HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_06_10 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
JUNE 10, 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
?A 1°
Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman
Richard H. Darsky
C. Alan Mason (RECEIVED t
Stephen Andrew Moser
Edmund Papazian AM 22
39J
Absent: May W. Aisen
Linda S. Harrington O `�/
l /6 $�
Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel
Philip A. Leger, Consulting Engineer
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 7:15 p.m..
Ms. Reader said this is an informal meeting to review the proposed amendments to the Town of
Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance relating to the regulation of food related retail establishments and hours
of operation for retail establishments.
Steve Altieri, Town Administrator, introduced James Athey, the new Environmental Coordinator of the
Town of Mamaroneck who will be attending the Planning Board meetings every month and will continue
to serve as liaison with Coastal Zone Management(CZMC). Mr. Alfieri said additional staff support will
be provided to Mr. Athey in the future as needed as applications are reviewed.
Mr. Altieri said the zoning ordinance the Board received was drafted by Ferrandino&Associates who will
give a quick preview of the ordinance, after which questions will be answered and comments taken. The
Board will then present written recommendations to the Town Board regarding this ordinance.
Mr. Ferrandino said in December of 1996, the Town Board opted to review fast food establishments in
the Town through a six month moratorium to analyze the situation with respect to existing fast-food uses
and the impacts they are providing as well as the potential for new fast-food food related uses. The
moratorium that was established in December, was extended by three months, and will end on or about
September 4, 1997. Hopefully at that point in time there will be a new ordinance in place.
Mr. Ferrandino said when retained by the Town to review the existing ordinance, additional research was
performed reviewing several other communities that had similar profiles and problems related to food
related retail uses as well as hours of operation. Mr. Ferrandino said the firm came up with criteria that
would mitigate potential adverse environmental impact; i.e. traffic, noise, littering, etc.
Mr. Ferrandino said the Town of Mamaroneck is unique as most of the retail uses on the Post Road are
located adjacent to residential uses,recreational uses and petitional uses. Therefore, it is almost impossible
for these retail uses not to have any potential adverse environmental impact. Given that situation,
Ferrandino attempted to provide for a distance separation between certain food related retail uses; i.e. a
300 ft. distance parameter, after considering various footage separations and considering what the other
communities are doing as well as what the existing Route 1 corridor encompassed. Two specific definitions
were reached. Comments have been received to date on mending and/or fine tuning some of those
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 2
definitions and Mr. Ferrandino looks forward to suggestions the Board might have. The ordinance
proposed will allow the existing uses to continue, legal nonconforming uses. Any new uses would have
to meet the 300 ft. distance parameter which basically serves both needs, existing uses as well as any
potential uses, and does not prohibit any potential new uses but restricts and controls them through the
special use permit. Several other communities similar to Mamaroneck have utilized the special use permits
vehicle very successfully and it can be utilized in Mamaroneck. Data was collected documenting existing
conditions, analysis of traffic impact and certain types of food related uses that have greater traffic
generation than others; i.e. standard sit-down restaurant has less traffic related impact than a fast-food
restaurant or a convenience store. The three primary uses, convenience store, fast-food restaurant and
take-out, need to have the most control.
Mr. Ferrandino said hours of operation was also addressed. At the present time any of the food related
retail uses in the Town can operate 24 hours a day, there is no protection. Ferrandino suggested 5:30 a.m.
to 1:30 a.m. as the time frame, which was done by comparison analysis. Discussions were held with
Charlene Indelicato,Esq.and Judith M.Gallent,Esq.,hence the current proposal to the existing ordinance.
DISCUSSIONS WERE HELD REGARDING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THE BOARD WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT:
1. What the problems are regarding the regulation and hours of operation of food related retail
establishments.
2. Looking at the Boston Post Road corridor, especially between McDonald's, the Village of
Mamaroneck and Lexus, properties adjacent to commercial districts are important because of the
schools and Town recreation facilities. Traffic during these hours are horrible.
3. The substitute pages submitted did not show the changes, and an explanation of the modifications
was requested.
4. Due to the fact that the corridor along the Boston Post Road on Route 1 is not long,lineal distance
was discussed.
5. The Board was concerned about a 300 ft. separation, as it seemed small, and a buffer distance has
not been considered for two critical spots; i.e. Weaver Street and Route 1, which should have
more than 300 ft. and be considered a food-dry area. The buffer for Dillon Road was also
addressed; i.e. Staples shopping center.
6. Do parking regulations change if present store uses change and become a restaurant.
7. Due to traffic related problems at that particular intersection, Weaver Street and Route 1, the 300
ft. distance parameter might not apply and a different formula might be needed.
8. Where is the Urban Renewal area relative to the area in question, and can there be different
requirements. Ms. Indelicato said that it probably could be put into the Urban Renewal criteria,
but it would not supersede the zoning in that area.
9. The Urban Renewal area is the bank, GAP, Block Buster, Hommocks Apartments Parking area
and the old Giant Carpet.
