ' property? 20 MR . KNOPP : Across the 21 McCarthys ' property . And what has 22 been designed here it ' s right in 23 where the easement that was granted 24 when this property was subdivided 25 and they go hand in hand . I mean Proceedings 48 1 this report was continued back then . 2 MS . HARRINGTON : I can 3 appreciate that , but I just remember 4 that at the last meeting that was to 5 be resolved by this meeting and it ' s 6 not resolved . 7 MR . KNOPP : It ' s resolved as 8 far as the McCarthys are concerned . 9 MS . READER : Not if they 10 don' t have an easement . What Ms . 11 Harrington is saying is you need to 12 have the existence of an easement 13 which is what the Town needs . What 14 is the Town ' s position of being 15 actively involved in the easement ? 16 MR . DAVIS : We need to review 17 the easement . We can make the 18 furnishing of the easement a 19 condition of an approval if there 20 was an approval . 21 MS . READER : We need an 22 easement from the McCarthys - - 23 MR . DAVIS : In favor of the 24 Town . 25 MS . READER : Just the Town or Proceedings 49 1 to the Town or is it just the Town? 2 MR . KNOPP : I would have to 3 assume that it ' s just the Town . 4 MS . READER : You need to 5 accomplish that with our attorneys . 6 MR . KNOPP : That ' s fine . 7 MS . READER : Who are the 8 attorneys? 9 MR . KNOPP : It was their idea 10 for me to approach Ron with that 11 suggestion that the Town • 12 presumably - - because the Town would 13 know exactly what they want . We ' ll 14 do it the other way . 15 MS . READER : It ' s going to 16 wind up with the Town . But it ' s 17 your obligation . 18 MR . KNOPP : Not a problem . 19 MS . READER : Any other 20 questions from Board members? Any 21 other comments , Mr . Capicotto or Mr . 22 Carpaneto? 23 MR . CAPICOTTO : On this 24 latest drawing that was submitted 25 there is a bunch of spot elevations Proceedings 50 1 that aren' t completely clear , but if 2 there is - - this one spot here which 3 appears higher than the curb line at 4 the head of the driveway . I wasn ' t 5 sure if that was supposed to be 6 existing or proposed . It ' s kind of 7 sketchy as to which . 8 MR . KNOPP : There is one spot 9 over there which is 90 . 67 , basically 10 in the middle toward the right -hand 11 side of the proposed driveway , which 12 is the existing elevation which is 13 higher than some of the other 14 existing elevations along the curb 15 line . The existing elevations are 16 indicated at the top of the curb and 17 the bottom of the curb . The 90 . 76 18 doesn' t have an explanation , so I 19 don' t know . It ' s presumably the top 20 of the curb , but I don ' t know . 21 MR . CAPICOTTO : But that ' s 22 not a proposed elevation? 23 MR . KNOPP : Right . 24 MR . CAPICOTTO : What is in 25 the parenthesis - - Proceedings 51 MR . KNOPP : Exactly . 1 MR . CAPICOTTO : What is 2 3 proposed is what is showing . MR . KNOPP : That ' s right in 4 the middle of the proposed driveway 5 6 anyway , so maybe - - MR . CAPICOTTO : Or the ground 7 is just sloping up? 8 MR . KNOPP : Obviously that is 9 the proposed curb cut . 10 MS . READER : I have one 11 question I just would like to have 12 clarified for me , I ' m looking at a 13 subdivision approval that was 14 originally granted with one 15 condition with respect to the dry 16 wells on the site that they were to 17 keep the rate of the runoff at least 18 the same , no greater . And I believe 19 there is a condition as to where 20 they should be placed . They y should 21 be raised - - they should be placed 22 underneath a driveway for runoff to 23 the rear of the property . Such plan 24 is to be reviewed by the Consulting 25 f Proceedings 52 (:) 1 Engineer of the Town . So do these 2 plans provide that ? 3 MR . CAPICOTTO : That ' s the 4 pipe , but in addition - - 5 MS . READER : That ' s your 6 pipe , that ' s the pipe that we need 7 an easement for , that ' s satisfying 8 that condition . 9 MR . KNOPP : Right . On the 10 original site plan that was 11 submitted there was a driveway drain 12 from the driveway piped all the way 13 to the rear of the driveway to the L 14 infiltrator units in the rear . 15 MS . READER : And that ' s no 16 longer there? 17 MR . KNOPP : I removed that 18 because now we have a catch basin 19 underneath the center of the 20 driveway . Because now we have a 21 driveway like this and that will be 22 tied into this system . 23 ( Indicating . ) 24 MS . READER : And that ' s more 25 than sufficient or that ' s at least L • Proceedings 53 1 sufficient ? 2 MR . CAPICOTTO : Yes . 3 MS . READER : Is that 4 sufficient or it is even more than 5 sufficient ? 6 MR . CAPICOTTO : For what the • 7 size is it ' s more than sufficient , 8 but you know in a deluge , you know, 9 it would handle it over what it was 10 designed for . But there comes a 11 point if there is water coming from 12 all ends , you know, it may - - I 13 don ' t know what the flooding 14 situation is all around , but as far 15 as the lot goes it is still 16 providing the pathway to the rear 17 over the land and back up the 18 pathway . 19 MS . READER : There was a 20 letter that was received recently 21 from Mr . Dichter with respect to 22 this last rain event that we had . I 23 just want to ask with the drainage 24 as provided on this project and the 25 project as it exists will the Proceedings 54 C1 concern that the Dichters and other 2 members of the community have , will 3 this have the effect of damming the 4 water that is flowing through that 5 property? 6 MR . CAPICOTTO : No . With 7 this latest addition that Mr . Knopp 8 has made by providing that over the 9 land flow path, the idea there is 10 that what is there now will still be 11 there . And that can be made a 12 condition of the approval so that no 13 one can change it in the future . In 14 addition to that there is a - - 15 MS . READER : You ' re talking 16 about the piping now? 17 MR . CAPICOTTO : The path for 18 the water to jump the curb as it 19 does now and run to the brook . 20 MS . READER : How do you 21 describe that? Is that - - that ' s 22 not a swale . 23 MR . CAPICOTTO : It ' s not a 24 swale , it ' s a depression . Let ' s say 25 that will make up for what is there Proceedings 55 1 now . And in addition there is a 2 pipe provided so that in a regular 3 storm most of the time the water 4 that pools up there is going to hop 5 into the catch basin before it ever 6 has to flood to the point where it 7 has to jump the curb and basically 8 keep things flowing . 9 MS . READER : And this 10 depression , how is that being 11 created? 12 MR . KNOPP : Well , we have to 13 fill to create the driveway . 14 MS . READER : So the driveway 15 is going this way? 16 MR . KNOPP : Basically the 17 middle of the driveway - - I don ' t 18 know exactly how it ' s going to be 19 done . First , coming from the house 20 will be pitched toward Bonnie Way , 21 from Bonnie Way toward the house 22 will be pitched toward the house . 23 MR . CAPICOTTO : In other 24 words - - 25 MR . KNOPP : Any water that ' s Proceedings 56 1 currently jumping the curb , and 2 there is not going to be a curb 3 obviously, but any water that jumps 4 now will run down the spot about 5 half way and now go off the side of 6 the driveway facing the proposed 7 house to the right -hand side . 8 MS . READER : Off to the 9 right -hand side? 10 MR . KNOPP : Right , which is 11 where it ' s going now . In theory , of 12 course , that is never going to 13 happen , again , because of the new 14 street drains , brand new, to pick up 15 all of this . In front of this 16 property that ' s the high point of 17 Bonnie Way so the water runs in both 18 directions out toward Weaver and 19 back out toward the other little 20 ones , I don' t remember their names . 21 So we ' re talking - - and I understand 22 it seems to happen every time it 23 rains so that ' s why - - but this is a 24 situation where this new drain is 25 going to pick up that excess that Proceedings 57 1 seems to jump from the one dead end 2 in New Rochelle , wherever that is , 3 and down the two basic mountains to 4 that one point where all three of 5 those little roads come together . 6 This is going to pick that up . And 7 if it doesn ' t pick it up it will be 8 running over the driveway and 9 underneath the McCarthys deck which 10 is where it goes now . 11 MS . READER : So because of 12 that depression the concern that the 13 Dichters raised with the leaves gets 14 dealt with over land . So for one if 15 it gets clogged and still has to 16 take the same route to run over 17 land , you ' re saying it will go over 18 the driveway the way it ' s going now 19 and directing it to the McCarthys 20 property the way it is currently 21 running through the property in a 22 natural state . Is that a clear 23 explanation? 24 MR . CAPICOTTO : Yes . If 25 that ' s the case and it gets plugged Proceedings 58 1 this won ' t - - at that point it won ' t 2 be an improvement . It ' s the same as 3 it ' s ever been . 4 MS . READER : It won ' t add any 5 additional detriment? 6 MR . CAPICOTTO : It won ' t be a 7 detriment . In addition , any other 8 provisions that you mentioned at the 9 subdivision approval was basically 10 no net increase and runoff with the 11 property and that we have because 12 they' re providing storm water 13 detention dry wells in the back of 14 the property with roof drains . 15 MS . READER : And the easement 16 to the Town will be subject to the 17 approval of the Town Consulting 18 Engineer and the Building 19 Department . 20 MR . KNOPP : That is already 21 there . 22 MR . CAPICOTTO : That ' s on the 23 filed subdivision . 24 MR . KNOPP : That ' s indicated 25 on the filed subdivision map and Proceedings 59 1 we ' re using that . 2 MS . READER : It ' s on a 3 drawing , Mr . Knopp is pointing to 4 the end of the easement . 5 MR . KNOPP : When this first 6 came up a couple of months ago I 7 literally assumed that it went this 8 way because however many years ago 9 the subdivision was they had all 10 these pieces they were of looking to 11 subdivide - - if that ' s how it was 12 going to be drawn - - I mean it could 13 go straight back . 14 MS . READER : But it doesn ' t . 15 MR . KNOPP : But it doesn ' t . 16 MS . READER : Let ' s just deal 17 with where it is now . The easement 18 goes from here and the McCarthys 19 need to continue from that easement . 20 MR . KNOPP : Right . 21 MS . READER : Anything else? 22 There is no blasting that you know 23 of? 24 MR . KNOPP : No . 25 MS . READER : Anyone from the Proceedings 60 1 public? Mrs . Dichter? 2 MRS . DICHTER : First , I ' d 3 like to thank Mr . Knopp for agreeing 4 to wait for my husband' s arrival . 5 My name is Judy Dichter , 32 Bonnie 6 Way, D- I -C-H-T-E-R . 7 Actually, I have several 8 things to discuss tonight . 9 Unfortunately the hydrologist that 10 we hired has suffered a serious 11 medical problem and he is in the 12 hospital where he is awaiting an 13 operation tomorrow morning . So he 14 seriously regrets not being able to 15 be here . He did give me a letter 16 that I would like to enter into the 17 record , as well as two of our 18 neighbors which are not able to be 19 here , they have also submitted 20 letters that they would like to be 21 read into the record . 22 MR . KNOPP : May I interrupt 23 for a second . There was a specific 24 request by the Acting Chairman of 25 the Planning Board last month that Proceedings 61 1 any new information be submitted at 2 least ten days prior to the meeting . 3 This is six months and - - but I ' d 4 also like to say that I respect 5 their concerns absolutely, 6 I positively . And anything that I do 7 to help a drainage situation on this 8 street obviously helps me . And 9 everybody knows that I ' m looking to 10 sell this house , I ' ve been up front 11 about that so anything about being a 12 good neighbor and improving the 13 livability of the street helps me . 14 I ' ve agreed to install a drainage 15 system that I ' m not sure I ' m 16 required to . 17 MS . READER : Mr . Knopp , 18 you ' ve had an opportunity to speak . 