10. There can be more restrictive requirements on the overlays, but zoning cannot be rewritten by the
overlay. Cannot take a use permitted as-of-right and say it is not permitted, but the ordinance can
add a distance separation.
The Urban Renewal criteria is not necessarily within the zoning ordinance.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 3
11. Limit the separation distance for restaurants.
12. Fast-food and convenience stores are changing rapidly. Definition should be more specific as
listed. (referred to page 39, sub(2)(f) fast-food; multiple use, SB use, fast-food is allowed under
B, but not in(f);
Paragraphs may have been inverted; should be switched.
13. Reasons why separation restrictions; i.e. 300 ft., 400 ft., 500 ft. are needed, other than being
theoretical.
14. Addressing plans of the future; i.e. the food industry is changing, chains are combining with one
another and there is potential on the Boston Post Road of this occurring. Marketing industry states
businesses do better when they congregate in one area. Part of the research submitted is a chart
of retail outlets. Traffic, signage and garbage can be dealt with; see what the Village of
Mamaroneck has done on the Boston Post Road with Boston Market and McDonald's installing
no}left turn signs. Individuals make left-hand turns anyway. Traffic enforcement has a limited
effect.
15. Theoretically having a food establishment every 300 ft.down the Boston Post Road corridor would
be worse than having eight in a row next to each other in areas not near the Weaver Street, Route
1 area.
Ms. O'Keeffe said there has been a significant change in the pedestrian traffic on the Boston Post
Road, to wit: children walking to the Hommocks middle school,new kiddie/swimming pool built
at the Hommocks, the day camp children. It is reasonable to try to restrict the traffic going over
sidewalks on the Boston Post Road.
16. In these regulations it is necessary for the Town to predict what might be occurring, investigate
other communities where it has not been regulated and controlled and act reasonably, with a
certain amount of vision.
17. The accidents in the area of Dunkin Donuts, and extending the separation distance in that area.
Also at the school intersection.
Ms. O'Keeffe said she was not aware of any statutes available to compare that would indicate
what is or is not a reasonable separation.
18. Existing uses would be grandfathered.
19. Clarify the fact; two fast-food restaurants must be separated by 300 ft. or a convenience store and
a sub-category store has to be 300 ft. from each other.
Ms. Indelicato said any one of those must be separated by 300 ft.
20. When an overlap occurs between the Town's ordinance and the two villages, is there any other
property where there is an overlap other than McDonald's(signage being the issue), and how do
'both parties agree.
21. A question arose regarding the distance rule in Larchmont; i.e. 100 ft. or 1,000 ft.; Village of
Mamaroneck 200 ft., the Town 300 ft.
(1. COMMENTS MADE BY MR.FERRANDINO REGARDING THE CONCERNS OF THE BOARD:
1. The problem at the present time is the existing proliferation of food related retail uses, primarily
along the Boston Post Road,are causing certain types of traffic conflicts;i.e. overflow of parking.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 4
There are problems with noise and litter from the existing uses. If the uses are allowed to
proliferate, as they would be under the existing ordinance, the impacts would become much more
pronounced, hence the proposed distance separation.
2. In the legislative intent of the ordinance that is stated clearly in the analysis at the end of the
report there is hard data, and Mr. Ferrandino can give projections on traffic, etc.
3. Mr. Ferrandino said the final draft was submitted after which the Town Building Inspector
reviewed same and had some minor changes which were replaced with the modified pages.
Internal inconsistencies were addressed as a result of the building inspector's final review.
4. The lineal footage along the Boston Post Road, Route 1, is approximately 5,000 ft.
5. Mr. Ferrandino asked if the Weaver Street and Route 1 area should be considered a food-dry
area, and addressed the other areas of concern.
6. Mc. Ferrandino said parking regulations for restaurants is a use change and would be subject to
site plan review.
7. Mr. Ferrandino said it can be approached through Urban Renewal overlay, restricting certain uses.
8. Agreed paragraphs should be inverted; page 39, sub(2) (f) fast-food; multiple use, SB use, fast-
food is allowed under B, but not in (f).
9. Why restrict; fast-food, convenience store, take-out generally generate a lot more litter, garbage,
etc. than a sit-down restaurant or shoe store, whatever. The closer they are, the more problem
there will be. Combine the traffic issue and potential overflow parking issue, particularly on
Route 1, a heavily trafficked corridor, with noise and litter in a recreation, school and residential
area it potentially causes problems;i.e. adverse environmental impact. The separation is designed
to address those issues. What is suggested is a compromise controlling future uses, subjecting
them to review by Boards; i.e. site plan review, signage, seating. Definitions are as specific as
they can be.
10. Different combinations were reviewed of distances at schools, residences, whatever, and other
than the 300 ft. criteria a lot of the issues were eliminated. The 300 ft. separation was a
compromise to allow certain uses to continue without prohibiting the uses. With the 300 ft.
distance parameter, there is still a special permit provision where certain criteria is reviewed; i.e.
traffic, parking, and each application is reviewed individually.