19 DR . MASON : I have a 20 question , since my sitting in your 21 chair last month we did , and I don' t 22 know whether you had chance - - I 23 don ' t know if Judy was here , but we 24 did specifically give a criteria for 25 submitting new information . And my Proceedings 62 1 thinking is that this is a violation 2 of a very carefully structured rule 3 of submission and as curious as I am 4 I ' m not sure that it ' s fair to the 5 applicant that we start over again . 6 Whether - - 7 MRS . DICHTER : We ' re not 8 starting again . But starting in 9 December after that meeting we 10 requested from the Town Engineer , 11 from Mr . Altieri , a copy of the 12 calculations that were done 13 regarding the catch basins . Those 14 were not mailed to us until - - they 15 were put in the mail January 4th . I 16 had one personal appearance to Mr . 17 Altieri ' s office , three phone calls , 18 I know that Mr . Potter made a couple 19 of phone calls requesting them . We 20 did not receive this information 21 until last week and that allowed Mr . 22 Potter one week to review, to have 23 his engineer review and to make a 24 response . So the fault is not ours , 25 we requested this information within Proceedings 63 1 the guidelines of what you 2 stipulated last month . 3 DR . MASON : This is dated 4 January 12th and you received it 5 January 4th . 6 MRS . DICHTER : I gave him the 7 information last week because that ' s 8 when I received it from the Malcolm 9 Pernie office . Their letter to us 10 is dated January 4th, that ' s when it 11 went into the mail . I have a copy 12 of that letter here if you would 13 like to see it . 14 MR . CAPICOTTO : What was the 15 date on your request ? 16 MRS . DICHTER : Well , Barry 17 wrote a letter in December . I 18 called Mr . Altieri ' s office prior to 19 Christmas , prior to Christmas , prior 20 to New Year ' s I stopped in his 21 office . I finally received the 22 information last week on January 23 4th . He didn ' t return any of my 24 phone calls . I said what gives , why 25 haven ' t you returned my phone calls Proceedings 64 ® 1 to give us the information that 2 we ' re requesting and then all of a 3 sudden things happened . 4 MR . ALTIERI : Can I respond 5 to that ? This information is 6 incorrect . 7 MRS . DICHTER : It ' s not 8 incorrect . 9 MR . ALTIERI : First of all , 10 there was no appearance in my 11 office . 12 MRS . DICHTER : You were in a 13 meeting . 14 MR . ALTIERI : I go back two 15 meetings ago when Mr . Dichter 16 particularly asked me about how the 17 drainage was going to be calculated . 18 I said to him my best suggestion is 19 to contact Malcolm Pernie directly , 20 we discussed this . When I spoke to 21 Mrs . Dichter , I asked the same 22 question , had Mr . Potter contacted 23 Malcolm Pernie , the answer was he 24 had not . I confirmed that with Mr . 25 Capicotto . At no time after the Proceedings 65 1 suggestion was made was there any 2 communication between Mr . Potter and 3 Malcolm Pernie . 4 Now, I don ' t know when the 5 illness occurred so I don ' t know if 6 that delayed the process . The first 7 phone calls came after Christmas as 8 per our phone logs and it ' s true I 9 did not speak to her until after the 10 January 3rd storm . But the timing 11 has been adjusted and I think there 12 were recommendations for their 13 consultant to speak with Mr . 14 Capicotto very early on . I just 15 want to clarify that . 16 DR . MASON : They were 17 provided that information in any 18 case . 19 MR . DICHTER : My name is 20 Barry Dichter . I just want to speak 21 on this one issue that you raised . 22 I agree with you there should be an 23 adequate opportunity to review the 24 information . The calculations from 25 the Pernie firm are obviously Proceedings 66 ® 1 critical to the Board' s 2 consideration . You asked for those , 3 Dr . Mason , yourself at the meeting . 4 You asked for three different 5 calculations to be performed and you 6 directed all the information that 7 was going to be submitted to the 8 Board, with respect to the Hearing , 9 be submitted 21 days before the 10 Hearing . 11 The Pernie calculations 12 respond to two of your three 13 requests , not the third and we did (2 14 not have that until approximately 15 January 6 . 16 MRS . DICHTER : I kept going 17 to the office to check the file to 18 see if these calculations were there 19 and they were not in the file . I 20 went one week after the meeting , I 21 went last week , I went this week 22 again and those calculations were 23 yet again not in the file . 24 MR . DICHTER : And I also do 25 not believe that the new plans Proceedings 67 1 showing the depression were provided 2 to us 21 days before this meeting . 3 MR . KNOPP : It was done by 4 December 21st . 5 MR . DICHTER : I believe the 6 direction was that everything was to 7 be submitted to the Board , Dr . 8 Mason ' s words provided to us , 21 9 days prior to the Hearing . 10 MS . READER : You 11 misunderstood that I ' m sure . I know 12 I wasn' t here , but that ' s not our 13 policy to provide those to you . 14 It ' s provided to our secretary and 15 ' the Building Department and then it 16 becomes available to anyone who 17 wishes to take it . This is not a 18 notice to an adversary . 19 DR . MASON : It was that you 20 were to provide the information 21 within that time period so that it 22 would be available to the applicant 23 and his submission and there would 24 be that opportunity to respond . 25 MR . DICHTER : Actually , Dr . Proceedings 68 1 Mason , I would like to correct that . 2 We were told several months ago to 3 make copies of everything that we 4 sent available to the other side . 5 If the Board looks at my letters I 6 have scrupulously provided a copy of 7 everything that I submitted to the 8 Board and to Mr . Knopp pursuant to 9 those directions to me . And Mr . 10 Knopp was here and he was given the 11 same directions . And we want to be 12 given the same - - 13 MS . READER : That ' s not true , 14 Mr . Dichter , because I remember 15 asking as a courtesy on a particular 16 issue that something be brought to 17 your attention . Our policy is that 18 the things go through our secretary 19 and that ' s been the only 20 requirement . We do things within a 21 time period . 22 DR . MASON : I would just like 23 to make a comment . We needed to see 24 the information that you have , if 25 you wish to have the Board discuss Proceedings 69 1 it , you have to get it in within 21 2 days not as a courtesy to each 3 other . And this is being submitted 4 to us tonight . 5 MR . DICHTER : We did not get 6 the calculations until January 6 . 7 DR . MASON : I don ' t remember 8 that the Board took on any 9 obligation to provide you with the 10 information for you submit to it 11 back to us and that ' s exactly what 12 you ' re asking . 13 You had a consultant who was 14 providing you with the information 15 and I cannot expect the Building 16 Department to provide you with the 17 information so you would then get 18 back to us . 19 MR . DICHTER : Dr . Mason , we 20 all have one common interest and 21 that is the public safety . 22 DR . MASON : I ' m not going to 23 let you take an applicant and keep 24 jerking him around for eight months . 25 MR . DICHTER : We ' re not . We Proceedings 70 have a serious problem and we have 1 neighbors here from the street 2 because we had a serious problem on 3 January 3rd . It happens with 4 regularity . And this is what 5 happens , a neighbors ' car was 6 totaled as a result of this flood , 7 8 okay . The calculations from Mr . 9 Pernie ' s office , that the Malcolm 10 Pernie did were not based on the 11 12 flood condition , they are based on the normal rainfall coming down two 13 14 streets . They are not based on overtopping from Bonnie Way . I 15 assume that the Board would want to 16 know that and this was confirmed 17 with Malcolm Pernie . The 18 calculations that were submitted to 19 the Board to support the catch basin 20 21 were based on normal rainfall 22 running down two streets , two streets with no overtopping of the 23 24 pipe . We have an issue that the 25 Proceedings 71 1 Board has addressed that 2 protecting - - we ' re not trying to 3 jerk anybody around . We all have a 4 concern , we would not like to have 5 fire apparatus to be stuck on Weaver 6 Street and not be able to get to our 7 neighborhood . We ' re all very 8 concerned . The neighbor ' s car was 9 totalled going through the flood 10 water . And we got the calculations 11 on the 6th of January . We got them 12 to Mr . Potter who was also calling 13 the Town with respect to them . We 14 didn ' t get this 21 days beforehand . 15 He ' s very ill , he ' s going to the 16 hospital . We didn' t get these 21 17 days beforehand . If you want a 21 18 day requirement it has to apply to 19 information that we have to respond 20 to . How were we to respond 21 days 21 beforehand when we didn ' t get the 22 information 21 days before the 23 meeting . You ' re setting up an 24 impossible situation . 25 DR . MASON : The 21 days was Proceedings 72 1 for the initial submission and then 2 time to respond was ten days . You 3 didn ' t even come close to that . 4 MR . DICHTER : But we didn ' t 5 have the information ten days 6 before . 7 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , I 8 think if I understand from what Mr . 9 Altieri said and what other people 10 have said it wasn ' t the Town ' s 11 obligation to attain the information 12 from Malcolm Pernie to then send 13 them to you . 14 MR . DARSKY : It was 15 discussed , I believe it was 16 discussed . 17 MR . DICHTER : We ' ve been 18 checking the records , it wasn ' t in 19 the records . 20 MR . DARSKY : We all could 21 have agreed that that information 22 would be predicated to a response . 23 MS . READER : I understand 24 that , but I ' m hearing that the 25 information wasn ' t available . But Proceedings 73 1 I ' m also hearing that what was told 2 to you was to have your expert 3 contact Malcolm Pernie . 4 MRS . DICHTER : January 4th I 5 was told . 6 MS . READER : You had been 7 told that in the past at a prior 8 meeting . 9 MRS . DICHTER : No , I have the 10 minutes from the last meeting if you 11 want to see - - 12 MR . DICHTER : I ' m sorry , but 13 the Board has a statutory obligation 14 here . 15 MS . READER : Let ' s move 16 forward now . Let ' s move forward on 17 to the next point . 18 MRS . DICHTER : Thank you . In 19 the letter from Mr . Potter are 20 things that he would have said to 21 you himself had he been able to be 22 here . 23 MS . READER : And that letter 24 is dated January 12th? He wrote the 25 letter January 12th? Proceedings 74 1 MRS . DICHTER : Right . He 2 wrote that to me . I called him 3 yesterday and he said to me I can ' t 4 be there . Unfortunately, I have to 5 be hospitalized unexpectedly . 6 MS . READER : I just want to 7 make sure we ' re talking about the 8 same letter . 9 MRS . DICHTER : Yes , January 10 12 . 11 MS . READER : Mr . Capicotto , 12 were you able to review this letter? 13 MR . CAPICOTTO : I just 14 received it today . 15 MS . READER : Are you able to 16 make a response to it? 17 MR . CAPICOTTO : No . 18 MRS . DICHTER : It ' s fairly 19 straight forward quite honestly . 20 MS . READER : Go on , I ' m 21 sorry . 22 MRS . DICHTER : So how should 23 I proceed with this letter , shall I 24 read it or shall I just make my own 25 personal comments? Proceedings 75 1 MS . READER : Let me just - - 2 does everyone have this , it ' s a 3 two-page letter from Mr . Potter . I 4 have two pages , however , Mr . Darsky 5 only has one page . And I don' t know 6 about anyone else . Does everyone 7 have this , does everyone have these 8 two pages? 9 (Whereupon , the Board has a 10 conference . ) 11 MR . PAPAZIAN : Can I make a 12 suggestion , this letter from Barry 13 Dichter that we ' re talking about 14 dated January 12 is a quick read . 15 I ' d like to make a suggestion that 16 the Board read this letter through 17 and then listen to what Mrs . Dichter 18 has to say . So we can move on to 19 the next issue that she has . 20 MS . READER : So you want to 21 take like a three minute recess . 