11. Site plan review must always be adhered to in use changes, and it depends where the expanding
will occur.
12. The distance in Larchmont is 100 ft. not 1,000 ft., the Village of Mamaroneck 200 ft., the Town
300 ft.
The Board reviewed the zoning map regarding the Business District and various radius' noticed for
meetings.
After a lengthy discussion regarding the separation distance, buffer, overlay, types of uses, traffic, special
permit criteria, grandfathering, available vacant land in the Post Road corridor and lot lines, new and/or
expanded stand-alone use, hours of operation, language changes regarding the proposed ordinance, Board
reviews, the Board stated the following:
1.10
The village of Larchmont separation is 100 ft. from each use, 100 ft. from a major intersection.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 5
It is important to enforce item#iv. page 35; "existing,food-related uses are permitted to continue operating
as pre-existing non-conforming uses, but upon discontinuance of a non-conforming use for more than one
(1) year, such establishment shall conform to the provisions of this code."
The hours of operation for all retail uses shall be limited to 5:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Page 37,definition of Supermarkets: might include"Supermarkets" may contain accessory retail specialties
such as, and then continue with the language in the draft.
Page 37, Take-out Food Establishment;Bakery: the word bakery is confusing. Mr. Ferrandino will look
into this item.
A discussion ensued regarding page 44, Pre-existing Food-related Retail Business: if someone builds a
fast-food establishment adjacent to the Town line 300 ft. away from anything else across the Town line,
and someone builds something in the Village closer than 300 ft. to that store does it becoming a non-
conforming pre-existing use.
Ms. Indelicate said it would only occur at the time there was an abandonment for one year.
Ms. Gallent said it becomes a legal non-conforming use.
A discussion ensued regarding page 38,Business District B, where fast-food restaurants are not permitted.
Fast-food is listed under page 41, Service Business District, SB. The area on the Post Road being
discussed this evening as indicated on the map is a B District, not an SB District. The statute as written
may not juxtapose the desire. A discussion ensued regarding C. 2, paragraph f and paragraph #2 being
transposed; include fast-food in both District B and SB.
Ms. Gallent said the major arterial should be defined.
Ms. Reader asked for a consensus of the Board either in favor of or against recommending the ordinance
to the Town with certain recommendations.
Ms. Reader is in favor with certain modification; i.e. defining the major arterial, confirming whether SB
and B should state fast-foods, if so have the statute correlate that way, if only in one district make sure it
corresponds to the geographical area.
Mr.Darsky would like a comparison of all the material parts to neighbors on both sides before Mr. Darsky
will recommend it to the Town, because if it is inconsistent in any major way it will cause problems and
will not accomplish the purpose of the area.
Mr. Mason feels it requires an executive summary to make those comparisons, address the inconsistencies
and is not prepared to vote on recommending the ordinance at this time.
Ms. Reader said there should be some sort of limitation on development of types of food-related business
that generate greater traffic volume and have a buffer, so it is not permitted at the corner of Weaver Street
and Route 1.
Ms. Indelicato said there was a three month extension on the moratorium and it may have to be extended
further.
Ms. Reader mentioned to Mr. Altieri that as the statute is written at the current time, fast-food is not
allowed in the B district. However, the business district is the district described as wanting regulated fast-
food development. It may be an oversight that fast-food was forbidden in the B district.
Mr. Altieri said it was not an oversight, all the existing fast-food establishments will be grandfathered and
if nothing comes back in within one year it lapses.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 6
Mr. Darsky said to take out deli, not fast-food.
Mr. Moser said in one portion of the Boston Post Road it can occur and in another portion it cannot occur.
Mr. Altieri said that is correct. To exclude them totally would create a problem.
Dr. Mason said the area where the Town is excluding fast-food is the area where fast-foods currently exist
and the area suggested is not where fast-foods are.
Mr. Alfieri said the area suggested for use is an area where there is far less intensity of traffic and
pedestrians use, etc.
Ms. Reader said to clarify what is being discussed, fast-foods are prohibited by the statute in the area of
the Village of Larchmont border to McDonald's, no fast-foods will be allowed in the future if there is a
one year lapse. On page 39, C(2)(f) delete fast-food.
Ms. Reader asked Mr. Altieri to explain how this proposed ordinance differs or conflicts with the Town's
neighbors in the two villages.
Mr. Altieri said the Larchmont ordinance was subject to some litigation in 1975 where they attempted to
exclude fast-foods throughout the village and it was overturned. Hence the Town has tried to limit fast-
food areas.
Ms. O'Keeffe said the Village of Larchmont does have an ordinance in effect. There is a law restricting
certain aspects of fast-foods. They don't allow dry foods. That is the reason the Roy Rogers' building
is still vacant.