22 (Whereupon , a recess was 23 taken by the Board . ) 24 MS . READER : Mrs . Dichter , I 25 would just like you to get to the Proceedings 76 1 high points and not rehash 2 everything because I ' m getting 3 worried that the weather is getting 4 worse and we may have to move to 5 adjourn the meeting early tonight . 6 MRS . DICHTER : Well , I can 7 speak to my own personal feelings , 8 okay . I ' d like to let the Board 9 know that I am strongly objecting to 10 a development of 28 Bonnie Way on 11 the grounds that it will harm the 12 welfare of the neighborhood , both to 13 people and property . That in the 14 ten year scenario conducted by the 15 Town Engineer the proposed system 16 will work if all the conditions are 17 optimal . However , even with the 18 good intentions of the Town and 19 their present maintenance of the 20 storm sewers , the existing storm 21 sewer systems , the catch basin will 22 fill with leaves , as they always do , 23 that fall from the forest and from 24 the many trees and that the leaves 25 will get washed down the stream from Proceedings 77 1 the Leather Stock and Trail causing 2 the new system to fail , just the 3 same way the old system fails . 4 Now , Mr . Knopp presented a 5 driveway situation that I don ' t 6 understand how it ' s truly going to 7 work . Does he mean that there is 8 going to be a drop-off that a 9 neighbor who is going down the 10 driveway with a drop-off without any 11 kind of wall there to protect them 12 from going off the edge of the 13 driveway . And if there is a wall , 14 won ' t that very wall prevent the 15 overflow he ' s proposing is going to 16 overflow on the McCarthys property? 17 MR . KNOPP : Can I say 18 something? 19 MS . READER : Mr . Knopp , you 20 will have an opportunity to answer . 21 MRS . DICHTER : The flooding 22 at the corner of Weaver Street and 23 further down at Bonnie Way at 24 Parkway Lane puts all the neighbors 25 at risk , emergency vehicles will Proceedings 78 1 have trouble getting down the 2 street . 3 I ' d like to point out - - I ' d 4 like to enter into evidence for you 5 to look at pictures from the storm 6 that we had just a week ago Sunday 7 on January 3rd . That was a storm 8 where - - it was considered a heavy 9 rainstorm where two to three inches 10 of rain fell within a two hour 11 period . The ground was frozen and 12 according to my conversation with 13 Mr . Altieri he put it in the realm 14 of a 50 -year storm because of the 15 ground conditions and the lack of 16 the availability of the ground to 17 absorb the water . My contention is 18 that I ' m not sure if that was the 19 case , but in any event even a normal 20 heavy rainstorm on this particular 21 neighborhood acted in a way that is 22 greater than what the weatherman 23 might tell you the conditions were . 24 This picture , picture number 25 16 is a picture of the end of Bonnie Proceedings 79 1 Way at the end of the Leather Stock 2 and Trail showing you - - this where 3 the catch basin is , showing you that 4 the catch basin is completely 5 flooded - - if you would like I can 6 bring the pictures closer - - 7 completely flooded over . 8 Our contention is and the 9 reason why we think that this is 10 relevant is that as you can see , 11 this is in picture number 11 , this 12 is the curb at the property, 28 13 Bonnie Way . The picture was taken (: 14 after the water had already started 15 to recede , but as you can see the 16 water did jump the curb . And this 17 is what the property - - that is 18 where the house is going to be and 19 this is that pooling of water . In 20 pictures number one and two this is 21 the backyard at 28 Bonnie Way after 22 this rainstorm . It is filled with 23 water , totally filled with water . 24 This is where the pipe is going to 25 be piped out to and it will be piped L Proceedings 80 1 into an area that is already saturated with water , overflowing 2 with water . 3 MS . READER : The pipe is 4 going into the brook ,MR . CAPICOTTO : isn ' t it? 5 Yes . 6 7 MS . READER : It ' s going to the brook . 8 MRS . DICHTER : This is the 9 brook , this is the brook . 10 11 MS . READER : That ' s not the backyard . 13 MRS . DICHTER : 12 These are the backyard pictures and these are the 14 pictures five , frontyard pictures . 15 six and eleven are the frontyar 16 pictures , one and two and three ar 17 e the backyard pictures . 18 Our contention is that no 19 � storm sewer that ' s put in is going 20 to make the situation better an 21 that it will in d fact make the 22 Because right now situation worse . 23 24 you have an unobstructed curb and the water will jump that curb . Any 25 Proceedings 81 1 filling of this land , any driveway 2 with walls so that cars won ' t fall 3 off of them, is going to obstruct 4 the flow of this water . This is 5 what the corner of Weaver Street and 6 Bonnie Way looked like on that 7 morning . This is the car that got 8 stuck , this is it being towed away . 9 It still , in fact , cannot be fixed, 10 it may not be able to be fixed . 11 So on this basis these are 12 what my objections are . Based on 13 that I have serious concerns that 14 the situation on our street will be 15 made worse and not better . 16 There are two letters that I 17 submitted to you , I don' t know if 18 you ' d like me to read that into the 19 record . 20 MS . READER : They' re in the 21 record . Let me just state for the 22 record who these letters are from , 23 one is from Elizabeth Wagner (ph) , 24 dated January 12 , 1999 . 25 MRS . DICHTER : She ' s the Proceedings 82 1 owner of the car that ' s in the 2 picture . 3 MS . READER : And the other is 4 from Ellen and Erik Marcus (ph) , 5 dated January 13 , 1999 . 6 MRS . DICHTER : The Marcus ' 7 live in this house , they live in 8 number ten , they live in the 9 backyard . 10 Thank you , I thank you for 11 considering everything . 12 MS . READER : Your name , sir? 13 MR . PRESS : My name is Philip 14 Press . 15 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , I 16 will get to you , just a minute . Can 17 you spell your name , please? 18 MR . PRESS : Press , P-R-E- S -S , 19 29 Bonnie Way . The street doesn ' t 20 run in concurrent numbers so in fact 21 it is not opposite . We are , in 22 fact , the house that overlooks the 23 storm drain at the very end of the 24 Leather Stock and Trail . It is in 25 front of our house that a Proceedings 83 (:) 1 considerable amount of what I would 2 call leaves and other debris from 3 the Leather Stock and Trail clog the 4 drain . And while our property is 5 well above what the water level is 6 on the street , so we don ' t have a 7 wet basement , I ' m not sure that we 8 don' t have a problem now . 9 I was notified late and I 10 take the responsibility of perhaps 11 not being as active in this as I 12 should have been . We don ' t have a 13 house being built right across the 14 street , so our concern is a little 15 bit removed . Our concern is the 16 street itself . 17 If I may , I recognize the 18 difficulty that the Board has in 19 dealing with - - in trying to assess 20 based upon blue prints and other 21 documents what something actually 22 looks like in real life . 23 I have pictures here that I 24 would submit that were taken about a 25 year ago . The reason these pictures Proceedings 84 1 were taken was that we actually have 2 been making a strong effort to try 3 to get that portion of the street 4 paved . The reason that I bring 5 these today is to show that under 6 normal circumstances there is a 7 considerable amount of water that 8 resides on the street just in normal 9 rains . That if it ever rains in 10 cold weather there is a residue of 11 ice that stays in that area for a 12 considerable amount of time , and 13 that while those don ' t quite capture 14 that , these pictures show what 15 happens after a normal rainstorm , 16 after normal rain falls . There 17 isn ' t an instance - - and the problem 18 is that we can' t have the home 19 numbers of the Board and call them 20 up and say it ' s raining you have to 21 come out and see it tonight . What 22 happens is we have to wait for 23 extraordinary circumstances to show 24 what the street looks like . And 25 with all due respect to the Proceedings 85 1 Engineering Department and with all 2 the good work that the Town did and 3 intended to do there is a problem 4 and the problem hasn ' t gone away . 5 And with no alteration to the street 6 as it currently exists now - - there 7 was a gentleman , Shimone (ph) - - I 8 forget the last name - - 9 MS . READER : Getlins (ph) . 10 MR . PRESS : I beg your 11 pardon? 12 MS . READER : Getlins . 13 MR . PRESS : Shimone Getlins 1`" 14 has been on our property a number of 15 times because of the water runoff 16 that comes across our property and 17 then falls on the street with the 18 fair amount of soil . 19 DR . MASON : Mr . Press , could 20 you please specifically relate your 21 comments to what Mr . Knopp ' s project 22 would do to your house , sir , because 23 we know the background and you 24 really haven ' t related your comments 25 to his project . L Proceedings 86 1 MR . PRESS : Not a problem, I 2 wasn ' t here for the prior meetings 3 and I didn ' t realize that the 4 background had been done . What we 5 see when reference is made to water 6 draining because it happens to hop a 7 curb is unacceptable . The street 8 wasn ' t constructed for water in a 9 way that the Town would have 10 approved originally to hop curbs . 11 There is supposed to be a drainage 12 system in place that handles it as 13 most of the normal city and suburban 14 streets do . 15 DR . MASON : You ' re still not 16 relating it to his project . 17 MR . PRESS : Sir , - - 18 DR . MASON : You ' re not . 19 MR . PRESS : I understand that 20 and I ' m trying to get to that . And 21 in terms of what it relates to in 22 his project , what we ' re doing is 23 creating yet another obstruction to 24 have water pass over a curb into a 25 drain that goes into a brook . That Proceedings 87 1 doesn' t affect our property, but it 2 affects the street itself . The fact 3 is that the street has a current 4 state and with the development of an 5 additional property here it will 6 create yet another obstruction to 7 water draining in a way that it ' s 8 not supposed to . 9 Now, it will be adversely 10 affected to an even greater degree 11 by putting yet additional 12 construction and other - - what we ' ll 13 call I guess construction ; a 14 sidewalk , curbs , driveways , et 15 cetera . When the issue of placing 16 that where the water is currently 17 draining now the way that it 18 shouldn ' t and it will create an even 19 worse situation on the street in 20 terms of flooding . 21 Now , I am not an engineer , 22 but I haven' t heard addressed here 23 and I don ' t know that I have shown 24 up here at the right time to say , by 25 the way, the street will be no Proceedings 88 1 worse . In fact , it should be made 2 better , but the project , right now 3 his project creates another barrier 4 to water drainage at this point 5 which has been described as even if 6 it doesn ' t work it will continue to 7 hop the curb . The problem is that 8 other construction will be there to 9 help divert - - not to divert the 10 water . 11 This is a problem that turns 12 out to affect the residents of the 13 street because of the additional 14 construction . We all know that as 15 they say when it rains there are 16 flood areas . We ' re adding 17 additional impediments to the water 18 drainage and it ' s going to create 19 larger flooding . 20 DR . MASON : Mr . Knopp , you 21 were talking about taking a curb and 22 putting a curb cut , thereby lowering 23 the barrier by which the water has 24 to jump in order to go back to the 25 stream . So , in fact , you are going Proceedings 89 1 to lower the level to which the 2 water must rise before it flows over 3 the land to the stream; is that 4 correct ? 5 MR . KNOPP : Right . 6 DR . MASON : So I ' m not seeing 7 a new barrier , I ' m seeing a relief 8 pad . You ' re not a engineer I 9 understand that and I don ' t mean to 10 put you in that position , but from 11 what I ' m seeing there shouldn ' t be 12 any water going into a curb cut 13 where the water - - let ' s assume the 14 worst case scenario . 15 MR . KNOPP : In the worst case 16 scenario if it gets plugged solid , 17 the catch basin , the water is going 18 to flow as it does now . 19 DR . MASON : Except it will go 20 over a driveway cut rather than a 21 full curb . 22 MR . CAPICOTTO : It won ' t have 23 to back-up as much in the street . 24 MS . READER : Mr . Press , you 25 may not have understood when I asked Proceedings 90 1 Mr . Capicotto the question earlier ; 2 given the contours of the driveway 3 and the easement that ' s intended 4 which will have a changed drainage 5 system , and I don ' t know if you ' re 6 familiar with what the Town plans to 7 do there , would that either improve 8 the situation or at the very least 9 be the same or will it make it 10 worse . The response was that under 11 no circumstances will it make it 12 worse than the current conditions 13 and in the worst condition it will 14 be the same and it will likely 15 improve just with the water that is 16 going over the surface assuming that 17 the new drainage does not work . 18 That was the answer that Mr . 19 Capicotto gave earlier and that was 20 in response to , I think , what you ' re 21 inquiring about . 22 MS . READER : Let me just - - 23 Ms . Harrington is making a comment 24 here , because of the weather 25 conditions it is likely that we ' re Proceedings 91 1 not going to finish the proceeding 2 today . There are two considerations 3 and two other Public Hearings that I 4 think we will be adjourning . I ' m 5 inclined to let those people leave 6 now; that would be the Ming ' s 7 Chinese Buffet and the Westchester 8 Classic Builders . 9 How many people are here from 10 Ming ' s Chinese Buffet ? 11 THE AUDIENCE : I have my 12 clients here all the way from 13 Rochester . I don ' t think it will 14 take long . 15 MS . READER : Okay, fine . Why 16 don ' t you stay then . How about the 17 Westchester Classic Builders , we 18 would like to adjourn you to next 19 month? 20 MR . CARPANETO : That ' s also 21 going to be very quick . 22 MS . READER : Okay , fine . 23 Let ' s go on . 24 MR . PRESS : I ' ll finish my 25 comments . Proceedings 92 1 DR . MASON : I believe I was 2 interrupted . The question that I 3 was raising was to ask you to 4 specifically relate your comments to 5 the lowered curb condition . And the 6 comment that I was going to bring to 7 Mr . Dichter ' s attention was that the 8 driveway does not slope down to a 9 drop-off . It slopes down and then 10 up and the water is to go off the 11 side of it and onto the McCarthys 12 property . We ' re not talking about a 13 wall at the end of the driveway to 14 fall off , I know that makes a nice 15 image . 16 MS . DICHTER : I don' t believe 17 that will work . How will that work? 18 MR . KNOPP : I will explain 19 it . There will be Belgium block 20 curbing and it won' t be built like 21 street curbs . There are only about 22 ten inches long and what I will do 23 along the right side of the driveway 24 is they will be spaced about three , 25 four , five inches apart . And the Proceedings 93 1 water will flow right through it . 2 MR . PRESS : Let me just make 3 one comment and I ' ll turn it over to 4 a different person . I ' ve lived on 5 the street for 11 years . The Town 6 has been addressing this for 11 7 years . I find it fascinating as a 8 private resident to believe that the 9 way the problem is going to be 10 alleviated is to have a purchaser of 11 a new home have a flood run across 12 his or her driveway . I would be the 13 first one to tell them the problem 14 they ' re going to encounter when that 15 is built . This is unacceptable , as 16 far as I am concerned , to count on a 17 private resident and a private 18 contractor to build a home and to 19 turn a driveway into a waterfall is 20 not the way to alleviate the 21 problem . 22 MS . READER : Mr . Press , I 23 think you ' re misunderstanding what 24 they are proposing to do . 25 MR . PRESS : By the way I Proceedings 94 1 clearly am . But I will tell you 2 that however it may be - - however it 3 may be , I will tell you that what 4 you ' re telling me is that it will be 5 no worse and potentially better 6 because a drainage area will be 7 clear across that property . 8 MR . CAPICOTTO : Because a 9 drainage pipe will be put in place 10 to take the drainage to the back . 11 MR . KNOPP : It ' s unreasonable 12 to expect a private homeowner or an 13 applicant to the Planning Board to 14 solve a drainage situation . 15 MS . READER : No one has asked 16 you to do that . 17 MR . KNOPP : But I ' m - - 18 MS . READER : It ' s not his 19 obligation to alleviate the problems 20 that exist there . The Town has seen 21 an opportunity to perhaps alleviate 22 a problem and Mr . Knopp and 23 apparently the McCarthys seems to be 24 willing to work along with the Town 25 to take advantage of this Proceedings 95 1 opportunity to change the drainage 2 system that exists on Bonnie Way . 3 MR . PRESS : That may be the 4 case , but I haven ' t seen a positive 5 move taken in that step yet . 6 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , I 7 see you want to speak , but do not 8 repeat what has been said . 9 MR . DICHTER : There are other 10 neighbors here and I would like them 11 to have an opportunity to speak so I 12 will be quick . 13 MS . READER : Then proceed . 14 MR . DICHTER : I think that 15 right at the heart of this is the 16 engineer . I will make several 17 observations . I have an interest 18 here and that ' s for our safety . 19 Right now there is 60 feet of 20 frontage that drains Bonnie Way . 21 It ' s a 60 foot frontage that drains , 22 it ' s not a driveway cut . 23 With respect to the piping 24 system that has been proposed and 25 Mr . Capicotto will tell you that the Proceedings 96 1 calculations that he used were with 2 respect to water supply and not 3 drainage . None of the calculations 4 that he used took into account the 5 flooding situation when it jumps the 6 pipe at the end of the - - 7 MR . CAPICOTTO : You keep 8 saying jumps the pipe . 9 MR . DICHTER : The 10 calculations you used, I believe you 11 submitted to the Board, took into 12 account a normal not a flood 13 situation caused by the Leather 14 Stock and Trail and the Sheldrake 15 which runs over the end of Bonnie 16 Way and are flooding down the 17 street . 18 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , 19 make your comments , but don ' t say 20 what you think Mr . Capicotto did . 21 He will speak for himself . 22 MR . DICHTER : I ' m telling you 23 what he told me at the appointment I 24 had with him and the comments about 25 the calculations that he made before Proceedings 97 1 this Board doesn ' t in any way 2 remotely resemble - - the question is 3 in a flood situation where the 4 Sheldrake tributary goes over the 5 end of the road and floods with 6 leaves , as it will always do in a 7 severe storm because the forest has 8 trees and trees have leaves and they 9 fall when it rains . It ' s not a 10 garden , the pictures show that the 11 leaves are in the forest which is 12 not a surprise . The debris comes 13 onto Bonnie Way and the pictures 14 will show the flood goes all the way 15 to Weaver Street and the leaves are 16 in the water . If the drain in front 17 of his house is plugged at any - - 18 the reason that the drainage system 19 doesn ' t work in the pouring rain , 20 now I ' m not an engineer , but it 21 appears to me that there are muck 22 and leaves and big logs that plug 23 every catch basin so that no matter 24 what size it doesn ' t matter . 25 The calculations that were Proceedings 98 1 used do not take into account the 2 drainage of one of the neighborhoods 3 that runs down Pack Hill Road, they 4 do not take into account a flood . 5 It takes into account a normal 6 rainstorm with no floods . 7 Overflooding seems to be irrelevant 8 to this Board ' s deliberations . The 9 Board does not know whether or not 10 in a flood this pipe will do 11 anything to alleviate the drainage . 12 There is no basis with which to 13 conclude whether this catch basin is 14 adequate . It will get plugged . 15 I saw the Town maintenance 16 crews and they were shoveling out 17 piles of things from that drain . 18 MRS . DICHTER : We have 19 pictures of that . 20 MR . DICHTER : They haven ' t 21 been able to solve the problem and 22 this one drain won' t solve the 23 problem . I ' m not an engineer , but I 24 can tell you that because I was out 25 in the pouring rain and saw the Proceedings 99 1 water flowing . There is a driveway 2 that has a sharp pitch all the way 3 down . The McCarthys ' driveway is 20 4 feet , 30 feet and that doesn ' t do 5 anything to relieve the flooding 6 situation . 7 We have pictures at the end 8 of the board that show the end of 9 Bonnie Way as well as past the 10 McCarthys that drops down 30 feet , 11 And the McCarthys ' car was up to its 12 hubcaps in water and it was parked 13 in the driveway . The reason - - I 14 will add something that ' s been 15 bothering me enormously, I watched 16 as Mr . Capicotto looked at the plans 17 that were submitted tonight at this 18 Board Meeting and he had to have an 19 explanation from the developer as to 20 what the plans said about 21 elevations . The conclusion that he 22 was giving was based on the 23 developer ' s explanation tonight 24 about what the plans said about the 25 elevation . Proceedings 100 1 MR . CAPICOTTO : I asked about 2 the one spot . 3 MS . READER : Let me - - Mr . 4 Dichter - - 5 MR . KNOPP : The question 6 was - - 7 MR . DICHTER : Mr . Knopp said 8 he ' s using Belgium blocks with gaps 9 between them . That ' s what he said . 10 So there are going to be stones with 11 gaps between them . There is 60 feet 12 of drainage that is going to have 13 gaps with a total of maybe two feet 14 of gaps , if that , in the Belgium 15 blocks . You said there was a lower 16 barrier by the driveway, but these 17 Belgium blocks have height to them 18 also . The Belgium blocks are just 19 as high . We ' re just putting the 20 wall there . I looked at the plans , 21 I looked at the elevations shown . 22 There is a maximum depression in the 23 middle of that driveway of less than 24 half a foot . The depression that is 25 shown is low, how long will it be Proceedings 101 1 before the driveway starts to fill ? 2 So therefore the water is going to 3 accumulate in this drain and go out 4 the sides because water going down 5 does not drain out the sides . We 6 don ' t know what will happen because 7 it ' s not in evidence . It ' s going to 8 be one spot in the driveway where it 9 reaches the low point before it 10 climbs again . So we ' re talking , if 11 the builder is right , maybe it will 12 act as drainage , five inches of 13 drainage . The McCarthys house is 14 down , all the way down with no 15 obstructions , no blocks . This 16 doesn ' t do anything for that problem 17 we ' re talking about . 18 We ' re converting it down a 19 driveway with Belgium blocks where 20 it drains at the bottom of this 21 depression , not while it ' s going 22 downhill . So what we have before 23 this Board in terms of this 24 neighborhood is that fire truck are 25 not going to get up my street and Proceedings 102 1 you have the ambulance not getting 2 up Weaver Street . They had to close 3 down Bonnie Way . The maintenance 4 crews closed Bonnie Way because it 5 flooded out and they came damn close 6 to , pardon my language , closing off 7 Weaver Street . 8 We ' re talking about a 9 situation getting worse because 10 there has been no guess in 11 years 11 that ' s been right about what this 12 water is going to do . We have an 13 explanation about Belgium blocks 14 with gaps in them . We don ' t have 15 any indication what this depression 16 is going to do . This is going to 17 take the place of 60 feet of 18 drainage across this property . The 19 picture shows the pooling of the 20 water . It stops the water from 21 flowing back into the stream . If 22 the pipe clogs it ' s going to flood. 23 out the neighborhood at the back end 24 of Bonnie Way . So I think we have 25 a - - there is a - - we all have a Proceedings 103 1 common concern . 