Mr. Altieri referred the Board to page 12 of the information packet sent which has a description of the
Larchmont Ordinance, distance separation, etc. Mamaroneck Village has a moratorium on fast-foods at
the present time along Mamaroneck Avenue.
A discussion ensued regarding fast-food establishments being moved toward the area where is Staples
located on the Boston Post Road, rather than between McDonald's and Lexus. The proposed ordinance
is geared to gradual transition, moving the establishments to an area that is a congested area already.
Ms. Gallent made reference to various written documentation, stating a typical goal of turning something
into a nonconforming use is that it eventually becomes something conforming without depriving a person
of their constitutional rights. As long as individuals do not seek operation for more than one year,
it is permitted.
Mr. Reader said it permits a status quo. In a sense of permitting a status quo and not increasing the area
from Lexus to McDonald's, it is a positive goal for the Town. Ms. Reader does not view it as trying to
force the businesses out.
A discussion ensued regarding page 35,B.iv;proposal for a new or expanded fast-food restaurant, take-out
food establishment, convenience store, or supermarket shall require site plan review, and whether there
would be Board of Architectural Review(BAR). BAR review would be held for signage, landscaping and
facade.
A discussion ensued regarding giving the BAR the authority to specify color combinations that are more
aesthetically pleasing; i.e. page 39 and 41.
1 Mr. Altieri said the Town Board has a hearing scheduled on this matter for next week, CZMC's comments
are needed because it is a Type I action and if those comments are not received the Town Board will have
to adjourn the hearing to the following meeting.
i
i
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 7
Ms. Indelicato said another hearing will not have to be held, unless there are substantial changes.
Ms. Gallent asked if the County Planning Board had been noticed, and it had.
Mr. Altieri said the Planning Board this evening will make recommendations and advise the Town Board.
Ms. Reader said that Mr. Altieri has given the Board a review on the Village and asked if the Board
supported the ordinance with the amendments suggested thus far and asked if there are any additional
amendments recommended.
Mr. Darsky said someone should take a look at both villages to see if there are inconsistencies that will
cause a problem in terms of legalities and cause the Town's ordinance to be inconsistent defeating its
purpose. All should be consistent with each other, so the purpose gets accomplished.
Dr. Mason said he believes it is a solid first step.
Mr. Papazip said he has a lot of problems with the ordinance, as he feels the business community does
not have an inkling of what is going on in the Town at the present time. Ms. Papazian has a problem with
the 24 hour regulation, does not know if it is necessary in the proposed areas and the report reflects that
only one store is 24 hours. Mr. Papazian knows of at least three or four retail stores open 24 hours at the
present time; i.e. CVS, Nautilus Diner, Stop&Shop. It might be unfair to future businesses coming into
the community that certain stores can be open 24 hours and certain ones are not. It is good to regulate the
community, but Mr. Papazian does not see the necessity of this law at this particular point in time as the
community is built up, it is not changing that much and he feels it is over regulation. Mr. Papazian cannot
recommend the proposed recommendations.
A discussion ensued regarding zoning variances, use variances, hardships and operating hours primarily
in regard to pharmacies.
Mr. Papazian does not feel the legislation is necessary, 24 hours being just one indication of it. Mr.
Papazian does not feel enough study has been done, or whether it is worth putting more time and effort
into further study.
A discussion ensued regarding legislation and existing stores in the area in relation to fast-food occupancy;
i.e. Giant Carpet
Mr. Papazian said the distance is so small and each issue should be addressed on an individual basis. The
Boards of the Town are adequate to handle same; i.e. Planning Board, Zoning Board and Board of
Architectural Review. Mr. Papazian does not feel legislation is needed.
Mr. Darsky questioned the need for 300 ft. fast-food distance separation.
Dr. Mason asked what impetus brought this on.
Mr. Altieri said the prospect of expanded fast-food use, which starts at the Town Board level.
Ms. Reader said there was a concern about multiple fast-food coming into the Town.
Mr. Alfieri said there is a possibility of Wendy's going into Nathan's,KFC into Taco Bell, Dunkin Donuts
going into Baskin Robbins, there is an empty restaurant where Don Emilio's is and this could be a
problem.
cor Mr. Papazian feels the market forces should work their way out, and does not feel legislation is necessary.
Ms. Reader said the Board's comments should include eliminating the time limitation,hours of operation.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 8
Mr. Moser would agree with the recommendation.
A discussion ensued regarding the proposed tenant for the Giant Carpet store, Kinko's, and the 24 hour
operation.
Ms. Gallent said hours of operation is included in the special permit application process.
A discussion ensued regarding limiting fast-foods on the Boston Post Road strip in certain locations.
Dr. Mason does not feel the 300 ft. separation regulation on such a short strip, the Boston Post Road, is
a worthy goal.
Mr. Papazian asked if gas stations with convenience stores inside were addressed in Mr. Ferrandino's
report.
Mr. Ferrandino said it is covered in the convenience store definition.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Reader, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at
9:00 p.m.
Marguerite o , Recording Secretary
S
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
JUNE 10, 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER
740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD
MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman
Richard H. Darsky
C. Alan Mason
Stephen Andrew Moser
Edmund Papazian
Absent: May W. Aisen
Linda S. Harrington
Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel
Philip A. Leger, Consulting Engineer
Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 7:15 p.m..
Ms. Reader said this is an informal meeting to review the proposed amendments to the Town of
Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance relating to the regulation of food related retail establishments and hours
of operation for retail establishments.
Steve Altieri, Town Administrator, introduced James Athey, the new Environmental Coordinator of the
Town of Mamaroneck who will be attending the Planning Board meetings every month and will continue
to serve as liaison with Coastal Zone Management(CZMC). Mr. Altieri said additional staff support will
be provided to Mr. Athey in the future as needed as applications are reviewed.
Mr. Altieri said the zoning ordinance the Board received was drafted by Ferrandino&Associates who will
give a quick preview of the ordinance, after which questions will be answered and comments taken. The
Board will then present written recommendations to the Town Board regarding this ordinance.
Mr. Ferrandino said in December of 1996, the Town Board opted to review fast food establishments in
the Town through a six month moratorium to analyze the situation with respect to existing fast-food uses
and the impacts they are providing as well as the potential for new fast-food food related uses. The
moratorium that was established in December, was extended by three months, and will end on or about
September 4, 1997. Hopefully at that point in time there will be a new ordinance in place.
Mr. Ferrandino said when retained by the Town to review the existing ordinance, additional research was
performed reviewing several other communities that had similar profiles and problems related to food
related retail uses as well as hours of operation. Mr. Ferrandino said the firm came up with criteria that
would mitigate potential adverse environmental impact; i.e. traffic, noise, littering, etc.
Mr. Ferrandino said the Town of Mamaroneck is unique as most of the retail uses on the Post Road are
located adjacent to residential uses, recreational uses and petitional uses. Therefore, it is almost impossible
for these retail uses not to have any potential adverse environmental impact. Given that situation,
Ferrandino attempted to provide for a distance separation between certain food related retail uses; i.e. a
300 ft. distance parameter, after considering various footage separations and considering what the other
communities are doing as well as what the existing Route 1 corridor encompassed. Two specific definitions
were reached. Comments have been received to date on mending and/or fine tuning some of those
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 2
definitions and Mr. Ferrandino looks forward to suggestions the Board might have. The ordinance
proposed will allow the existing uses to continue, legal nonconforming uses. Any new uses would have
to meet the 300 ft. distance parameter which basically serves both needs, existing uses as well as any
potential uses, and does not prohibit any potential new uses but restricts and controls them through the
special use permit. Several other communities similar to Mamaroneck have utilized the special use permits
vehicle very successfully and it can be utilized in Mamaroneck. Data was collected documenting existing
conditions, analysis of traffic impact and certain types of food related uses that have greater traffic
generation than others; i.e. standard sit-down restaurant has less traffic related impact than a fast-food
restaurant or a convenience store. The three primary uses, convenience store, fast-food restaurant and
take-out, need to have the most control.
Mr. Ferrandino said hours of operation was also addressed. At the present time any of the food related
retail uses in the Town can operate 24 hours a day, there is no protection. Ferrandino suggested 5:30 a.m.
to 1:30 a.m. as the time frame, which was done by comparison analysis. Discussions were held with
Charlene Indelicato,Esq.and Judith M.Gallent,Esq.,hence the current proposal to the existing ordinance.
DISCUSSIONS WERE HELD REGARDING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THE BOARD WAS
CONCERNED ABOUT:
1. What the problems are regarding the regulation and hours of operation of food related retail
establishments.
2. Looking at the Boston Post Road corridor, especially between McDonald's, the Village of
Mamaroneck and Lexus, properties adjacent to commercial districts are important because of the
schools and Town recreation facilities. Traffic during these hours are horrible.
3. The substitute pages submitted did not show the changes, and an explanation of the modifications
was requested.
4. Due to the fact that the corridor along the Boston Post Road on Route 1 is not long, lineal distance
was discussed.
5. The Board was concerned about a 300 ft. separation, as it seemed small, and a buffer distance has
not been considered for two critical spots; i.e. Weaver Street and Route 1, which should have
more than 300 ft. and be considered a food-dry area. The buffer for Dillon Road was also
addressed; i.e. Staples shopping center.
6. Do parking regulations change if present store uses change and become a restaurant.
7. Due to traffic related problems at that particular intersection, Weaver Street and Route 1, the 300
ft. distance parameter might not apply and a different formula might be needed.
8. Where is the Urban Renewal area relative to the area in question, and can there be different
requirements. Ms. Indelicato said that it probably could be put into the Urban Renewal criteria,
but it would not supersede the zoning in that area.
9. The Urban Renewal area is the bank, GAP, Block Buster, Hommocks Apartments Parking area
and the old Giant Carpet.