2 This is a controlled area . 3 Under the statute , under the local 4 law, we can ' t do anything unless the 5 developer proves that it ' s not going 6 to make it worse . He has to prove 7 that the situation that we have in 8 this neighborhood will not become 9 worse . He has to have competent 10 evidence and calculations to put 11 before the Board that he will not 12 make the situation worse . I ' m not 13 looking for him to make it better . 14 We bought the property, that ' s our 15 tough luck . It ' s too bad that the 16 day when - - the only time they pay 17 attention is when somebody wants to 18 put a house on that lot , if they 19 don ' t so be it . 20 It ' s not the developer ' s job 21 to make it better , but it is the 22 developer ' s job not to make it worse 23 and to prove that he ' s not making 24 the situation worse . There is an 25 explanation of Belgium blocks and Proceedings 104 1 maybe this and maybe that , but we 2 have calculations that show it ' s not 3 going to work . 4 This was a development of 5 right . This subdivision was not of 6 right , it did not meet zoning code 7 requirements . They put conditions 8 when they were making this 9 subdivision and they put a 10 condition , I forget what the exact 11 words say, but you can ' t make the 12 drainage situation in this street 13 worse by putting this house here . 14 And the Board has an obligation to 15 the Wetlands and the rainfall and 16 the drainage in this controlled area 17 to make sure that that is not 18 happening . 19 The photos show the water 20 within five feet of my house on the 21 side on Sunday . My road was closed . 22 You had huge logs in the street 23 blocking every single catch basin . 24 So I think we have to have the 25 calculations and we need to Proceedings 105 1 seriously think about this driveway 2 and whether that will compensate for 3 the 60 feet of drainage . All that 4 needs to be before this Board before 5 they can make an intelligent 6 decision . 7 I ' m not next to this house , I 8 don ' t have a lot to share . I don ' t 9 give a darn , but what I care about 10 is whether or not we have a safety 11 problem . Unfortunately , I cannot be 12 here next week . 13 MS . ROMA : It ' s now snowing 14 and I would like to be excused . 15 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , go 16 on . 17 MR . DICHTER : There is 18 nothing in the evidence before this 19 Board that will justify issuing a 20 permit , a Wetlands permit . The 21 calculations on the catch basin are 22 irrelevant . 23 MS . READER : You ' ve said 24 that , please move on . 25 MR . DICHTER : I unfortunately Proceedings 106 1 will not be here . I have a concern 2 about this and there are other 3 neighbors here and I ' d like to let 4 them have an opportunity to speak . 5 I think that before anyone 6 can make an intelligent decision 7 about whether a driveway cut is 8 going to solve the problem we really 9 need to have an idea as to what it 10 is going to look like . What ' s it 11 look like? We ' re talking about a 12 little spacing between the blocks 13 and this is five , six inches of 14 drainage compared to the 60 feet of 15 frontage that now exists . I think 16 you need to see those calculations . 17 MS . READER : Okay , fine let ' s 18 let someone else speak . 19 THE AUDIENCE : I think - - 20 MS . READER : Please state 21 your name and address for the 22 record . 23 MRS . PRESS : Beth Press , 24 P-R-E- S - S , 29 Bonnie Way . I think 25 that the point my husband was trying Proceedings 107 1 to make with regard to the flood 2 area is that we have the Town and 3 the people that want to build saying 4 that it ' s possible to alleviate the 5 problem or at least status quo 6 versus somebody that the Dichters 7 got saying no , it doesn ' t . And the 8 bottom line is that , with all due 9 respect to the Town , you can ' t 10 figure out the situation now . How 11 are we to know the assessment of the 12 engineers are correct at this 13 moment . I think we need to have 14 other people to have some input . 15 One of the reasons I know that we 16 weren ' t able to get the road paved 17 is money and so on and so forth . 18 They also said we still have to 19 figure out the drainage as well in 20 the catch basin . It is a problem . 21 I know when they were looking 22 to build on Bonnie Briar one of the 23 reasons we all got involved in the 24 Bonnie Briar Country Club was that 25 there was going to be water runoff . t Proceedings 108 1 Let ' s face it if you put a house on 2 a piece of property you don ' t have 3 to be an engineer to know that there 4 is more concrete and there is less 5 runoff . I ' m not an engineer . I 6 know Ms . Aisen is on our block and 7 she ' s experienced this and it ' s a 8 difficult situation to live in . And 9 we all feel that this is not good 10 enough and we have been given 11 information that was erroneous . And 12 because we are the last house on the 13 block someone had said our gardeners 14 were dumping leaves in the catch 15 basin , that is absolutely erroneous 16 because I will tell you why, my 17 gardener comes on a Tuesday - - 18 DR . MASON : With all due 19 respect - - 20 MRS . PRESS : Okay , I ' m 21 getting a little animated . But the 22 bottom line is after any kind of 23 rain , big storm, small storm, I ' m 24 out in the road pushing the logs 25 away and I ' m out there sweeping . So Proceedings 109 (:) 1 I don ' t know that the Town and the 2 Engineer and - - again with all due 3 respect , you haven ' t eradicated the 4 problem the way it is , how do we 5 know that this situation and how 6 you ' re assessing it and that this 7 pipe is really going to work . The 8 bottom line is that I feel that we 9 should have other input from other 10 engineers at this point . 11 MS . READER : Anyone else , 12 please? 13 THE AUDIENCE : Sue 14 Fereth (ph) . I live on Park Hill 15 Lane . So I ' m the road that drains 16 down into the intersection of Bonnie 17 Way . And our property does not 18 flood . We moved here in August of 19 1996 . 20 DR . MASON : How does the 21 project impact you? 22 MRS . FERETH : I ' m going to 23 tell you that . About two months 24 later we had a storm in October and 25 the entire street flooded and we L Proceedings 110 1 lost a car . 2 DR . MASON : Was this project 3 responsible for that ? 4 MRS . FERETH : No , it was not . 5 But I want to know how you can be 6 sure that this project isn ' t going 7 to make this worse . Because I have 8 two small children with very serious 9 health problems and I ' ve had to dial 10 911 and have the ambulance come to 11 my house . And when these floods 12 happen my street is blocked , you 13 can ' t get in my street and that ' s a 14 really big concern to me . 15 If this project does go ahead 16 I would like to make a note that the 17 stream abuts this particular piece 18 of property in the back and the 19 stream is there and it was dredged 20 last summer and it ' s full of silt 21 again . So if construction does go 22 on on that property what is going to 23 protect it from further blockage in 24 that stream that is currently in the 25 back of that property . That is a Proceedings 111 Q1 very real concern . My concern is 2 that nothing becomes worse and that 3 we do have a dangerous situation now 4 and the drainage must be alleviated 5 and I don ' t want the ambulance to 6 not get to my five year old . 7 MS . READER : Thank you . 8 Anyone else on this project ? Mr . 9 Capicotto? 10 MR . CAPICOTTO : For the 11 benefit of those who were not at 12 previous meetings this is a 1991 13 study that was performed on most of 14 this branch of the Sheldrake River 15 showing the flood areas . 16 MS . READER : Performed for 17 who? 18 MR . CAPICOTTO : For the Town . 19 And according to this study the 20 houses that you see there on that 21 side of Bonnie Way are within a five 22 year flood plain , not the ten , not 23 the 25 , not the 100 , but the five 24 flood plain . Which means once every 25 five years it ' s going to flood . Proceedings 112 1 There is nothing the Town - - I can ' t 2 speak for the Town as far as the 3 projects that are on line or 4 whatever , but there are improvements 5 that can be made to try and help 6 things along to try and prevent 7 additional flooding . You ' re in a 8 flood plain , it ' s plain and simple . 9 Now, Mrs . Dichter said that 10 the storm on Sunday was about three 11 inches of rainfall in a two hour 12 period . 13 DR . MASON : 2 . 74 in a two and 14 a half hour period . We keep those 15 records . Up at the reservoir there 16 is a measuring gauge so we have 17 those numbers . 18 MR . Capicotto : In any case , 19 that would put the storm into - - 20 well , depending on the duration and 21 all , into the five , ten year range , 22 25 , depending on that duration . 23 However , that was just greatly 24 intensified by the fact that the 25 ground had been frozen and the water Proceedings 113 1 had no place to go . So it was as if 2 the entire development and 3 everything was paved over because 4 the water could not infiltrate the 5 ground . What you see there is worse 6 than whatever the storm - - the 7 rainfall indicated . 8 MRS . FERETH : We lost our car 9 in October and the ground was not 10 frozen . We have had two incredibly 11 mild winters . I was not in New York 12 State the winter before when - - 13 which was incredibly bad . And you 14 know, you can talk about the fact 15 that this was an extraordinary case , 16 but in October of 1996 there was no 17 frozen ground and the entire length 18 of Bonnie Way was flooded . My 19 husband only got about one third of 20 the way up before the whole car 21 flooded . There was water where your 22 feet are . 23 MRS . DICHTER : And this is 24 not the first time it ' s been 25 flooded . Proceedings 114 1 MR . CAPICOTTO : No , I said - - 2 exactly I said - - 3 MRS . DICHTER : This is a big 4 problem . 5 MS READER . Mr . Capicotto is 6 speaking . And I know that you 7 yielded to Mrs . Ferreth, but I don ' t 8 want these debates back and forth . 9 I ' ve allowed everyone to make their 10 comments without being interrupted . 11 MR . CAPICOTTO : What I ' m 12 trying to say is this is a flood 13 plain and it ' s subject to flooding . 14 And the Town can attempt to make 15 improvements , but the backyards of 16 all those houses are within the 17 flood plain . That ' s the one point I 18 just wanted to make . 19 Now , as far as the 20 calculations and the letter . This 21 was reviewed as far as the method 22 used - - 23 MS . READER : What letter is 24 that ? 25 MR . CAPICOTTO : Sorry . The Proceedings 115 ® 1 letter to Mr . Barry Dichter from 2 Irwin Potter dated January 12th, 3 1999 , regarding the calculations for 4 this drainage pipe . The method I 5 used was EL Williams (ph) method . 6 The calculations were checked by 7 another engineer in my office using 8 another set of standards and even if 9 I grant I ' m wrong and my associate 10 is wrong , Mr . Potter is saying that 11 this pipe is still - - has the 12 required capacity it was designed 13 for . C 14 MS . READER : With a ten 15 percent reserve . 16 MR . CAPICOTTO : I calculated 17 it at a 40 percent reserve . Now , 18 aside from that - - 19 MR . DAVIS : Does Mr . Potter 20 say why he got that big a 21 difference? 22 MR . CAPICOTTO : Because he 23 used a different formula and he came 24 up with that number . Then as far as 25 the rainfall intensity - - Proceedings 116 1 MS . READER : Let the record 2 reflect that Mrs . Harrington is 3 leaving . 4 MR . CAPICOTTO : With regard 5 to the rainfall intensity he ' s 6 talking about a 5 . 9 inch versus a 7 5 . 7 inch per hour storm and that 8 point two inches , even if my 9 calculations were wrong , would 10 probably just be eaten up by that 11 ten percent excess in the size of 12 the pipe . So even if I ' m totally 13 wrong , Mr . Potter is agreeing that 14 this pipe is going to carry what it 15 was designed for . 