10. There can be more restrictive requirements on the overlays, but zoning cannot be rewritten by the
overlay. Cannot take a use permitted as-of-right and say it is not permitted, but the ordinance can
add a distance separation.
The Urban Renewal criteria is not necessarily within the zoning ordinance.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 3
11. Limit the separation distance for restaurants.
12. Fast-food and convenience stores are changing rapidly. Definition should be more specific as
listed. (referred to page 39, sub(2) (f) fast-food; multiple use, SB use, fast-food is allowed under
B, but not in(t);
Paragraphs may have been inverted; should be switched.
13. Reasons why separation restrictions; i.e. 300 ft., 400 ft., 500 ft. are needed, other than being
theoretical.
14. Addressing plans of the future; i.e. the food industry is changing, chains are combining with one
another and there is potential on the Boston Post Road of this occurring. Marketing industry states
businesses do better when they congregate in one area. Part of the research submitted is a chart
of retail outlets. Traffic, signage and garbage can be dealt with; see what the Village of
Mamaroneck has done on the Boston Post Road with Boston Market and McDonald's installing
no•left turn signs. Individuals make left-band turns anyway. Traffic enforcement has a limited
effect.
15. Theoretically having a food establishment every 300 ft.down the Boston Post Road corridor would
be worse than having eight in a row next to each other in areas not near the Weaver Street, Route
1 area.
Ms. O'Keeffe said there has been a significant change in the pedestrian traffic on the Boston Post
Road,to wit: children walking to the Hommocks middle school,new kiddie/swimming pool built
at the Hommocks, the day camp children. It is reasonable to try to restrict the traffic going over
sidewalks on the Boston Post Road.
16. In these regulations it is necessary for the Town to predict what might be occurring, investigate
other communities where it has not been regulated and controlled and act reasonably, with a
certain amount of vision.
17. The accidents in the area of Dunkin Donuts, and extending the separation distance in that area.
Also at the school intersection.
Ms. O'Keeffe said she was not aware of any statutes available to compare that would indicate
what is or is not a reasonable separation.
18. Existing uses would be grandfathered.
19. Clarify the fact; two fast-food restaurants must be separated by 300 ft. or a convenience store and
a sub-category store has to be 300 ft. from each other.
Ms. Indelicato said any one of those must be separated by 300 ft.
20. When an overlap occurs between the Town's ordinance and the two villages, is there any other
property where there is an overlap other than McDonald's(signage being the issue), and how do
/both parties agree.
21. A question arose regarding the distance rule in Larchmont; i.e. 100 ft. or 1,000 ft.; Village of
Mamaroneck 200 ft., the Town 300 ft.
COMMENTS MADE BY MR.FERRANDINO REGARDING THE CONCERNS OF THE BOARD:
1. The problem at the present time is the existing proliferation of food related retail uses, primarily
along the Boston Post Road,are causing certain types of traffic conflicts;i.e. overflow of parking.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 4
There are problems with noise and litter from the existing uses. If the uses are allowed to
proliferate, as they would be under the existing ordinance, the impacts would become much more
pronounced, hence the proposed distance separation.
2. In the legislative intent of the ordinance that is stated clearly in the analysis at the end of the
report there is hard data, and Mr. Ferrandino can give projections on traffic, etc.
3. Mr. Ferrandino said the final draft was submitted after which the Town Building Inspector
reviewed same and had some minor changes which were replaced with the modified pages.
Internal inconsistencies were addressed as a result of the building inspector's final review.
4. The lineal footage along the Boston Post Road, Route 1, is approximately 5,000 ft.
5. Mr. Ferrandino asked if the Weaver Street and Route 1 area should be considered a food-dry
area, and addressed the other areas of concern.
6. Mf. Ferrandino said parking regulations for restaurants is a use change and would be subject to
site plan review.
7. Mr.Ferrandino said it can be approached through Urban Renewal overlay, restricting certain uses.
8. Agreed paragraphs should be inverted; page 39, sub(2) (f) fast-food; multiple use, SB use, fast-
food is allowed under B, but not in (f).
9. Why restrict; fast-food, convenience store, take-out generally generate a lot more litter, garbage,
etc. than a sit-down restaurant or shoe store, whatever. The closer they are, the more problem
there will be. Combine the traffic issue and potential overflow parking issue, particularly on
Route 1, a heavily trafficked corridor, with noise and litter in a recreation, school and residential
area it potentially causes problems; i.e. adverse environmental impact. The separation is designed
to address those issues. What is suggested is a compromise controlling future uses, subjecting
them to review by Boards; i.e. site plan review, signage, seating. Definitions are as specific as
they can be.
10. Different combinations were reviewed of distances at schools, residences, whatever, and other
than the 300 ft. criteria a lot of the issues were eliminated. The 300 ft. separation was a
compromise to allow certain uses to continue without prohibiting the uses. With the 300 ft.
distance parameter, there is still a special permit provision where certain criteria is reviewed; i.e.
traffic, parking, and each application is reviewed individually.