16 Now, I was asked to size the 17 pipe for the 25 year storm . This is 18 the - - as far as the pipe goes even 19 if you wanted to size it for a 20 bigger storm based on the geography 21 of the land that is the biggest pipe 22 and the most pitch you can put in 23 without the pipe ending up under the 24 ground . So that was basically the 25 best you can do here . Proceedings 117 1 Now , the area that the pipe 2 was sized to drain was based on the 3 topographical maps and the area that 4 would naturally be that spot , which 5 is the way you design a catch basin . 6 They were talking about the flooding 7 situation and the water coming down 8 from the other block . The other end 9 of the block has a drainage system, 10 has catch basins and has this 11 drainage swale . You could not 12 design this one little catch basin 13 in front of 28 Bonnie Way to handle 14 the entire development ' s worth of 15 rainfall . So you ' re only going to 16 size it for the area that should 17 normally drain to that spot . If 18 there is drainage coming from other 19 areas down the block that will have 20 to be handled by the catch basin 21 there or by whatever means that are 22 going to be placed there . But you 23 cannot size this pipe and size this 24 catch basin to take up the entire 25 neighborhood , the entire development Proceedings 118 1 and that is not what the intent was 2 here . 3 As far as this jumping the 4 curb , at the last meeting this all 5 began because there was a discussion 6 as to what would happen if this pipe 7 clogged and so on and so forth with 8 the back watering situation , with 9 that situation , with this situation . 10 So Dr . Mason said take a look at the 11 possibility of having a back up 12 provision if the pipe clogged and 13 that ' s why that overland flow path 14 is made available . We ' re not 15 counting on that to be utilized , but 16 if the pipe failed what was there 17 before will be there now . 18 MS . READER : Can you tell 19 me - - how about the issue of the 20 driveway being the route taken for 21 the flow as opposed to the 60 feet 22 of frontage? 23 MR . DARSKY : If you would 24 just relate those comments to the 25 ones made by the public . Proceedings 119 1 MR . CAPICOTTO : The McCarthy 2 driveway I don ' t have - - I haven ' t 3 looked at it closely . There is a 4 possibility that the driveway 5 pitches up slightly before it goes 6 down preventing the water from 7 jumping down the driveway . I don ' t 8 know, I ' m just speculating , but as 9 far as this project goes - - 10 MS . READER : How about the 11 flow of the water? Suppose that the 12 drainage doesn ' t work , will the 13 water there still go to the lawn and 14 the front part of the property off 15 the street ? 16 MR . KNOPP : Front left -hand 17 side . 18 MS . READER : So the water 19 will flow from the curb there and 20 run to the edge of the driveway as 21 will the water coming from the road . 22 MR . KNOPP : Right . 23 MS . READER : And it will be 24 directed - - it ' s your contention 25 that the water will be directed Proceedings 120 1 however it flows onto that property 2 from the driveway or over the curb 3 and the whole front portion of the 4 property along the same route that 5 it ' s currently taking? 6 MR . KNOPP : Right . 7 MS . READER : Anything else? 8 MR . CAPICOTTO : That ' s it . 9 MR . DARSKY : Do we need to 10 examine the McCarthys driveway? 11 MS . READER : The McCarthys 12 driveway is on the other side of the 13 house? 14 MR . KNOPP : Closer to Weaver 15 Street . 16 MR . DICHTER : Can I ask one 17 question of Mr . Capicotto? 18 MS . READER : I think Mr . 19 Knopp was going to respond . Do you 20 have anything further to say? 21 MR . KNOPP : No . 22 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter . 23 MR . DICHTER : One point that 24 I think I understood, but I ' d just 25 like to clarify, is as to the Proceedings 121 1 calculations which you said earlier 2 today that the driveway will be 3 adequate if the catch basin didn ' t 4 work . Was that under the same set 5 of assumptions that the other catch 6 basins on the street closer to the 7 Leather Stock and Trail were working 8 so that it was relieving that flood 9 situation? • 10 MR . CAPICOTTO : Yup . That 11 statement was based on the fact that 12 there would still be a drop from the 13 roadway into this property ; such 14 that if flood water accumulated in 15 the front of the property it could 16 still pass to the back of this 17 property . 18 MR . DICHTER : The rainfall 19 situation , I ' m going to try to be 20 honest with you , the amount of water 21 that we ' re talking about from what 22 you said earlier about the pipe your 23 assumptions were that - - 24 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , 25 these assumptions of his , how is Proceedings 122 1 that relevant over there? 2 MR . DICHTER : I ' m trying to 3 tell you . 4 MS . READER : What Mr . 5 Capicotto said as I understand it is 6 that given the flow of water as it 7 currently exists whether or not the 8 upgrade - - uproad catch basins are 9 working or not the flow of the water 10 will remain the same on the contours 11 of the property with the depression 12 constructed in the driveway . 13 MR . DICHTER : I don' t 14 think - - I don ' t think he was saying 15 that . Because I think his 16 calculations were very clear with 17 respect to the pipe . They took 18 it - - they assumed it was a normal 19 rainfall not a flood condition and 20 they assumed the existing drainage 21 was working perfectly . 22 MS . READER : Mr . Capicotto , 23 the question I think he ' s asking 24 is - - I ' ve made a statement , as I 25 understood what he ' s saying and what Proceedings 123 0 1 Mr . Knopp was saying in terms of the 2 depression of the lane and the way 3 the water flows , is that if you took 4 the current flow of water and 5 assuming that up the road, the 6 higher catch basins as well there 7 are two , you have a flow of water as 8 happening on Bonnie Way it will 9 continue to flow the same way 10 through the property because of the 11 depression in this driveway and as 12 the water flows over the curb , if it 13 goes over the curb , or along the C14 driveway down that depression and 15 then through the McCarthys property 16 ultimately into the stream . And it • 17 doesn ' t involve any computations as 18 to whether or not the catch basins 19 are in fact working . So you can ' t 20 assume that they' re not working ; is 21 that correct? 22 MR . CAPICOTTO : That ' s 23 correct . 24 MR . DICHTER : So as I 25 understand what the Consulting L Proceedings 124 1 Engineer of the Town is now saying 2 is that the driveway cut will 3 relieve the same amount of water as 4 presently crosses the curb and 5 crosses the entire 60 foot frontage 6 of the property . 7 MR . CAPICOTTO : There is no 8 reason why the water won ' t cross the 9 curb in addition to the driveway 10 cut . 11 MS . READER : It ' s not going 12 to be prevented anymore after the 13 construction of the property, as I 14 understand , than it is now . 15 MR . DICHTER : Except that 16 there is a driveway on the 17 right -hand side of the property . • 18 MS . READER : The driveway is 19 contoured in such a way as to assist 20 the flow of the water . 21 MR . DICHTER : The water that 22 now flows doesn ' t jump the curb , it 23 stays there . It flows directly 24 through the area that is shown on 25 the plans to be the driveway into Proceedings 125 © 1 the stream . That route I think from 2 reading the plans will be blocked 3 because there will be a driveway 4 there . 5 MR . CAPICOTTO : It will flow 6 over the driveway and across in the 7 same northern direction as it was 8 currently flowing . 9 MR . DICHTER : I think in the 10 absence of seeing any drawings to 11 show how this driveway - - I think 12 quite frankly that this Board and 13 the neighbors should know that there 14 is a basis for that calculation 15 because we do not know what this - - 16 MR . DARSKY : What was your 17 proposal ? You ' ve been here four or 18 five times - - 19 MR . DICHTER : Well , - - 20 MR . DARSKY : I don' t think I 21 talk a whole lot so please let me 22 just get through this . You have 23 said repeatedly , and I think that 24 Mr . Press alluded to something 25 similar , that you ' d like to see some L Proceedings 126 0 1 calculations before the Board . And 2 Mr . Potter has been before the Board 3 and he ' s written some letters , some 4 extremist letters and he has been 5 unable to convince Malcolm Pernie of 6 his assertion . What would you do , 7 bring another Mr . Potter or another 8 Mr . Potter? If you could have the 9 best of all possible worlds , other 10 than just having the Board vote this 11 down now, how would you like this to 12 play out ? 13 MR . DICHTER : Mr . Darsky , 14 that ' s a fair question . I think 15 that Mr . Potter is correct and I 16 don ' t think Mr . Capicotto would 17 disagree , Mr . Capicotto ' s 18 calculations took into account a 19 normal rainfall with all the other 20 drainage systems on the street 21 working . He did not take into the 22 account a flood situation . There is 23 nothing in the calculations where 24 Mr . Capicotto , and I think he said 25 this to the Board , he suggested that Proceedings 127 1 this pipe could be placed in the 2 current 60 foot frontage . He was 3 referring to a normal rainfall where 4 it just rains . 5 MR . DARSKY : Mr . Capicotto 6 has said that they have a zero sum 7 game here if this property is 8 improved . Meaning that it will be 9 no worse . If the drainage pipes 10 become dammed it ' s not going to be 11 worse because of the driveway cut . 12 So what would you like to see happen 13 if you could have the best of all 14 possible worlds , other than us 15 voting down this improvement? 16 MR . DICHTER : Mr . Darsky , 17 you ' re correct , but - - what would we 18 have done , what would we like to 19 see? Neither you or anyone else on 20 this Board has any idea of what this 21 driveway will look like , where the 22 Belgium blocks will be , how high it 23 will be , how high it will be spaced 24 and therefore it cannot form a 25 conclusion . I heard him say it will Proceedings 128 1 result in a zero sum game , but with 2 all due respect without having seen 3 these blocks - - 4 MR . DARSKY : Mr . Dichter , you 5 can ' t just build a driveway without 6 a house to see if it works . 7 MR . CAPICOTTO : Can I just 8 say - - 9 MR . DICHTER : You can do a 10 blow up picture , you can blow up a 11 picture . Mr . Capicotto , at this 12 Board Meeting you asked about one of 13 the elevations . It ' s important to 14 this Board to consider whether or 15 not the driveway will work . I think 16 that it needs some greater 17 consideration . 18 MR . DARSKY : But that ' s 19 generic , please give specifics so 20 that I can consider what you want . 21 MR . CAPICOTTO : Can I just 22 say this , we cannot in the 23 Freshwater Wetlands review process 24 ask someone who wants to build a 25 house or an improvement to come in Proceedings 129 1 with complete drawings for the house 2 creating the entire package for a 3 permit review . Therefore , that ' s 4 why we work off of this drawing . 5 However , once the Board makes 6 this a condition of the permit then 7 when it goes to construction Mr . 8 Carpaneto will be there to enforce 9 and make sure that this provision is 10 carried through and if necessary he 11 will call me to come out and take a 12 look at this to make sure that when 13 they ' re putting this in that we do 14 have that ditch and we do have 15 adequate drainage from the road to 16 the brook . 17 MR . KNOPP : Some may - - 18 MR . DICHTER : With all due 19 respect that seems to be a point for 20 deliberation . The law, however , 21 says that in order for a Wetlands 22 permit to be issued - - 23 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , 24 this isn ' t a debate . 25 MR . DICHTER : I disagree with Proceedings 130 © 1 that . 2 MS . READER : You have said 3 what you think is the standards . We 4 have our legal advisor to tell us as 5 to what the law is . 6 MR . DARSKY : As you stand 7 here do you have a one sentence 8 answer to this ? 9 MR . DICHTER : What I want to 10 see done is I want to see enough 11 engineering data presented to Mr . 12 Capicotto and to this Board and to 13 somebody that we would like to have (11: 14 look at it so that somebody can make 15 an intelligent decision as to 16 whether or not - - 17 MR . DARSKY : Unfortunately, 18 he says he ' s got enough . 