11. Site plan review must always be adhered to in use changes, and it depends where the expanding
will occur.
12. The distance in Larchmont is 100 ft. not 1,000 ft., the Village of Mamaroneck 200 ft., the Town
300 ft.
The Board reviewed the zoning map regarding the Business District and various radius' noticed for
meetings.
After a lengthy discussion regarding the separation distance, buffer, overlay, types of uses, traffic, special
permit criteria, grandfathering, available vacant land in the Post Road corridor and lot lines, new and/or
expanded stand-alone use, hours of operation, language changes regarding the proposed ordinance, Board
reviews, the Board stated the following:
The village of Larchmont separation is 100 ft. from each use, 100 ft. from a major intersection.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 5
It is important to enforce item#iv. page 35; "existing,food-related uses are permitted to continue operating
as pre-existing non-conforming uses, but upon discontinuance of a non-conforming use for more than one
(1)year, such establishment shall conform to the provisions of this code."
The hours of operation for all retail uses shall be limited to 5:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Page 37,definition of Supermarkets: might include"Supermarkets" may contain accessory retail specialties
such as, and then continue with the language in the draft.
Page 37, Take-out Food Establishment; Bakery: the word bakery is confusing. Mr. Ferrandino will look
into this item.
A discussion ensued regarding page 44, Pre-existing Food-related Retail Business: if someone builds a
fast-food establishment adjacent to the Town line 300 ft. away from anything else across the Town line,
and someone builds something in the Village closer than 300 ft. to that store does it becoming a non-
conforming pre-existing use.
Ms. Indelicato said it would only occur at the time there was an abandonment for one year.
Ms. Gallent said it becomes a legal non-conforming use.
A discussion ensued regarding page 38, Business District B, where fast-food restaurants are not permitted.
Fast-food is listed under page 41, Service Business District, SB. The area on the Post Road being
discussed this evening as indicated on the map is a B District, not an SB District. The statute as written
may not juxtapose the desire. A discussion ensued regarding C. 2, paragraph f and paragraph #2 being
transposed; include fast-food in both District B and SB.
Ms. Gallent said the major arterial should be defined.
Ms. Reader asked for a consensus of the Board either in favor of or against recommending the ordinance
to the Town with certain recommendations.
Ms. Reader is in favor with certain modification; i.e. defining the major arterial, confirming whether SB
and B should state fast-foods, if so have the statute correlate that way, if only in one district make sure it
corresponds to the geographical area.
Mr.Darsky would like a comparison of all the material parts to neighbors on both sides before Mr. Darsky
will recommend it to the Town, because if it is inconsistent in any major way it will cause problems and
will not accomplish the purpose of the area.
Mr. Mason feels it requires an executive summary to make those comparisons, address the inconsistencies
and is not prepared to vote on recommending the ordinance at this time.
Ms. Reader said there should be some sort of limitation on development of types of food-related business
that generate greater traffic volume and have a buffer, so it is not permitted at the corner of Weaver Street
and Route 1.
Ms. Indelicato said there was a three month extension on the moratorium and it may have to be extended
further.
Ms. Reader mentioned to Mr. Altieri that as the statute is written at the current time, fast-food is not
allowed in the B district. However, the business district is the district described as wanting regulated fast-
food development. It may be an oversight that fast-food was forbidden in the B district.
Mr. Altieri said it was not an oversight, all the existing fast-food establishments will be grandfathered and
if nothing comes back in within one year it lapses.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 6
Mr. Darsky said to take out deli, not fast-food.
Mr. Moser said in one portion of the Boston Post Road it can occur and in another portion it cannot occur.
Mr. Altieri said that is correct. To exclude them totally would create a problem.
Dr. Mason said the area where the Town is excluding fast-food is the area where fast-foods currently exist
and the area suggested is not where fast-foods are.
Mr. Altieri said the area suggested for use is an area where there is far less intensity of traffic and
pedestrians use, etc.
Ms. Reader said to clarify what is being discussed, fast-foods are prohibited by the statute in the area of
the Village of Larchmont border to McDonald's, no fast-foods will be allowed in the future if there is a
one year lapse. On page 39, C(2)(f) delete fast-food.
Ms. Reader'asked Mr. Altieri to explain how this proposed ordinance differs or conflicts with the Town's
neighbors in the two villages.
Mr. Altieri said the Larchmont ordinance was subject to some litigation in 1975 where they attempted to
exclude fast-foods throughout the village and it was overturned. Hence the Town has tried to limit fast-
food areas.
Ms. O'Keeffe said the Village of Larchmont does have an ordinance in effect. There is a law restricting
certain aspects of fast-foods. They don't allow dry foods. That is the reason the Roy Rogers' building
is still vacant.
Mr. Altieri referred the Board to page 12 of the information packet sent which has a description of the
Larchmont Ordinance, distance separation, etc. Mamaroneck Village has a moratorium on fast-foods at
the present time along Mamaroneck Avenue.