19 MR . DAVIS : The question 20 isn ' t whether there is enough . The 21 question is under the Board' s 22 discretion after having been advised 23 by the Town Consulting Engineer you 24 have had the opportunity during the 25 hearings to present other Proceedings 131 © 1 engineering information as to 2 substantiality or with respect to 3 the adequacy of the planning of the 4 Town Engineer have been discussing 5 eventually that becomes - - 6 MR . DICHTER : There is 7 nothing on those plans , there is 8 nothing that we heard other than the 9 Belgium blocks like the - - 10 MR . DAVIS : I ' m not arguing 11 that . All I ' m saying is that you ' ve 12 made that point and the Board has 13 listened and the Board has to make a • . C 14 determination about whether the 15 plans are sufficient or not 16 sufficient in order to proceed . 17 MR . DICHTER : And my 18 suggestion is that the information 19 before the Board is not sufficient 20 to support - - 21 MR . DAVIS : I understand 22 that . 23 MR . KNOPP : He ' s saying that 24 the driveway, the proposed 25 elevations of the driveway , the L Proceedings 132 1 proposed top of the driveway has 2 changed since the last meeting , but 3 it was filed on December 23rd - - 4 MS . READER : I don ' t want to 5 hear that . Just describe the 6 driveway, what is the driveway going 7 to be made of? What material , do 8 you know? 9 MR . KNOPP : Asphalt . Crushed 10 stone basically with asphalt on top 11 with the Belgium blocks on the 12 outside . 13 MS . READER : And with gaps in 14 between the Belgium blocks . 15 MR . KNOPP : On the one side 16 to alleviate any water that may 17 build up . 18 MS . READER : There will be 19 Belgium block curbing on both sides 20 of the driveway? 21 MR . KNOPP : Unless you don' t 22 want it . I mean that ' s it . 23 DR . MASON : We ' d like 24 goldplate , but you know - - 25 MRS . PRESS : Can I say Proceedings 133 1 something? 2 MS . READER : Just a short 3 statement . 4 MRS . PRESS : To answer your 5 question in a one sentence answer 6 we ' d like to have some more 7 engineers come and look at this . We 8 don ' t feel that the Town has done a 9 competent job within - - 10 MR . DARSKY : Hold on . You 11 have had your own engineer . That ' s 12 not fair . Let me just preface my 13 remark with saying that Mr . Potter \✓ 14 was unable either in person or 15 absentia to convince Malcolm Pernie 16 on his assertion . So you would like 17 another Mr . Potter , is that what 18 you ' re saying? 19 MRS . PRESS : Yes , because the 20 Board - - because what is going on in 21 the street with the way the flooding 22 is now we ' re taking your advice and 23 there has been a problem - - 24 THE AUDIENCE : I agree . 25 MRS . PRESS : The Consulting vjlommommmimmimmmomm Proceedings 134 1 Engineer is making the decisions fo 2 the Town and we do not feel that ' s 3 competent because based on the past 4 11 years we ' ve had nothing done in 5 the flood area . 6 MR . DARSKY : I kind of see 7 that as a little inflammatory . 8 MRS . PRESS : I don ' t mean 9 to - - okay . 10 MR . DARSKY : I ' m really 11 trying very hard to find out what 12 the neighborhood would like to do , 13 you know . What you ' re saying is 14 that you would like to retain 15 another consulting engineer to 16 validate Mr . Potter ' s assertions , is 17 that what you ' re saying? 18 MRS . PRESS : Or have a 19 reasonable third party come in . 20 MR . DARSKY : Mr . Dichter , 21 you ' re shaking your head no . We 22 need to know what you folks would 23 like to do . We ' re really trying to 24 find out . 25 MR . DICHTER : Mr . Potter Proceedings 135 1 looked at the calculations that Mr . 2 Pernie - - Malcolm Pernie made 3 available . It turns out that those 4 calculations are the only thing the 5 Board is considering, but they don ' t 6 address the situation , which is the 7 flooding . So now we ' re told the 8 driveway can solve the problem . 9 MR . KNOPP : Absolutely not , I 10 have not - - 11 MS . READER : Okay, Mr . Knopp . 12 I had questioned Mr . Capicotto and I 13 thought I had heard you say that 14 even if you used Mr . Potter ' s 15 calculations with his formula he ' s 16 indicated that the drainage is 17 sufficient with the ten percent 18 reserve . 19 MR . CAPICOTTO : Yes , for the 20 area I have - - for the area that it 21 was designed for . 22 MS . READER : For the area 23 that it was designed for . Mr . 24 Potter ' s letters say that you have 25 to include a different area because Proceedings 136 C1 of the drainage that doesn ' t work in 2 that other area and that ' s - - we ' ve 3 dealt with this question before on 4 this project and that is , is this 5 piece of property - - it ' s not 6 obligated to relieve the pathology 7 of the area and the drainage system . 8 Just that in itself will not 9 exacerbated the situation ; am I 10 correct ? 11 MR . DARSKY : The assumption 12 that I ' m working on is that we have 13 a zero sum game here . 14 MR . DICHTER : But this 15 property is in a controlled area and 16 it ' s a controlled area because of 60 17 feet of frontage that does now drain 18 the street . 19 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , 20 you ' ve said that before . You ' ve 21 said it many times before . It 22 doesn ' t need to be repeated again . 23 Do you have anything that has not 24 been said before? 25 DR . MASON : I move to close Proceedings 137 1 the meeting . g 2 MS . READER : Do either of the 3 sides have anything that has not 4 been said before? 5 MR . DARSKY : I need to know 6 if a formal request is being made 7 for them to bring another engineer . 8 I need to know if a formal request 9 is being made to retain another 10 engineer either to validate or 11 invalidate the findings that were 12 made before us . 13 MR . PRESS : Having been 14 brought to this party late I am 15 saying that we would like to do 16 that . If you could give us the name 17 of another engineer we would like to 18 bring another engineer . 19 And the reason for that is if 20 it ' s going to be a zero sum game 21 that ' s fine with us . Being 22 neighbors on the street we would 23 like to have an option to do that . 24 We have not conferred amongst our 25 neighbors . We would do this Proceedings 138 (:) 1 ourselves and we would not rely on 2 them to pitch in on this , we would 3 do this ourselves . If there is a 4 problem there we want to feel 5 confident that if this project goes 6 through that the project will get no 7 worse . 8 There would be a separate 9 issue . We have to know that the 10 building of this project will not 11 add to the problem that exists on 12 the street . If it ' s the drains 13 itself that ' s fine , but what we 14 don ' t feel comfortable with is 15 whether that will address the prior 16 problem of flooding and make it 17 worse . I ' d like to be able to bring 18 in an engineer . 19 MR . DARSKY : That is a fair 20 request . 21 MR . DICHTER : We would like 22 to have an engineer look at this 23 proposed situation with the 24 driveway . We would like to know how 25 high the Belgium blocks are going to 41111111 Proceedings 139 C 1 be , so it can be based on 2 intelligent calculations , what the 3 spacing between the blocks is , so it 4 will be based on intelligent 5 calculations , how long the depressed 6 area is going to be before it starts 7 climbing up again , because quite 8 frankly, the level of detail with 9 respect to this driveway is 10 inadequate to allow anybody to know 11 those things . In order to make a 12 calculation as to whether it ' s going 13 to be effective you have to know 14 those things . 15 MS . READER : Mr . Dichter , do 16 you have anything that you haven ' t 17 said? 18 MR . DICHTER : Yes . Tonight 19 is the first night that anybody 20 said , in the Public Hearing , that 21 something other than the drainage 22 system that has been examined 23 already was going to be useful in 24 alleviating - - not alleviating , but 25 not making the problem worse . Proceedings 140 1 DR . MASON : This came up in 2 last month ' s meeting . There was a 3 whole discussion about using the 4 driveway as a relief valve . 5 MR . KNOPP : Absolutely, this 6 is - - I think that this is the fifth 7 meeting that we ' ve been to , the 8 first four had no revisions to this 9 plan . This is the first revision 10 because it came up at the last 11 meeting . This revision was filed on 12 December 23rd and mailed on that day 13 to the - - 14 MS . READER : I don ' t want to 15 get into this . This is not helping 16 us move along at this point . 17 MR . PAPAZIAN : Madam 18 Chairwoman , I think presentations 19 have been made on both sides at this 20 particular point in time . We ' ve 21 heard both sides , we ' ve heard both 22 consulting engineers and I think at 23 this particular point in time it ' s 24 my personal preference not to • 25 entertain another engineer . I think Proceedings 141 1 we have much - - or a lot of 2 information before us right now that 3 we can make a decision one way or 4 another to move this one forward . 5 DR . MASON : I absolutely 6 agree with Mr . Papazian . 7 MS . READER : Mr . Darsky? 8 MR . DARSKY : My preference is 9 to allow the Press ' to retain their 10 own expert if we can conclude this 11 matter in 30 days from now . If you 12 can - - this is my preference , if you 13 can retain an engineer and do these 14 studies and have the meeting with 15 the engineer retained by the Town , 16 explain those findings and bring it 17 here , I guess , 21 days from now . 18 You need to have that brought to you 19 before that or whatever time you 20 like . 21 MR . PRESS : We will move 22 expeditiously . 23 MR . DARSKY : I am only 24 speaking for myself . 25 MR . PRESS : I understand . I Proceedings 142 C 1 just want you to know that we will 2 move in an expeditious manner . 3 MR . DARSKY : That would be my 4 preference to allow them to have 5 that last shot because I think the 6 issues that have been raised are 7 serious issues . 8 DR . MASON : I disagree with 9 Mr . Darsky . I feel that all the 10 serious issues have been addressed . 11 MR . DARSKY : And I respect 12 that . 13 MS . READER : Mr . Papazian? C14 MR . PAPAZIAN : I think that 15 the problem unfortunately persisted 16 for many years in the neighborhood 17 as far as the flooding situation is 18 concerned . Once again we have to 19 look to see what is the difference 20 here . We ' re looking at this one 21 piece of property, we ' re not looking 22 at the neighborhood unfortunately . 23 And we have to make a decision as 24 far as the one piece of property is 25 concerned and I think with the L Proceedings 143 C1 amount of material before us now we 2 can make that decision . 3 MS . READER : Okay . I think 4 this may end up falling on my 5 shoulders for this one . I think I ' m 6 inclined to feel - - 7 MR . DARSKY : Mr . Knopp , what 8 hardship would a 30 day delay cause 9 you , other than the fact that you 10 have to spend another evening with 11 us , what hardship would a 30 day 12 delay present for you? And I mean 13 real hardship not just that he (: 14 doesn ' t want to be here . 15 MR . KNOPP : In that case 16 none , but I have to say to the Board - - 17 I mean five meetings . 18 MR . DARSKY : I understand . 19 MS . READER : You had been 20 forewarned . 21 MR . KNOPP : Absolutely , 22 positively , but my personal feeling 23 is that we ' ve hashed it out . 24 MS . READER : Personally , I 25 feel that we probably have Proceedings 144 1 sufficient information , but given 2 the concerns , though , and the 3 flooding issues and the willingness 4 of the Press ' to seek to retain 5 another consulting engineer I will 6 go along with the side that says 7 let ' s give you a 30 day period and 8 keep the Public Hearing open for 9 another 30 days and then we ' ll make 10 our decision thereafter . But I do 11 want you to know your consultant ' s 12 report is needed . Is 14 days enough 13 time or do you need more? 14 MR . KNOPP : I ' d like to have 15 a chance to respond to it if I need 16 to . In which case , if it ' s 14 days 17 I ' m showing up at the meeting with 18 it . 19 MS . READER : How about you 20 get it in in ten days? 21 MR . PRESS : I have to ask a 22 question ; assuming I retained an 23 engineer tomorrow, and I ' m not sure , 24 I ' ll look in the Yellow Pages and 25 get an engineer , how long in real Proceedings 145 1 time would it take an engineer 2 dedicated to this project to 3 assemble the information? 4 MR . DARSKY : Well , the 5 information is already at nauseam so 6 he can use certain verified facts . 7 It ' s not as though he has to 8 reconstruct the information . He can 9 use the available information and 10 then reach his own conclusions which 11 is what we ' re allowing you to do . 12 MS . READER : If it ' s 13 accomplished it ' s accomplished , if 14 it ' s not it ' s not . 15 MR . DAVIS : If we allow you 16 to retain an engineer will you 17 retain an engineer? 18 MR . PRESS : And the answer is 19 absolutely and we recognize that we 20 came in late . I ' m trying to figure 21 out if I give $5 , 000 to an engineer 22 is it feasible - - 23 MS . READER : You are going to 24 have to discuss that with your 25 engineer . Proceedings 146 1 MR . DAVIS : Have him deal 2 with the present and not criticize 3 for the past . 4 MS . READER : You discuss it 5 when you pay someone . 6 MR . DARSKY : Being the person 7 that ' s kind of being disagreeable 8 with my mates here , my reasoning is 9 as follows ; these folks have had a 10 long time to deal with these issues 11 and they have had engineers here and 12 they' ve had him write a letter from 13 someone else and you haven ' t had 14 that , fair enough . 15 DR . MASON : There is no 16 conflict with their engineer as far 17 as whether or not the conclusion is 18 whether the water - - 19 MR . DARSKY : Let me be very 20 clear , I ' m not too interested in the 21 piping . You can have your engineer 22 do whatever you want . What I am 23 interested in is knowing whether or 24 not the house as planned will make 25 the situation on the street in Proceedings 147 ® 1 question any worse . i see it as 2 basically an issue as whether the 3 driveway as planned and the curbing 4 as planned works . 5 Your engineer can say 6 anything they want , but if he comes 7 in here with a report that says that 8 the storm sewer won ' t work I will • 9 tell you that in my opinion you 10 probably wasted your money because I 11 assume the sewer will not work . I ' m 12 assuming that . 13 MR . PRESS : So are we . 14 MR . DARSKY : Now, if the Town 15 can do this plan and alleviate some 16 of the problems and I have no 17 problem with the Town doing that , 18 fine , if they can ' t you ' re no worse 19 off . So I ' m really looking at the 20 driveway which will really kind of 21 cut down I think on what your 22 engineer has to do , he doesn ' t have 23 to look at all those clogged sewers 24 and logs and leaves , none of that . 25 I don' t want pictures - - I don ' t Proceedings 148 1 want to see that . I would like to 2 know whether this driveway as 3 planned works . It should cut down 4 on the time , it should cut down on 5 the expenses . 6 MR . KNOPP : If I may, if the 7 driveway works to accomplish what , 8 to drain the street ? 9 MR . DARSKY : I would like 10 someone to tell me that this house 11 is either going to make this a whole 12 lot worse , the same or a whole lot 13 better? 14 MR . KNOPP : As it affects the 15 protected Wetlands in the rear of 16 the property? 17 MR . DARSKY : As it affects 18 the flooding on the street . 19 MR . KNOPP : I have an 20 unrelated question . First , in that 21 case I ' d like to know on what legal 22 or whatever basis the Town of 23 Mamaroneck is going to require me - - 24 I ' m not saying that I ' m opposed to 25 this , I ' m clearly not opposed to Proceedings 149 1 working with the Town , but I want to 2 know why they' re going to require me 3 to alleviate this localized 4 flooding? 5 MR . DARSKY : We ' re not . We 6 just need to know if you ' re going to 7 make it any worse . You do not need 8 to alleviate the problem . 9 MR . KNOPP : Okay . And the 10 second thing is - - 11 MS . READER : When you said 12 alleviate you ' re not refusing to put 13 the catch basin and the , um - - 14 MR . KNOPP : No , I clearly 15 haven' t refused to do that . That ' s 16 something that I was trying to do to 17 try to facilitate the process and it 18 hasn ' t worked to that extent . It 19 hasn ' t worked for what I planned it 20 to work for , but that ' s irrelevant . 21 MR . DARSKY : I think that ' s a 22 fair question . And I think I can 23 clear that up , you ' re not being 24 asked to alleviate anything . We 25 just don ' t want you to make it Proceedings 150 1 worse . 2 MR . KNOPP : The second thing 3 is this is my first Mamaroneck 4 Planning Board excursion and I don ' t 5 know how the neighbors get notified 6 or even if the neighbors get 7 notified about these applications . 8 For instance , in White Plains the 9 applicant is responsible for mailing 10 out notices to neighbors in a 11 specific perimeter . 12 MS . READER : The Freshwater 13 Wetlands notices are done by our 14 secretary who only sends them to 15 contiguous properties . 16 MR . KNOPP : So this 17 application is being held up even 18 though several members of the 19 Planning Board feel there is enough 20 information for them to make a 21 decision one way or another . But 22 the application is being held off to 23 allow time for somebody who has - - 24 who is not even entitled to notice 25 of the application . Proceedings 151 1 MS . READER : I recognize 2 that , but that applicant has to 3 drive through where this house may 4 or may not exacerbate the problem . 5 And if it exacerbates the problem 6 and he cannot get through to their 7 house because the flooding is even 8 worse than it is now . 9 You had indicated when Mr . 10 Darsky asked you a very straight 11 question , would you be prejudiced 12 and you said quite frankly you won ' t 13 be . So given - - 14 MR . KNOPP : No more so than 15 I ' ve already been is what I probably 16 should have said . I have bent over 17 backwards . 18 MS . READER : We ' re coming 19 into the winter months . 20 MR . KNOPP : We ' re coming out 21 of the winter months . 22 MR . DARSKY : I feel you ' re 23 entitled to know where I ' m at . I 24 think that the folks who have 25 expressed opposition to this project Proceedings 152 1 with their passion have good reason 2 because they have valuable property . 3 MR . KNOPP : Absolutely, and I 4 was out there on Sunday . 5 MR . DARSKY : There are health 6 and safety issues at stake . They 7 have brought up the issue of the 8 emergency equipment . I think these 9 are very, very, very important 10 concerns . And as people charged 11 with kind of deliberating on those 12 issues I personally think that we 13 can ' t dismiss it quite so lightly . 14 That ' s why I ' m willing to give them 15 one more bite at the apple . 16 MR . KNOPP : I can ' t disagree 17 with you , I can ' t , I wish I could . 18 Let me just say that this is 19 probably the first time that I 20 recall in this entire process that I 21 said anything remotely negative 22 about the timing or what was being 23 requested of me or anything . 24 MS . READER : We appreciate 25 that , Mr . Knopp . Proceedings 153 1 I am going to make a motion 2 to adjourn the Public Hearing . 3 MR . PAPAZIAN : Madam 4 Chairwoman , would you please tell us 5 what the time frame is . 6 MS . READER : Yes . 7 MR . DAVIS : You have to be 8 very clear on whatever the 9 submission is and when it is due and 10 that if it ' s not in by a certain 11 time then it ' s not in . 12 MR . DARSKY : I think you have 13 to tell them how much time so Mr . 14 Knopp will have some input and you 15 have to tell them when we are going 16 to meet . And again , we ' re trying to 17 limit this to the driveway issue to 18 make life easier for everyone . 19 MR . KNOPP : I don ' t have my 20 calendar with me . 21 MS . READER : February 10th is 22 the next meeting and two weeks 23 before that would be January 27th . 24 MR . DAVIS : Which is two 25 weeks from today . A little less Proceedings 154 1 than two weeks from that would be 2 January 25th which gives - - which is 3 three - - 4 MS . READER : That is really 5 only eight working days . How about 6 it has to be in by January 27th , 7 that is a Friday - - that is a 8 Wednesday, to the office . 9 I ' m going to bend the rules 10 and your engineer can submit a copy 11 directly to Mr . Knopp . Can we do 12 this ? 13 MR . KNOPP : That ' s pretty 14 much what we have been doing with 15 the rest of us . 16 MS . READER : January 27th . 17 MR . DAVIS : In this office ' s 18 hands by 5 : 00 p . m . that day . 19 MR . PRESS : We need to have 20 how we can reach you . 21 MS . READER : You want to give 22 them your address or card? 23 So that would be one copy 24 delivered to the secretary of the 25 Building Department , which is in Proceedings 155 1 this building down the hall , one is 2 to Mr . Capicotto and one to Mr . 3 Knopp . Thank you . That ' s by 4 January 27th at 5 : 00 p . m . 5 DR . MASON : And if Mr . Knopp 6 responds he has to do the same . 7 MS . READER : And the response 8 has to be in one week later , 9 February 3rd , I think that ' s 10 February 3rd . 11 MR . KNOPP : How about that 12 Friday to get it in? 13 MS . READER : If you get it 14 in - - we ' re asking you to get - - the 15 response should also go to them . 16 MR . CAPICOTTO : Can we go to 17 that Friday because the meeting is 18 on the 10th? 19 MS . READER : Okay . I want 20 responses in by Friday, February 21 5th . You have to give one to us and 22 one to the Press ' , and also one to 23 the Dichters and to Marguerite our 24 secretary . And that ' s by - - before 25 5 : 00 p . m . actually, I ' d like it to Proceedings 156 1 Marguerite by 3 : 00 p . m . 2 MR . PRESS : We appreciate the 3 Board ' s consideration . 4 MR . DARSKY : It is fair to 5 say that we ' re just dealing with the 6 driveway and we ' re not dealing with 7 the storm drains ? 8 MS . READER : You can do 9 anything . 10 MR . PRESS : We understand you 11 don ' t want any stuff about storm 12 drains because I ' m assuming that 13 until they ' re repaired they don ' t 14 work . So I ' m not interested in 15 that . 16 MS . READER : I am willing to 17 listen about storm drains , but Mr . 18 Potter ' s answer found the storm 19 drains within ten percent for a 20 ten-year flood . There is no 21 obligation for a 25 -year flood . 22 MR . DICHTER : He didn ' t say 23 that for the record . 24 MR . PRESS : We understand . 25 MS . READER : We ' re not Proceedings 157 i putting on this piece of property - - 2 it ' s not the burden of this 3 applicant to alleviate the entire 4 flooding more than he ' s doing . It ' s 5 in a flood plain . 6 MR . PAPAZIAN : I move to 7 close the Public Hearing . 8 MS . READER : I would move to 9 adjourn the Public Hearing . 10 MR . PAPAZIAN : So the Public 11 Hearing will be kept open until next 12 month . 13 DR . MASON : I want to put my 14 objection on the record , I do not 15 feel that that ' s appropriate . We 16 feel that we have enough information 17 and that these are just obligatory 18 tactics in spite of everything that 19 we have . And I feel he ' s being 20 prejudiced . 21 MS . READER : Okay . 22 MR . KNOPP : Good night 23 everybody . 24 MS . READER : February 10th . 25 Proceedings 158 1 MS . READER : The reason that 2 Ms . Aisen recused herself last time 3 was because she lives in that 4 community , and she appropriately 5 recused herself from considering 6 that matter . She ' s basically 7 sitting up here as a 8 non-participating member of the 9 Board for this particular matter . 10 - - _ a 11 is Special Permit - Ming ' s Chine - e 12 Buffet , Inc . , Edward A . Davidson - 13 1265 Boston Post Road - Blo• 412 , 14 lot 449 . 15 MR . DAVIDSON : name is 16 Edward Davidson . I ' , here for the 17 application for a pecial Permit of 18 the full servic - , sit down , Chinese 19 restaurant i . the location that is 20 currently occupied by Nathan ' s . 21 clients are intending to 22 spen• upwards of $500 , 000 in 23 re • ovations and repairs to the 24 .uilding . 25 DR _ MASON : Mr . Davidoon , you '