A discussion ensued regarding fast-food establishments being moved toward the area where is Staples
located on the Boston Post Road, rather than between McDonald's and Lexus. The proposed ordinance
is geared to gradual transition, moving the establishments to an area that is a congested area already.
Ms. Gallent made reference to various written documentation, stating a typical goal of turning something
into a nonconforming use is that it eventually becomes something conforming without depriving a person
of their constitutional rights. As long as individuals do not seek operation for more than one year,
it is permitted.
Mr. Reader said it permits a status quo. In a sense of permitting a status quo and not increasing the area
from Lexus to McDonald's, it is a positive goal for the Town. Ms. Reader does not view it as trying to
force the businesses out.
A discussion ensued regarding page 35,B.iv;proposal for a new or expanded fast-food restaurant, take-out
food establishment, convenience store, or supermarket shall require site plan review, and whether there
would be Board of Architectural Review (BAR). BAR review would be held for signage, landscaping and
facade.
A discussion ensued regarding giving the BAR the authority to specify color combinations that are more
aesthetically pleasing; i.e. page 39 and 41.
Mr. Altieri said the Town Board has a hearing scheduled on this matter for next week, CZMC's comments
are needed because it is a Type I action and if those comments are not received the Town Board will have
to adjourn the hearing to the following meeting.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 7
Ms. Indelicato said another hearing will not have to be held, unless there are substantial changes.
Ms. Gallent asked if the County Planning Board had been noticed, and it had.
Mr. Altieri said the Planning Board this evening will make recommendations and advise the Town Board.
Ms. Reader said that Mr. Altieri has given the Board a review on the Village and asked if the Board
supported the ordinance with the amendments suggested thus far and asked if there are any additional
amendments recommended.
Mr. Darsky said someone should take a look at both villages to see if there are inconsistencies that will
cause a problem in terms of legalities and cause the Town's ordinance to be inconsistent defeating its
purpose. All should be consistent with each other, so the purpose gets accomplished.
Dr. Mason said he believes it is a solid first step.
Mr. Papaziann said he has a lot of problems with the ordinance, as he feels the business community does
not have an inkling of what is going on in the Town at the present time. Ms. Papazian has a problem with
the 24 hour regulation, does not know if it is necessary in the proposed areas and the report reflects that
only one store is 24 hours. Mr. Papazian knows of at least three or four retail stores open 24 hours at the
present time; i.e. CVS, Nautilus Diner, Stop&Shop. It might be unfair to future businesses coming into
the community that certain stores can be open 24 hours and certain ones are not. It is good to regulate the
community, but Mr. Papazian does not see the necessity of this law at this particular point in time as the
community is built up, it is not changing that much and he feels it is over regulation. Mr. Papazian cannot
recommend the proposed recommendations.
A discussion ensued regarding zoning variances, use variances, hardships and operating hours primarily
in regard to pharmacies.
Mr. Papazian does not feel the legislation is necessary, 24 hours being just one indication of it. Mr.
Papazian does not feel enough study has been done, or whether it is worth putting more time and effort
into further study.
A discussion ensued regarding legislation and existing stores in the area in relation to fast-food occupancy;
i.e. Giant Carpet
Mr. Papazian said the distance is so small and each issue should be addressed on an individual basis. The
Boards of the Town are adequate to handle same; i.e. Planning Board, Zoning Board and Board of
Architectural Review. Mr. Papazian does not feel legislation is needed.
Mr. Darsky questioned the need for 300 ft. fast-food distance separation.
Dr. Mason asked what impetus brought this on.
Mr. Altieri said the prospect of expanded fast-food use, which starts at the Town Board level.
Ms. Reader said there was a concern about multiple fast-food coming into the Town.
Mr. Altieri said there is a possibility of Wendy's going into Nathan's,KFC into Taco Bell,Dunkin Donuts
going into Baskin Robbins, there is an empty restaurant where Don Emilio's is and this could be a
problem.
Mr. Papazian feels the market forces should work their way out, and does not feel legislation is necessary.
Ms. Reader said the Board's comments should include eliminating the time limitation,hours of operation.
Special Planning Board
June 10, 1997
Page 8
Mr. Moser would agree with the recommendation.
A discussion ensued regarding the proposed tenant for the Giant Carpet store, Kinko's, and the 24 hour
operation.
Ms. Gallent said hours of operation is included in the special permit application process.
A discussion ensued regarding limiting fast-foods on the Boston Post Road strip in certain locations.
Dr. Mason does not feel the 300 ft. separation regulation on such a short strip, the Boston Post Road, is
a worthy goal.
Mr. Papazian asked if gas stations with convenience stores inside were addressed in Mr. Ferrandino's
report.
Mr. Ferrandino said it is covered in the convenience store definition.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Reader, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at
9:00 p.m.
Mar Marguerite oma Recording
Secretary