Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_06_12 Planning Board Minutes (2) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 12, 1996, 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 C. Alan Mason Stephen Andrew Moser Y• IF Edmund Papazian 4, Absent: Linda S. Harrington 441, Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel e� Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Jackie Jackson, Public Stenographer Carbone & Associates, Ltd. '1j, 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. Ms. Reader then welcomed Edmund Papazian to the Board. Mr. Papazian is a resident of Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck for the past fifteen years. Mr. Papazian is an environmental and corporate attorney with Witco, a chemical company, and is married to Joyce Papazian who is a school teacher at the Murray Avenue School and a lifetime resident of Larchmont. Mr. Papazian has family with a daughter who is a very talented flautist Alexa. Ms. Reader is pleased to welcome Edmund Papazian to the Board. Mr. Papazian thanked Ms. Reader, and said he looks forward to working with the Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had a chance to review the Minutes of May 8, 1996, stating the amended Minutes included a deletion on page 3 which read, "Ms. Reader said at the last meeting Ms. Harrington raised concerns about the possibility of adding a condition that even with the organic materials that exist there is still the possibility that there might be gases that might be discharged." Ms. Reader said also the paragraph that states, "Ms. Aisen made the above motion,which was seconded by Dr. Mason and approved, 5-0," should be amended to read, Ms. Aisen made the above motion, which was seconded by Dr. Mason and approved 5-1,and "Ms. Harrington abstained from voting" has been changed to read, Ms. Harrington voted nay. Ms. Reader asked if there were any further amendments to the Minutes of May 8, 1996. Mr. Moser said on page 4 where it says , "Mr. Moser asked about the health food store" it was not Mr. Moser. The Board will amend the Minutes to read, a member of the Board asked about the health food store. Mr. Moser said also on page 4, Laurel Manor Consideration, the second paragraph, it was Mr. Moser's understanding that.Ms. Bocca recommended an EIS and there is no mention of that. Ms. Bocca was asked to confirm the comments made, and after some discussion it was concluded that the Minutes should read, "Ms. Bocca expressed concerns of her office and the Town's planning consultant, Ferandino and Associates, with respect to flooding and drainage. Ms. Bocca, on behalf of her office, initially Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 2 requested an EIS. There was a lengthy discussion concerning whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement should be required at this point. After this discussion Ms. Bocca indicated a supplement to Part III may satisfy the concerns of the CZMC, and the possibility of requesting an EIS still exists." Ms. Bocca said it is important to note the above as the CZMC will be willing to accept an expanded Part III,however if that does not provide the information needed, then CZMC has the option of requesting the Planning Board require an EIS. Mr.Trachtman said on page 5, third paragraph after Consideration-Site Plan Approval,should read, "Mr. Trachtman asked Mr. Stanziale if the Collins Brothers' lot was paved, and if not, would it be paved." On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the amended Minutes for May 8, 1996 were unanimously approved. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION-RENEWAL-SPECIAL PERMIT -Mark and Bob Car Wash d/b/a High Tech Car Wash -2434 Boston Post Road North - Block 503 Lot 326.1 (adjourned 5/8/96) Dolores Battalia, attorney with Stein & Battalia, appeared representing Mark and Bob Car Wash d/b/a/ High Tech Car Wash. Bob Waring, one of the principles, was also present. Ms. Battalia said the applicant is seeking to renew the special permit application for the continued operation of the existing car wash on the Boston Post Road. The site is exactly the same, with a minor alteration i.e., a small concrete incline where the cars would access the car wash which was about 10 in. and has been reduced to 3 to 4 in., which Mr. Trachtman has reviewed and approved. The hours of operation would remain the same. Dr. Mason asked whether the alteration would have any affect on the drainage pattern. Ms. Battalia said it was discussed with the Building Department, it did not even require a permit, and stated the drains are cleaned annually. Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the Board, as this is a consideration which then is subject to a Public Hearing for approval. As a matter of information for the new members, in an effort to help things move along upon consideration the Board inputs questions about the application so that the applicant can bring this information to the Board at the Public Hearing. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER 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. Mr. Darsky said that no alterations were being made other than what was discussed, and asked about the awning that exists. Ms. Battalia said the awning has been at the site from the time of the original application. This particular site has been before the Board about five times. Ms. Reader said the matter will be scheduled for a Public Hearing on July 10, 1996. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 3 CONSIDERATION-SUBDIVISION-Laurel Manor-1001 Fenimore Road-Blocks 301 and 302 Lot 1 (adjourned 5/8/96) James Vanoli, consulting engineer for Laurel Manor Subdivision, appeared along with John Epstein, the owner. His appearance this evening before the Board is to keep them abreast of the actions taken, and there is no request for the Board to take any actions at this time. He stated the developer would like to continue the time extension, and then explained that the HEC-1 analysis had been completed. It was requested by the consulting engineer, Mr. Trachtman, and was delivered to him recently. Ms. Reader asked if HEC-1 was the wetlands approval. Mr. Trachtman said HEC-1 is a computer program that allows the determination of water conditions. Mr. Vanoli said the reason HEC-1 was needed was so the storm drainage and detention analysis on the specific site could be meshed with the entire Sheldrake River to find out about how the peaks meet. Mr. Moser asked for the meaning of HEC-1. Mr. Trachtman said it is Hydrological Engineering Center, a series of computer programs. Mr. Vanoli said the applicant performed a TR 55, which is the Soil Conservation Service Method of Engineering Calculations, and that is typical and accepted by municipalities, but because of different programs it was converted into HEC-1 which is a different computer program so it could be compared so it could be compared with the '92 Malcolm Pirnie study. The concern was as the peak flow goes through the Sheldrake River, where does the proposed site fit into it. This will be compiled and delivered to the Board. The applicant has also been working with the Coastal Zone Management Commission. At their last meeting, by memorandum dated June 11, 1996 which was just received from Eve Bocca, it explains what has transpired. The applicant will be meeting with the Town's consulting engineer June 19, 1996 at 1:00 p.m. The concern is the maintenance of the proposed detention for which a solution is being sought. Ms. Reader said it is her understanding that the applicant is still in conference with the CZMC and some further preliminary work, and asked if Mr. Vanoli was requesting all time periods with respect to this application be waived. Mr. Vanoli said that he was requesting all time periods with respect to this application be waived and the Planning Board continue the matter. Ms. Reader asked Attorney Silverberg about declaring the Board Lead Agency. Attorney Silverberg said that as long as all time periods are being waived, there is no need at this time to declare the Board Lead Agency. Mr. Vanoli agreed. Dr. Mason asked if Mr. Vanoli received any feedback from the CZMC of the on-site visit of Sunday, 6/2/96. Mr. Vanoli said he was not sure if he had received any feedback. Ms. Bocca said there was no formal feedback as of yet. Ms. Reader stated she assumed Mr. Coleman's report will be forthcoming, and Mr. Vanoli will receive it as soon as Ms. Bocca has it? Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Bocca said that was correct. Ms. Reader said the consideration will be continued on July 10, 1996, and thanked Mr. Vanoli. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Vanoli that one of the Board members wanted to ask some questions. Ms. Moser asked Mr. Vanoli about the survey of the wetlands from Malcolm Pirnie, and does it identify more of the wetlands. Mr. Vanoli then reviewed and explained the wetlands map that was prepared and delivered to the Costal Zone Management Commission explaining the wetlands boundary that the applicant defined originally and the wetland boundary as defined by Joan Hansen of Malcolm Pirnie. Mr. Vanoli said Steve Coleman, the consultant to Coastal Zone, took liberties that Mr. Vanoli does not agree with, and included soils which was discussed at the Coastal Zone meeting. Ms. Reader said Mr. Coleman is a consultant to CZMC, which is an advisor to the Planning Board. As the Board does not have any documentation with respect to Mr. Coleman's findings or report, it would not be beneficial to discuss the matter at this time. Mr. Moser said when Mr. Vanoli made a presentation to the Planning Board, he had shown to the Board in addition to the current subdivision layout Mr. Vanoli presented, another plan that showed more homes. Mr. Moser wanted to know if Mr. Vanoli has considered putting fewer homes in the development and what the impact would be in terms of the coverage and runoff. Mr. Vanoli said fewer homes has not been considered, as they have decreased the development a responsible amount. To reduce the number of lots is not going to reduce the runoff of any substantial amount because the road is generally going to be the same. Mr. Vanoli then again referred to the map and pointed out an area where lots could be eliminated if the Board made an issue, and then pointed out an area where six (6) lots can be developed by zoning with an as-of-right subdivision. Mr. Vanoli said the applicant is trying to balance good solid development,proper land planning and an even lot count and feels that six (6) is the appropriate number. Mr. Moser disputed Mr. Vanoli's conclusion regarding the runoff. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Vanoli if he could provide a color delineated maps for the Board to review. Mr. Vanoli said he would be sure the Board receives copies of the map. Mr. Silverberg said one of the reasons for the meeting on June 19, 1996 is to try to come to some agreement among the various engineers, rather than confusing the Board with three different opinions,and hopefully the CZMC will come back with a consensus on some of these issues. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-SITE PLAN APPROVAL -Frank and Ann Auricchio -5 Fifth Avenue-Block 132 Lot 609 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 5 Robert Stanziale, appeared representing Frank and Anne Auricchio. Mr. Stanziale reiterated briefly for the Board the site plan application stating the applicant hopes to legalize the parking areas on the site which have been active for many years and the one story building with a few uses currently present. There is a parking lot established on the north side and a parking lot existing on the south side for which there is no record. Mr. Stanziale also said the applicant wants to separate and establish the unpaved area, which remains unpaved area on the south side of the lot as an accessory parking area for Collins Brothers Moving which is across the street. Mr. Stanziale said since the last Planning Board meeting the applicant appeared at the Coastal Zone Management Commission. CZMC recommends, primarily for the auto storage area as proposed at the rear of the property, that a catch basin be installed which will be tied into the storm drainage in the street to be outfitted with a grease trap and sediment basin to absorb any oils, gas or other fluids that might come from the towed cars themselves. Mr. Stanziale said the applicant also appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request a use variance for the Towing Service, which is held over until the next meeting for adequate submission of financial data to substantiate the financial hardship on the property. Mr. Reader asked Mr. Stanziale if the Zoning board action was specifically for the towing business. Mr. Stanziale said the Zoning board action was specifically for the storage of cars for the towing business, Giacomo Service Station which is across the street. Mr. Papazian asked if the site was a former gas station, as he was not at the last meeting. Mr. Stanziale said it was formerly an Exxon Service Station. Mr. Reader said it was also where the firehouse was when the Town was renovating the firehouse. Mr. Stanziale said the pumps and tanks will be removed, and that Mr. Trachtman informed him that due to the length of time the tanks have been abandoned they must be removed. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Stanziale if the service station had diesel fuel. Mr. Stanziale said he was not sure if the service station had diesel fuel, but there are five (5) or six (6) tanks. Mr. Moser then referred to the Minutes of the last meeting which stated that Mr. Trachtman said that depending on the size of the tanks, 1,100 gallons, they would have to be removed or if smaller they could be filled and left in place. He then asked Mr. Stanziale if all the tanks were going to be removed. Mr. Stanziale said all the tanks were going to be removed, due to feedback from Mr. Jakubowski of the Building Department. Mr. Papazian asked who will remove the tanks. Mr. Stanziale said a tank removal service will remove the tanks, who will certify and insure the Building Department that there is no leakage, as soil testing has already been done. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Stanziale if the Building Department will receive a report. Mr. Stanziale said the Building Department will receive a report. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman or Attorney Silverberg if a bond is required. Mr. Trachtman said he did not recall if the State regulations necessarily requires a bond, but will check with the Building Department. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 6 Attorney Silverberg said he also did not know if a bond is required, but said there is also an issue of a use variance and suggested that whatever questions the Board may have be addressed, holding the matter over to the next Board Meeting. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from the Board members, and members of the public? There being no further questions, on a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the July 10, 1996 meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - SAVATREE - 633-635 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 175 and 643 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Don Becker, Vice President of SAVATREE, appeared and stated that since the last Planning Board meeting he appeared before the CZMC, had submitted a copy of the letter received from them to the Board and will review the two specific concerns addressed in that letter. Mr. Becker said one of the concerns was about the containment of any possible spills that may occur from taking products out of storage and physically carrying the products to the truck prior to the truck leaving the yard. To address that issue, SAVATREE has taken the original design which showed storage in the rear of the building, and expanded the storage area to now include the entire building. The two possible entrances have a 4 in. concrete berme (speed bump), the entire area is epoxied up to a height of 8 in. on the walls that allows the entrance of a truck over the speed bump, taking products off the shelves, placing them on the truck and then take the truck out of the site. Basically it contains the entire area, which actually doubles the containment up to 1,600 gallons based on the average storage of about 400 gallons, 4 times. Mr. Becker said the second concern involved the washing of the trucks, and it is still the belief of SAVATREE as expressed at the previous Planning Board meeting when SAVATREE received their Special Use Permit, the Planning Board was aware the trucks were going to be washed on site and SAVATREE got an approval for that. He stated the residue that will come off the trucks when washed is similar to the residue that comes off of any other truck, i.e. road dirt. The trucks are off to the side when treatments occur, and are self-contained systems. SAVATREE continues to believe they are not putting any pesticides into the drainage system. Dr. Mason said SAVATREE'S concept of making the building a containment area and providing for loading and unloading within the building is fine except if there is a spill on the shelving area the truck comes into the area and it is then tracked out. If SAVATREE maintained the containment area at the back and the speed bump at the front, then the problem is solved. Mr. Becker said the original intent was bringing the product out of the storage area to the truck. Dr. Mason said if there was a spill within the containment area/storage area, that is likely to be a larger spill than a single container being carried. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Becker said the only reason he disagrees with that assumption is that Dr. Mason was specifically referring to taking the products out of storage. The maximum size container that will be brought out is a 5 gallon container. Dr. Mason asked what the largest size container Mr. Becker has in the storage area. Mr. Becker said the largest size container in the storage area is a 55 gallon drum. Dr. Mason said theoretically if a 55 gallon drum ruptures and the containment area is discreet, that 55 gallons will not go anywhere except in that small containment area. SAVATREE can contain the large spill in the storage area and can contain the small spill in the loading area. Mr. Becker said he does not disagree with Dr. Mason, other than it can be taken to an extreme. Mr. Reader said Dr. Mason raises an important concern, and feels that CZMC focused on a problem with this issue. What Dr. Mason is offering is a primary containment, and a secondary containment. The primary containment would be a catch basin that would be a narrower area for perhaps the bigger spills, so that if there is a spill as trucks go into the containment area a significant amount of materials does not come out into the ground outside the garage. Mr. Becker said he understands the concept of the second berm, but will be still storing the materials in the rear, pointing same out on the rendering. Mr. Becker then discussed the double capacity containment presented. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Becker if there are any obligations under the State Law when there is a spill and asked how it is handled. Mr. Becker said the spill has to be contained, absorbed with appropriate materials, wrapped in newspaper and disposed of in a regular land fill, as there is nothing considered hazardous, per DEC regulations. Mr. Papazian asked if the trucks would run back and forth over the pesticide spillage. Mr. Becker said absolutely not. If a spill occurred a truck would not be brought into the containment area, and if there was a spill it would be cleaned up. A discussion ensued regarding the cleanup of a 55 gallon spill within the small containment area in the back rather than over the entire surface of the garage area. Mr. Moser asked what objections Mr. Becker has to running the curb along the area of the storage shed originally shown, and asked what would be done if a 55 gallon drum ruptured and a vehicle was in the area. Mr. Becker said he had no objections to the curb, and if the Board feels it is appropriate that would be fine. Mr. Becker then discussed procedures that would be taken if a spillage did occur. Mr. Reader asked if anyone was present from Coastal Zone, and if so to explain the last paragraph of the letter which states, "In the opinion of the CZMC, permitting storage of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals at the location, is inconsistent with Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 39 and Policy 44 of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program." Frank McGahan, from Coastal Zone, appeared and explained'that originally SAVATREE had proposed having a trough in the back. Now apparently it has been changed to a trough inside, and CZMC cannot agree with that. There was also concern about the washing down of trucks. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 8 Ms. Reader asked if there was a double system of the berm inside and the reenforced walls or berme on the perimeter of the building, would that satisfy the CZMC, other than the wash-down. Mr. McGahan said if SAVATREE went back to the original scheme and had a speed bump at the door, there would not be a problem. Ms. Reader said with respect to the wash down, at a prior meeting with another representative it was basically indicated the wash down would be like any other truck picking up dirt, and the Board at that time accepted that as an explanation. Mr. Darsky said the first time the matter was before the Board, SAVATREE said there would be no washing down of chemicals. Ms. Reader said the Minutes of the February 14, 1996 meeting, page 2 stated, "Mr. Trachtman asked would there be any washing down of the equipment at the site. Mr. Leonard stated normal truck washing as far as the exterior of the truck." Mr. Darsky said Mr. Becker had said washing the trucks is like washing a car in a driveway. If there are pesticides or other residual poisons on the trucks, will they get washed off? Mr. McGahan said in Mr. Becker's presentation he suggested the trucks are a distance away from where the spraying is done, there is a film on the trucks which is washed down the drain. A discussion ensued. Mr. Papazian said Mr. Becker came to a conclusion that washing the trucks is like washing a car and asked how he arrived at that conclusion. Mr. Becker said as previously stated at the last Planning Board meeting, the trucks themselves are away from where the spraying occurs. In addition, the truck is a closed system with everything inside. All that is being washed is the exterior of the truck, i.e. whatever is on the road. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Becker if any testing had been done, and if not, then it is basically his opinion. Mr. Becker said no testing had been done, it is basically his opinion. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Trachtman if it made sense to provide the main part of the garage, not the holding area in the back, with a drain and holding tank with appropriate air flow to promote evaporation so that it would concentrate whatever was in the holding tank which could be removed at a fairly large interval? If a chamber was provided, could that be evaporated down to a manageable amount of fluid? Mr. Trachtman apologized for missing the first part of the presentation and asked if there was any discussion of the possibility that the floor be pitched so there would be a central containment location rather than a speed bump. Mr. Becker said it would be a 4 in. speed bump which was calculated to contain 1,600 gallons. Mr. Trachtman asked if it would be possible to pitch the floor of the garage so that there is simple puddling area. Mr. Becker said he was not clear of what the purpose of that would be, from the standpoint of what the containment is intended to do at this point. Dr. Mason said the Board is trying to deal with the washing problem also. Ms. Aisen said there are two drains now, one outside for washing the trucks and one inside for catching spills. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Reader said Mr. Trachtman is submitting if the wash down were to occur inside the garage. Mr. Trachtman said he wasn't sure if the discussion was about wash down activities or also promoting containment of the spill. Mr. Becker said that has already been addressed by proposing a second interior barrier which is containing it in a much smaller area. The whole point was to create an impermeable surface, so that should you have a spill, it can be cleaned up quickly and thoroughly. Dr. Mason said have the two containment areas as a starting point,taking the larger shallower containment area where the truck would be and drain that to a chamber immediately outside creating an air flow over that to evaporate any water that goes in there which will be concentrated and contained. It might be necessary occasionally to pump out the chamber, but probably evaporation would occur if the truck was hosed down quickly the runoff would be contained and will evaporate. There will be a residue in that chamber. Ms. Aisen asked if there would be any solid form. Dr. Mason said he there would probably be very little solid residue left. The Board is trying to contain spills and prevent runoff getting into the storm drain and into the premium marsh. Mr. Becker said in using the above method a situation would be setup where trucks will be going in and out tracking water or whatever is in the area which is what the Board wants to avoid. Secondly, if a truck is washed with soap, you will get a soapy water solution. If per chance any drip would get on the truck, which Mr. Becker still believes is not the case, it in most cases is a very delicate solution,not concentrate. Once soap is put onto the truck, chemically, physically, biologically there will be nothing left. Dr. Mason said if a place is provided to drain and evaporate runoff from truck washing and not get into the soil, then the problem would be solved. Ms. Reader said Mr. Becker is saying there is not a problem to solve. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if what Dr. Mason is suggesting is feasible. Mr. Trachtman said generally requirements for facilities that have a pad which is pitched serves the same purpose. The spillage is being directed to a central location. The debate is whether or not the epoxy sealed floor is acting as a sufficient barrier for that material or should the surface be pitched to a collection device, nothing more than a trough drain that will hold it. Would the Board rather have something built into the floor that could possibly leak after a period of time or be satisfied with being able to essentially see everything laying on the floor. There are no State guidelines for these facilities. Under the circumstances, it would be acceptable to have an epoxy sealant, and the only thing suggested before was whether or not it might be pitched, rather than rely on the uneven grading of the floor. Dr. Mason said if it was pitched to the center and graded, a trough should still be a wide enough surface area to get some evaporation. Ms. Reader asked what Dr. Mason was referring to when he suggested a trough, a trough within the floor that is cemented and epoxied over so that it is part of the surface? Dr. Mason said Mr. Trachtman and he are referring to a shallow V. Mr. Becker said his only concern is that it is a building with an existing slab. The Board is discussing re- engineering the building as opposed to creating a suitable enclosure being able to hold, within the small area, twice the amount SAVATREE would ever store and within the big area four times what SAVATREE would ever store. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Darsky said he agrees with Mr. Becker, thinks the pitching idea would be frightfully expensive, and doesn't see it being warranted for the spillage. As far as truck washing, Mr. Darsky does not feel the area would hold all the water used. Dr. Mason said rather than pitching the whole floor, raise two areas that would correspond with the tire treads of the truck. Mr. Trachtman said that was not a good idea, feels installing the epoxy on the surface and walls is appropriate, but thought it would be an easier cleanup if it were pitched to a central location. Dr. Mason asked if the floor has a pitch to it. Mr. Becker said the floor is relatively flat. A member of the Board asked if the floor had a drain. Mr. Becker said the floor did not have a drain, it is a concrete slab. Mr. Darsky asked about the Bedford facility truck washing. Mr. Becker said in Bedford the trucks are washed outside, there is a storm drain at the top of the property one on which the Town has an easement. There is actually a storm drain on the property which drains through the easement and out into the Saw Mill River. Ms. Reader stated at the February 14, 1996 meeting that Mr. Trachtman noted that the applicant's Bedford facility was established prior to regulations and statutes to control this type of action. Ms. Aisen asked what kind of hardship would be created if Mr. Becker returns to his willingness to wash the trucks in Bedford. Mr. Becker said the purpose of moving to Larchmont, which is serviced along with the surrounding down county area out of the Bedford Hills office, was to remain competitive. Ms. Aisen asked if the trucks referred to are Town of Mamaroneck trucks and are there different trucks for Bedford. Mr. Becker said the Town of Mamaroneck trucks do not go north of route 287 and are dedicated to the down county area. The Larchmont office handles route 287 and all southern Westchester County. Mr. Moser asked how the trucks are presently washed in Bedford. Mr. Becker said the trucks are washed with a hose, brush and a bucket of soap and water. Ms. Reader said it was her recollection that the primary storage of chemicals is in Bedford and Larchmont is a satellite office. Mr. Becker said the primary storage of chemicals is in Bedford, Larchmont is a small satellite office with two trucks operating and is not a major operation. There is no plan for storage over the winter, as once the season is finished materials must be stored in a heated space. Larchmont is not heated and with the danger of frost, all materials are returned to the Bedford office for storage. By September, October only fertilizer will remain. The season is finished by mid-November. Ms. Aisen said the only item still in question is the washing of trucks, on which the Board must reach a conclusion as to whether there is a danger in doing so. Washing the trucks indoors will only create a lake in a building. The question is, is there some way the trucks can be washed safely outdoors. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 11 The Board continued a lengthy discussion regarding the possibility of contamination and the safety of washing trucks. Mr. Becker then referred to an area on the drawing before the Board where the trucks are going to be washed and road matter that is washed from the trucks will end up in the soil, which will immediately degrade and break down, are environmentally sound and will not go directly into the storm drain. It will be percolating through the soil. There will be no solids, just SAVATREE products which are made to breakdown quickly. Ms. Aisen said she feels the Board needs an expert response to Mr. Becker's comments. Attorney Silverberg said the CZMC is finding an inconsistency. Under the Town's Consistency Law the Board, to override that, must provide specific permanent findings why the Board disagrees with the findings of the CZMC. In addition to prohibit the activity, the Board has to have some basis for doing that. Ms. Reader said the Board should refer back to the CZMC letter, stating the inconsistency is permitting storage of pesticides, and then discussed the double berme which would be consistent. The issue now seems to be whether or not the wash down activity creates a coastal problem. Ms. Reader then said that this is a Public Hearing and asked if there were any other comments from the public. Mr. McGahan stated that Mr. Becker demonstrated a certain wash down area, and asked if a gravel bed could be provided that would penetrate the ground. Mr. Becker said that could be arranged. Dr. Mason said that a 6 in. gravel bed or something of that nature, assuring that the water could be contained in that area until such time as biodegrading of the material would occur, would be a solution. Mr. Moser said it is a Special Use Permit and asked if it needed to be renewed. Ms. Reader said a Special Use Permit needs to be renewed every two years. Mr. Moser then said could the renewal be conditioned requesting that testing of the soil and the results of same. Mr. Papazian said limits would be needed for what is being tested, and there may not be limits for soil testing. Dr. Mason asked Mr. McGahan to discuss this matter with Gary Trachtman. Mr. Trachtman said a gravel infiltration trench would be sufficient. Ms. Reader asked if the area and size needed to be defined for the gravel infiltration trench, or would the Town engineer do so. A discussion followed. Mr. Silverberg said the application is for site plan approval in addition to a special use permit, and items needed should be indicated. Mr. Becker said a plan will be drawn and submitted to Mr. Trachtman for his review and approval. Mr. Trachtman said the size of the infiltration trench should be 20 ft. x 20 ft. Attorney Silverberg said due to the amount of changes requested this evening, the new plans that were submitted this evening and the modifying of the plans further, that new plans should be submitted and reviewed by the Board. CZMC may also have a comment on the layout. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 12 Ms. Reader asked Mr. Becker to supply the new plans sufficiently in advance to be distributed to the Board members. Ms. Reader then said Mr. Becker had indicated the maximum number of gallons of material to be stored is no more than 440. Mr. Becker said the maximum number of gallons of material to be stored is no more than 444,which was on the first set of drawings the Board received. Mr. Reader said it will be a recommendation that a condition to the Special Use Permit be that the maximum number of gallons of material to be stored be no more than 444 gallons. Mr. Moser asked Mr. Becker about the ventilation of the structure, stating Mr. Becker had said that the temperature would never be higher than 90 degrees and asked if that was safe for the materials to be stored. Mr. Becker said it would be safe for the materials and is not a concern according to DEC guidelines for a storage building providing adequate ventilation. Dr. Mason then asked Mr. Becker if there will be two berms and a wash pit? Mr. Becker said that there will be two berms and a wash pit. 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 adjourned to the July 10, 1996 meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT -Anne D. Ruppel - 871 Fenimore Road - Block 312 Lot 45 Mr. Philip Ruppel, husband of the applicant, appeared along with Richard Hein the architect. Mr. Hein said the applicant is before the board for consideration of the construction of a swimming pool which encroaches 10 ft. into the setback for a drainage ditch, an intermittent body of water that was not found on the Town wetlands map. Mr. Hein contacted the Building Department voluntarily,after visiting the site for the first time. The applicant had hoped to place the pool in a naturalistic rock setting, and the drainage ditch is in the corner of the applicant's property and the neighbor to the rear. Mr. Hein had several site meetings with Mr. Gerety of the Building Department to understand the parameters of the application and the wetlands ordinance. As the proposed area is not technically deemed a wetlands, Mr. Hein said it is hoped the Board will consider the impingement on the wetlands as minor. The applicant has agreed to Annex I, which is attached to the application, which states "the location of the proposed activity does not fall within the definition of Control Areas Wetlands, it does fall within the definition set forth in 88.2 A.2 Rainfall Drainage System in that it will be within one hundred feet of a stream which by virtue of its location conveys "surface water runoff from its source to and including its ultimate points of discharge wholly or partially within Town limits." The proposed activity is next to a small stream that is less than 6 ft. in width which flows into the east branch of the Sheldrake River. Mr. Hein said one of the issues is that an inspection of the site would show it is not a wetlands environment, but it is a woodlands. Mr. Hein feels the stream was constructed during the course of the development of the Fenbrook Development, and that is why it is not on the Town Map. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Ruppel said the 1986 map does not show the stream. Dr. Mason said he does not recall any stream being developed during his involvement in the processing of the Fenbrook application. The area was a densely wooded area before the development, and the internal mapping of that area was not accurate. Mr. Ruppel said a culvert was installed at the time. Attorney Silverberg said under new regulations the matter is a Type II action, although the Board might want to ask CZMC for advisory opinion. Under the new state regulations Type II involves construction, expansion or placement of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings." Ms. Reader asked Mr. Ruppel is there always water flowing through the stream which may or may not have been preexisting? Mr. Ruppel said he has resided at the residence since August, 1995. When there recently was a torrential rain fall, the stream was full but not above the banks. Where the stream is located, the ground is much higher than the stream itself. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Ruppel to explain where the proposed pool will be in relation to the stream, how close the pool is to the stream, and asked about the elevation differences. Mr. Hein pointed out the proposed location of the pool on the renderings, and said the pool is 90 ft. from the stream to the extreme edge of the pool and 10 ft. above stream level. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Hein will be using bedrock stone or bringing in stone. Mr. Hein said the applicant will be bringing in stone to match. Mr. Papazian asked what happens with the backwash on the proposed pool. Mr. Hein said the backwash is directly to the sanitary sewer, which is the recommendation of the Building Department. Ms. Reader asked about the distance from the house. Mr. Hein said the distance from the house is 35 ft. to the corner of the garage. Dr. Mason asked about the tree removal. Mr. Hein said four (4) trees, Locust, Gray Birch, Dogwood and Maple, will be removed, due to the construction of the pool and the root structure of the trees. Mr. Ruppel said since purchasing the property 25 trees have been planted, and he intends to plant another 20 to 30 trees. Mr. Hein said the applicant has filed a tree removal application with the Building Department. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 14 On a motion made by Ms. Reader, seconded by Mr. Papazian, approved 5-1, it was FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. Dr. Mason voted nay. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the matter was unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on July 10, 1996. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-SPECIAL PERMIT-Larchmont Station Luncheonette-176 Myrtle Boulevard- Block 132 Lot 642 Anthony T. Russo, owner for Larchmont Station Luncheonette, appeared and said he is taking over the previous Gold Lake Delicatessen and Restaurant. Mr. Russo wants to change the name to Larchmont Station Luncheonette and is keeping everything else the same, i.e. seating,hours. Mr. Russo said the sign has already been approved. Mr. Papazian asked if Mr. Russo was going to renovate inside. Mr. Russo said there will be no renovation,just cleanup and stated that the luncheonette is now spotless. Mr. Russo said the Building Department has been very helpful. Attorney Silverberg said due to change of ownership it is necessary to have a Special Use Permit, which must be renewed every two (2) years. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On a motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Dr. Mason, the matter was unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on July 10, 1996. Mr. Russo asked if could install the sign. Ms. Reader said Mr. Russo could not put the sign up until approval is received from the Building Department. Ms. Reader then told Mr. Russo to check with Mr. Gerety. Ms. Reader told Mr. Russo to contact the secretary, Ms. Roma, regarding notice to neighbors as it is his responsibility to notify the neighbors. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Anthony Coschigano III - 2 Carroll Place - Block 222 Lot 390 Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 15 Anthony Coschigano III appeared. He said he is proposing a kitchen terrace addition and was informed that he had to prepare an erosion control plan. When that was submitted he was informed that he was within 100 ft. of the Freshwater Wetlands. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Coschigano knew how much into the 100 ft. he is. Mr. Coschigano said he was not sure, and that the architect could not be present this evening. Mr. Coschigano said he is proposing to raise the grade approximately 1 ft., approximately 60 ft. x 100 ft., which will not change any of the runoff. Ms. Reader asked is the proposed addition and terrace is within the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Coschigano said the addition and terrace encroaches within the 100-year flood plain. Dr. Mason said the way the land lays, the encroachment is not going to have a significant visual impact beyond a line that would be drawn along the back of the houses. The impact of the addition is minor. The impact on the wetlands is minor compared to the wetlands on the applicant, and is 14 in. going to solve the problem. Mr. Coschigano said 14 in. definitely will solve the problem, as he has researched the problem. Ms. Reader asked why the Cross County Parkway was referred to on the survey. Mr. Coschigano said that was on the original survey when it was prepared, and stated it was sold to the Town. Eve Bocca said an original balance of the Port Chester Parkway was originally slated to run along the Leather Stocking Trail. Many years ago the County sold it to the Town for $1.00 if it is maintained as a quiet recreation and study. Attorney Silverberg said the matter was a late entry to the agenda, and he asked Gary whether it would be helpful to have a better delineation of where the wetlands is situated. Mr. Trachtman said a good portion of the property is within the 100-year flood plain, which the existing FEMA map also indicates. There are issues about the encroachment on the flood plain. Construction would have to comply with the flood damage prevention code. The drawing received this evening uses a elevation data which is arbitrary on the site. The data that is indicated on the house has an arbitrary datum elevation of 100. There is approximately a difference of about 15 ft. between that elevation and the datum in the flood study. The elevation of the 100-year flood in NGVD terms is roughly 78 to 80. You need to subtract the 15 ft. from the elevations on the drawing. There needs to be a delineation of NGVD terms so it can be correctly related to the flood plain. Ms. Reader suggested Mr. Coschigano have the architect speak to Mr. Trachtman, the consulting engineer to the Town. Mr. Trachtman can advise the architect to show different elevations, consistent with the USGA, and a geographical study to show the Board more specifically where the wetlands are in relation to the proposed addition. Attorney Silverberg suggested Ms. Reader advise Mr. Coschigano to submit the materials requested well in advance of the meeting to the Board. Dr. Mason said it would be helpful if Mr. Trachtman would sketch out the guidelines of the flood damage prevention control to which the construction plans must conform. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Trachtman said the most significant items are the elevation of the first floor and the distance above the hundred year flood, and the nature of what the proposed construction below that elevation has to be. Mr. Coschigano has to comply with the requirements. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Moser, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On a motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Dr. Mason, the matter was unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on July 10, 1996. Mr. Darsky said the Board will do everything they can to help Mr. Coschigano. Mr. Coschigano thanked Mr. Darsky and the Board. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SITE PLAN APPROVAL - NAUTILUS DINER OF MAMARONECK - DeRaffele Mfg. Co. - 1240 Boston Post Road - Block 408 Lot 110 Steve Efstathiou and Tom Ravo appeared. Mr. Ravo said the applicant wants to install a 66 ft. x 9 ft. Garden Room in the front of the building. The proposed addition will be 20 in. from the property line, which will have low plantings across the front. There will be ample parking. Ms. Reader said a memo was received by the Planning Board from the Mr. Jakubowski of the Building Department regarding parking dated June 12, 1996 and gave the memo to Mr. Ravo to peruse. The memo states Mr. Jakubowski is reviewing the parking situation, and that there may be a referral to the Zoning Board. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Ravo that he will have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Jakubowski after this evening's meeting. Mr. Efstathiou said they have already gotten approval from the Board of Architectural Review(BAR) for the trees. Mr. Moser asked if the BAR specified what type of trees should be planted. Mr. Ravo said the Board specified Bradford Pear trees be planted. Ms. Reader asked what happens when the windows are removed facing the Post Road, and how does the proposed addition connect to the existing diner. Mr. Ravo said the diner has archways, and the applicant wants to get rid of the arch look. The applicant will install a square window. Inside the room the walls will be stripped, leaving the uprights in, and there will be booths on one side. Ms. Aisen asked how may more feet will be added to the front of the building. Mr. Ravo said 9 ft. will be added to the front of the building. Dr. Mason asked how many tables will that accommodate. Mr. Ravo said approval was received for 18 tables, and the applicant will put 12 tables of four in the additional space. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Moser asked if it will be a skylight addition. Mr. Ravo said the top will be a roof as glass is too hot. There will be glass in the front. Ms. Reader asked if the addition will be walls and glass windows. Mr. Ravo said the bottom is all stone, and from table height and upwards will be glass. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action. Ms. Reader suggested this matter be referred to the CZMC for their comments. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the matter was unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on July 10, 1996. Dr. Mason informed Mr. Efstathiou and Mr. Ravo to contact Marguerite Roma, the secretary to the Planning Board regarding the notice of the Public Hearing to be held, as the applicant must notice the neighbors on site plan approval on a timely basis. Ms. Reader said before the meeting is adjourned it is her understanding that tonight is the last meeting for counsel, Steve Silverberg. Ms. Reader said personally she has found Mr. Silverberg wonderful to work with not only for his knowledge on the statutes but on his judgment per application of procedures. He is a terrific attorney. Mr. Darsky also said Mr. Silverberg is a terrific attorney. Elaine Price, Supervisor of the Town of Mamaroneck said there will be a party for Mr. Silverberg in July before the Town Board meeting, and that he will still be counsel in July for the Town. Dr. Mason said as probably the person on the Board who has worked with and against Steve longer than anybody, he would like to second the comments made in reference to Steve with pleasure. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on July 10, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:36 p.m. /ha/l Marguerite R , Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 12, 1996, 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 C. Alan Mason Stephen Andrew Moser Edmund Papazian Absent: Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Jackie Jackson, Public Stenographer Carbone & Associates, Ltd. 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:15 p.m. Ms. Reader then welcomed Edmund Papazian to the Board. Mr. Papazian is a resident of Larchmont, Town of Mamaroneck for the past fifteen years. Mr. Papazian is an environmental and corporate attorney with Witco, a chemical company, and is married to Joyce Papazian who is a school teacher at the Murray Avenue School and a lifetime resident of Larchmont. Mr. Papazian has family with a daughter who is a very talented flautist Alexa. Ms. Reader is pleased to welcome Edmund Papazian to the Board. Mr. Papazian thanked Ms. Reader, and said he looks forward to working with the Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had a chance to review the Minutes of May 8, 1996, stating the amended Minutes included a deletion on page 3 which read, "Ms. Reader said at the last meeting Ms. Harrington raised concerns about the possibility of adding a condition that even with the organic materials that exist there is still the possibility that there might be gases that might be discharged." Ms. Reader said also the paragraph that states, "Ms. Aisen made the above motion,which was seconded by Dr. Mason and approved, 5-0," should be amended to read, Ms. Aisen made the above motion, which was seconded by Dr. Mason and approved 5-1,and "Ms. Harrington abstained from voting"has been changed to read, Ms. Harrington voted nay. Ms. Reader asked if there were any further amendments to the Minutes of May 8, 1996. Mr. Moser said on page 4 where it says , "Mr. Moser asked about the health food store" it was not Mr. Moser. The Board will amend the Minutes to read, a member of the Board asked about the health food store. Mr. Moser said also on page 4, Laurel Manor Consideration, the second paragraph, it was Mr. Moser's understanding that.Ms. Bocca recommended an EIS and there is no mention of that. Ms. Bocca was asked to confirm the comments made, and after some discussion it was concluded that the Minutes should read, "Ms. Bocca expressed concerns of her office and the Town's planning consultant,Ferandino and Associates, with respect to flooding and drainage. Ms. Bocca, on behalf of her office, initially Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 2 requested an EIS. There was a lengthy discussion concerning whether or not an Environmental Impact Statement should be required at this point. After this discussion Ms. Bocca indicated a supplement to Part III may satisfy the concerns of the CZMC, and the possibility of requesting an EIS still exists." Ms. Bocca said it is important to note the above as the CZMC will be willing to accept an expanded Part III, however if that does not provide the information needed, then CZMC has the option of requesting the Planning Board require an EIS. Mr. Trachtman said on page 5, third paragraph after Consideration-Site Plan Approval,should read, "Mr. Trachtman asked Mr. Stanziale if the Collins Brothers' lot was paved, and if not, would it be paved." On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the amended Minutes for May 8, 1996 were unanimously approved. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION -RENEWAL-SPECIAL PERMIT -Mark and Bob Car Wash d/b/a High Tech Car Wash -2434 Boston Post Road North - Block 503 Lot 326.1 (adjourned 5/8/96) Dolores Battalia, attorney with Stein & Battalia, appeared representing Mark and Bob Car Wash d/b/a/ High Tech Car Wash. Bob Waring, one of the principles, was also present. Ms. Battalia said the applicant is seeking to renew the special permit application for the continued operation of the existing car wash on the Boston Post Road. The site is exactly the same, with a minor alteration i.e., a small concrete incline where the cars would access the car wash which was about 10 in. and has been reduced to 3 to 4 in., which Mr. Trachtman has reviewed and approved. The hours of operation would remain the same. Dr. Mason asked whether the alteration would have any affect on the drainage pattern. Ms. Battalia said it was discussed with the Building Department, it did not even require a permit, and stated the drains are cleaned annually. Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions from the Board, as this is a consideration which then is subject to a Public Hearing for approval. As a matter of information for the new members, in an effort to help things move along upon consideration the Board inputs questions about the application so that the applicant can bring this information to the Board at the Public Hearing. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER 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. Mr. Darsky said that no alterations were being made other than what was discussed, and asked about the awning that exists. Ms. Battalia said the awning has been at the site from the time of the original application. This particular site has been before the Board about five times. Ms. Reader said the matter will be scheduled for a Public Hearing on July 10, 1996. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 3 CONSIDERATION-SUBDIVISION-Laurel Manor-1001 Fenimore Road-Blocks 301 and 302 Lot 1 (adjourned 5/8/96) James Vanoli, consulting engineer for Laurel Manor Subdivision, appeared along with John Epstein, the owner. His appearance this evening before the Board is to keep them abreast of the actions taken, and there is no request for the Board to take any actions at this time. He stated the developer would like to continue the time extension, and then explained that the HEC-1 analysis had been completed. It was requested by the consulting engineer, Mr. Trachtman, and was delivered to him recently. Ms. Reader asked if HEC-1 was the wetlands approval. Mr. Trachtman said HEC-1 is a computer program that allows the determination of water conditions. Mr. Vanoli said the reason HEC-1 was needed was so the storm drainage and detention analysis on the specific site could be meshed with the entire Sheldrake River to find out about how the peaks meet. Mr. Moser asked for the meaning of HEC-1. Mr. Trachtman said it is Hydrological Engineering Center, a series of computer programs. Mr. Vanoli said the applicant performed a TR 55, which is the Soil Conservation Service Method of Engineering Calculations, and that is typical and accepted by municipalities, but because of different programs it was converted into HEC-1 which is a different computer program so it could be compared so it could be compared with the '92 Malcolm Pirnie study. The concern was as the peak flow goes through the Sheldrake River, where does the proposed site fit into it. This will be compiled and delivered to the Board. The applicant has also been working with the Coastal Zone Management Commission. At their last meeting, by memorandum dated June 11, 1996 which was just received from Eve Bocca, it explains what has transpired. The applicant will be meeting with the Town's consulting engineer June 19, 1996 at 1:00 p.m. The concern is the maintenance of the proposed detention for which a solution is being sought. Ms. Reader said it is her understanding that the applicant is still in conference with the CZMC and some further preliminary work, and asked if Mr. Vanoli was requesting all time periods with respect to this application be waived. Mr. Vanoli said that he was requesting all time periods with respect to this application be waived and the Planning Board continue the matter. Ms. Reader asked Attorney Silverberg about declaring the Board Lead Agency. Attorney Silverberg said that as long as all time periods are being waived, there is no need at this time to declare the Board Lead Agency. Mr. Vanoli agreed. Dr. Mason asked if Mr. Vanoli received any feedback from the CZMC of the on-site visit of Sunday, 6/2/96. Mr. Vanoli said he was not sure if he had received any feedback. Ms. Bocca said there was no formal feedback as of yet. Ms. Reader stated she assumed Mr. Coleman's report will be forthcoming, and Mr. Vanoli will receive it as soon as Ms. Bocca has it? Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Bocca said that was correct. Ms. Reader said the consideration will be continued on July 10, 1996, and thanked Mr. Vanoli. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Vanoli that one of the Board members wanted to ask some questions. Ms. Moser asked Mr. Vanoli about the survey of the wetlands from Malcolm Pimie, and does it identify more of the wetlands. Mr. Vanoli then reviewed and explained the wetlands map that was prepared and delivered to the Costal Zone Management Commission explaining the wetlands boundary that the applicant defined originally and the wetland boundary as defined by Joan Hansen of Malcolm Pimie. Mr. Vanoli said Steve Coleman, the consultant to Coastal Zone, took liberties that Mr. Vanoli does not agree with, and included soils which was discussed at the Coastal Zone meeting. Ms. Reader said Mr. Coleman is a consultant to CZMC, which is an advisor to the Planning Board. As the Board does not have any documentation with respect to Mr. Coleman's findings or report, it would not be beneficial to discuss the matter at this time. Mr. Moser said when Mr. Vanoli made a presentation to the Planning Board, he had shown to the Board in addition to the current subdivision layout Mr. Vanoli presented, another plan that showed more homes. Mr. Moser wanted to know if Mr. Vanoli has considered putting fewer homes in the development and what the impact would be in terms of the coverage and runoff. Mr. Vanoli said fewer homes has not been considered, as they have decreased the development a responsible amount. To reduce the number of lots is not going to reduce the runoff of any substantial amount because the road is generally going to be the same. Mr. Vanoli then again referred to the map and pointed out an area where lots could be eliminated if the Board made an issue, and then pointed out an area where six (6) lots can be developed by zoning with an as-of-right subdivision. Mr. Vanoli said the applicant is trying to balance good solid development, proper land planning and an even lot count and feels that six (6) is the appropriate number. Mr. Moser disputed Mr. Vanoli's conclusion regarding the runoff. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Vanoli if he could provide a color delineated maps for the Board to review. Mr. Vanoli said he would be sure the Board receives copies of the map. Mr. Silverberg said one of the reasons for the meeting on June 19, 1996 is to try to come to some agreement among the various engineers, rather than confusing the Board with three different opinions, and hopefully the CZMC will come back with a consensus on some of these issues. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING-SITE PLAN APPROVAL -Frank and Ann Auricchio-5 Fifth Avenue-Block 132 Lot 609 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. • Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 5 Robert Stanziale, appeared representing Frank and Anne Auricchio. Mr. Stanziale reiterated briefly for the Board the site plan application stating the applicant hopes to legalize the parking areas on the site which have been active for many years and the one story building with a few uses currently present. There is a parking lot established on the north side and a parking lot existing on the south side for which there is no record. Mr. Stanziale also said the applicant wants to separate and establish the unpaved area, which remains unpaved area on the south side of the lot as an accessory parking area for Collins Brothers Moving which is across the street. Mr. Stanziale said since the last Planning Board meeting the applicant appeared at the Coastal Zone Management Commission. CZMC recommends, primarily for the auto storage area as proposed at the rear of the property, that a catch basin be installed which will be tied into the storm drainage in the street to be outfitted with a grease trap and sediment basin to absorb any oils, gas or other fluids that might come from the towed cars themselves. Mr. Stanziale said the applicant also appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals to request a use variance for the Towing Service, which is held over until the next meeting for adequate submission of financial data to substantiate the financial hardship on the property. Mr. Reader asked Mr. Stanziale if the Zoning board action was specifically for the towing business. Mr. Stanziale said the Zoning board action was specifically for the storage of cars for the towing business, Giacomo Service Station which is across the street. Mr. Papazian asked if the site was a former gas station, as he was not at the last meeting. Mr. Stanziale said it was formerly an Exxon Service Station. Mr. Reader said it was also where the firehouse was when the Town was renovating the firehouse. Mr. Stanziale said the pumps and tanks will be removed, and that Mr. Trachtman informed him that due to the length of time the tanks have been abandoned they must be removed. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Stanziale if the service station had diesel fuel. Mr. Stanziale said he was not sure if the service station had diesel fuel, but there are five (5) or six (6) tanks. Mr. Moser then referred to the Minutes of the last meeting which stated that Mr. Trachtman said that depending on the size of the tanks, 1,100 gallons, they would have to be removed or if smaller they could be filled and left in place. He then asked Mr. Stanziale if all the tanks were going to be removed. Mr. Stanziale said all the tanks were going to be removed, due to feedback from Mr. Jakubowski of the Building Department. Mr. Papazian asked who will remove the tanks. Mr. Stanziale said a tank removal service will remove the tanks, who will certify and insure the Building Department that there is no leakage, as soil testing has already been done. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Stanziale if the Building Department will receive a report. Mr. Stanziale said the Building Department will receive a report. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman or Attorney Silverberg if a bond is required. Mr. Trachtman said he did not recall if the State regulations necessarily requires a bond, but will check with the Building Department. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 6 Attorney Silverberg said he also did not know if a bond is required, but said there is also an issue of a use variance and suggested that whatever questions the Board may have be addressed, holding the matter over to the next Board Meeting. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions from the Board members, and members of the public? There being no further questions, on a motion was made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the July 10, 1996 meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - SAVATREE - 633-635 Fifth Avenue - Block 132 Lot 175 and 643 On a motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Don Becker, Vice President of SAVATREE,appeared and stated that since the last Planning Board meeting he appeared before the CZMC, had submitted a copy of the letter received from them to the Board and will review the two specific concerns addressed in that letter. Mr. Becker said one of the concerns was about the containment of any possible spills that may occur from taking products out of storage and physically carrying the products to the truck prior to the truck leaving the yard. To address that issue, SAVATREE has taken the original design which showed storage in the rear of the building, and expanded the storage area to now include the entire building. The two possible entrances have a 4 in. concrete berme (speed bump), the entire area is epoxied up to a height of 8 in. on the walls that allows the entrance of a truck over the speed bump, taking products off the shelves, placing them on the truck and then take the truck out of the site. Basically it contains the entire area, which actually doubles the containment up to 1,600 gallons based on the average storage of about 400 gallons, 4 times. Mr. Becker said the second concern involved the washing of the trucks, and it is still the belief of SAVATREE as expressed at the previous Planning Board meeting when SAVATREE received their Special Use Permit, the Planning Board was aware the trucks were going to be washed on site and SAVATREE got an approval for that. He stated the residue that will come off the trucks when washed is similar to the residue that comes off of any other truck, i.e. road dirt. The trucks are off to the side when treatments occur, and are self-contained systems. SAVATREE continues to believe they are not putting any pesticides into the drainage system. Dr. Mason said SAVATREE'S concept of making the building a containment area and providing for loading and unloading within the building is fine except if there is a spill on the shelving area the truck comes into the area and it is then tracked out. If SAVATREE maintained the containment area at the back and the speed bump at the front, then the problem is solved. Mr. Becker said the original intent was bringing the product out of the storage area to the truck. Dr. Mason said if there was a spill within the containment area/storage area, that is likely to be a larger spill than a single container being carried. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Becker said the only reason he disagrees with that assumption is that Dr. Mason was specifically referring to taking the products out of storage. The maximum size container that will be brought out is a 5 gallon container. Dr. Mason asked what the largest size container Mr. Becker has in the storage area. Mr. Becker said the largest size container in the storage area is a 55 gallon drum. Dr. Mason said theoretically if a 55 gallon drum ruptures and the containment area is discreet, that 55 gallons will not go anywhere except in that small containment area. SAVATREE can contain the large spill in the storage area and can contain the small spill in the loading area. Mr. Becker said he does not disagree with Dr. Mason, other than it can be taken to an extreme. Mr. Reader said Dr. Mason raises an important concern, and feels that CZMC focused on a problem with this issue. What Dr. Mason is offering is a primary containment, and a secondary containment. The primary containment would be a catch basin that would be a narrower area for perhaps the bigger spills, so that if there is a spill as trucks go into the containment area a significant amount of materials does not come out into the ground outside the garage. Mr. Becker said he understands the concept of the second berm, but will be still storing the materials in the rear, pointing same out on the rendering. Mr. Becker then discussed the double capacity containment presented. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Becker if there are any obligations under the State Law when there is a spill and asked how it is handled. Mr. Becker said the spill has to be contained, absorbed with appropriate materials, wrapped in newspaper and disposed of in a regular land fill, as there is nothing considered hazardous, per DEC regulations. Mr. Papazian asked if the trucks would run back and forth over the pesticide spillage. Mr. Becker said absolutely not. If a spill occurred a truck would not be brought into the containment area, and if there was a spill it would be cleaned up. A discussion ensued regarding the cleanup of a 55 gallon spill within the small containment area in the back rather than over the entire surface of the garage area. Mr. Moser asked what objections Mr. Becker has to running the curb along the area of the storage shed originally shown, and asked what would be done if a 55 gallon drum ruptured and a vehicle was in the area. Mr. Becker said he had no objections to the curb, and if the Board feels it is appropriate that would be fine. Mr. Becker then discussed procedures that would be taken if a spillage did occur. Mr. Reader asked if anyone was present from Coastal Zone, and if so to explain the last paragraph of the letter which states, "In the opinion of the CZMC, permitting storage of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals at the location, is inconsistent with Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 39 and Policy 44 of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program." Frank McGahan, from Coastal Zone, appeared and explained that originally SAVATREE had proposed having a trough in the back. Now apparently it has been changed to a trough inside, and CZMC cannot agree with that. There was also concern about the washing down of trucks. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 8 Ms. Reader asked if there was a double system of the berm inside and the reenforced walls or berme on the perimeter of the building, would that satisfy the CZMC, other than the wash-down. Mr. McGahan said if SAVATREE went back to the original scheme and had a speed bump at the door, there would not be a problem. Ms. Reader said with respect to the wash down, at a prior meeting with another representative it was basically indicated the wash down would be like any other truck picking up dirt, and the Board at that time accepted that as an explanation. Mr. Darsky said the first time the matter was before the Board, SAVATREE said there would be no washing down of chemicals. Ms. Reader said the Minutes of the February 14, 1996 meeting, page 2 stated, "Mr. Trachtman asked would there be any washing down of the equipment at the site. Mr. Leonard stated normal truck washing as far as the exterior of the truck." Mr. Darsky said Mr. Becker had said washing the trucks is like washing a car in a driveway. If there are pesticides or other residual poisons on the trucks, will they get washed off? Mr. McGahan said in Mr. Becker's presentation he suggested the trucks are a distance away from where the spraying is done, there is a film on the trucks which is washed down the drain. A discussion ensued. Mr. Papazian said Mr. Becker came to a conclusion that washing the trucks is like washing a car and asked how he arrived at that conclusion. Mr. Becker said as previously stated at the last Planning Board meeting, the trucks themselves are away from where the spraying occurs. In addition, the truck is a closed system with everything inside. All that is being washed is the exterior of the truck, i.e. whatever is on the road. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Becker if any testing had been done, and if not, then it is basically his opinion. Mr. Becker said no testing had been done, it is basically his opinion. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Trachtman if it made sense to provide the main part of the garage, not the holding area in the back, with a drain and holding tank with appropriate air flow to promote evaporation so that it would concentrate whatever was in the holding tank which could be removed at a fairly large interval? If a chamber was provided, could that be evaporated down to a manageable amount of fluid? Mr. Trachtman apologized for missing the first part of the presentation and asked if there was any discussion of the possibility that the floor be pitched so there would be a central containment location rather than a speed bump. Mr. Becker said it would be a 4 in. speed bump which was calculated to contain 1,600 gallons. Mr. Trachtman asked if it would be possible to pitch the floor of the garage so that there is simple puddling area. Mr. Becker said he was not clear of what the purpose of that would be, from the standpoint of what the containment is intended to do at this point. Dr. Mason said the Board is trying to deal with the washing problem also. Ms. Aisen said there are two drains now, one outside for washing the trucks and one inside for catching spills. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Reader said Mr. Trachtman is submitting if the wash down were to occur inside the garage. Mr. Trachtman said he wasn't sure if the discussion was about wash down activities or also promoting containment of the spill. Mr. Becker said that has already been addressed by proposing a second interior barrier which is containing it in a much smaller area. The whole point was to create an impermeable surface, so that should you have a spill, it can be cleaned up quickly and thoroughly. Dr. Mason said have the two containment areas as a starting point, taking the larger shallower containment area where the truck would be and drain that to a chamber immediately outside creating an air flow over that to evaporate any water that goes in there which will be concentrated and contained. It might be necessary occasionally to pump out the chamber, but probably evaporation would occur if the truck was hosed down quickly the runoff would be contained and will evaporate. There will be a residue in that chamber. Ms. Aisen asked if there would be any solid form. Dr. Mason said he there would probably be very little solid residue left. The Board is trying to contain spills and prevent runoff getting into the storm drain and into the premium marsh. Mr. Becker said in using the above method a situation would be setup where trucks will be going in and out tracking water or whatever is in the area which is what the Board wants to avoid. Secondly, if a truck is washed with soap, you will get a soapy water solution. If per chance any drip would get on the truck, which Mr. Becker still believes is not the case, it in most cases is a very delicate solution,not concentrate. Once soap is put onto the truck, chemically, physically, biologically there will be nothing left. Dr. Mason said if a place is provided to drain and evaporate runoff from truck washing and not get into the soil, then the problem would be solved. Ms. Reader said Mr. Becker is saying there is not a problem to solve. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Trachtman if what Dr. Mason is suggesting is feasible. Mr. Trachtman said generally requirements for facilities that have a pad which is pitched serves the same purpose. The spillage is being directed to a central location. The debate is whether or not the epoxy sealed floor is acting as a sufficient barrier for that material or should the surface be pitched to a collection device, nothing more than a trough drain that will hold it. Would the Board rather have something built into the floor that could possibly leak after a period of time or be satisfied with being able to essentially see everything laying on the floor. There are no State guidelines for these facilities. Under the circumstances, it would be acceptable to have an epoxy sealant, and the only thing suggested before was whether or not it might be pitched, rather than rely on the uneven grading of the floor. Dr. Mason said if it was pitched to the center and graded, a trough should still be a wide enough surface area to get some evaporation. Ms. Reader asked what Dr. Mason was referring to when he suggested a trough, a trough within the floor that is cemented and epoxied over so that it is part of the surface? Dr. Mason said Mr. Trachtman and he are referring to a shallow V. Mr. Becker said his only concern is that it is a building with an existing slab. The Board is discussing re- engineering the building as opposed to creating a suitable enclosure being able to hold, within the small area, twice the amount SAVATREE would ever store and within the big area four times what SAVATREE would ever store. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Darsky said he agrees with Mr. Becker, thinks the pitching idea would be frightfully expensive, and doesn't see it being warranted for the spillage. As far as truck washing, Mr. Darsky does not feel the area would hold all the water used. Dr. Mason said rather than pitching the whole floor, raise two areas that would correspond with the tire treads of the truck. Mr. Trachtman said that was not a good idea, feels installing the epoxy on the surface and walls is appropriate, but thought it would be an easier cleanup if it were pitched to a central location. Dr. Mason asked if the floor has a pitch to it. Mr. Becker said the floor is relatively flat. A member of the Board asked if the floor had a drain. Mr. Becker said the floor did not have a drain, it is a concrete slab. Mr. Darsky asked about the Bedford facility truck washing. Mr. Becker said in Bedford the trucks are washed outside, there is a storm drain at the top of the property one on which the Town has an easement. There is actually a storm drain on the property which drains through the easement and out into the Saw Mill River. Ms. Reader stated at the February 14, 1996 meeting that Mr. Trachtman noted that the applicant's Bedford facility was established prior to regulations and statutes to control this type of action. Ms. Aisen asked what kind of hardship would be created if Mr. Becker returns to his willingness to wash the trucks in Bedford. Mr. Becker said the purpose of moving to Larchmont, which is serviced along with the surrounding down county area out of the Bedford Hills office, was to remain competitive. Ms. Aisen asked if the trucks referred to are Town of Mamaroneck trucks and are there different trucks for Bedford. Mr. Becker said the Town of Mamaroneck trucks do not go north of route 287 and are dedicated to the down county area. The Larchmont office handles route 287 and all southern Westchester County. Mr. Moser asked how the trucks are presently washed in Bedford. Mr. Becker said the trucks are washed with a hose, brush and a bucket of soap and water. Ms. Reader said it was her recollection that the primary storage of chemicals is in Bedford and Larchmont is a satellite office. Mr. Becker said the primary storage of chemicals is in Bedford, Larchmont is a small satellite office with two trucks operating and is not a major operation. There is no plan for storage over the winter, as once the season is finished materials must be stored in a heated space. Larchmont is not heated and with the danger of frost, all materials are returned to the Bedford office for storage. By September, October only fertilizer will remain. The season is finished by mid-November. Ms. Aisen said the only item still in question is the washing of trucks, on which the Board must reach a conclusion as to whether there is a danger in doing so. Washing the trucks indoors will only create a lake in a building. The question is, is there some way the trucks can be washed safely outdoors. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 11 The Board continued a lengthy discussion regarding the possibility of contamination and the safety of washing trucks. Mr. Becker then referred to an area on the drawing before the Board where the trucks are going to be washed and road matter that is washed from the trucks will end up in the soil, which will immediately degrade and break down, are environmentally sound and will not go directly into the storm drain. It will be percolating through the soil. There will be no solids,just SAVATREE products which are made to breakdown quickly. Ms. Aisen said she feels the Board needs an expert response to Mr. Becker's comments. Attorney Silverberg said the CZMC is finding an inconsistency. Under the Town's Consistency Law the Board, to override that,must provide specific permanent findings why the Board disagrees with the findings of the CZMC. In addition to prohibit the activity, the Board has to have some basis for doing that. Ms. Reader said the Board should refer back to the CZMC letter, stating the inconsistency is permitting storage of pesticides, and then discussed the double berme which would be consistent. The issue now seems to be whether or not the wash down activity creates a coastal problem. Ms. Reader then said that this is a Public Hearing and asked if there were any other comments from the public. Mr. McGahan stated that Mr. Becker demonstrated a certain wash down area, and asked if a gravel bed could be provided that would penetrate the ground. Mr. Becker said that could be arranged. Dr. Mason said that a 6 in. gravel bed or something of that nature, assuring that the water could be contained in that area until such time as biodegrading of the material would occur, would be a solution. Mr. Moser said it is a Special Use Permit and asked if it needed to be renewed. Ms. Reader said a Special Use Permit needs to be renewed every two years. Mr. Moser then said could the renewal be conditioned requesting that testing of the soil and the results of same. Mr. Papazian said limits would be needed for what is being tested, and there may not be limits for soil testing. Dr. Mason asked Mr. McGahan to discuss this matter with Gary Trachtman. Mr. Trachtman said a gravel infiltration trench would be sufficient. Ms. Reader asked if the area and size needed to be defined for the gravel infiltration trench, or would the Town engineer do so. A discussion followed. Mr. Silverberg said the application is for site plan approval in addition to a special use permit, and items needed should be indicated. Mr. Becker said a plan will be drawn and submitted to Mr. Trachtman for his review and approval. Mr. Trachtman said the size of the infiltration trench should be 20 ft. x 20 ft. Attorney Silverberg said due to the amount of changes requested this evening, the new plans that were submitted this evening and the modifying of the plans further, that new plans should be submitted and reviewed by the Board. CZMC may also have a comment on the layout. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 12 Ms. Reader asked Mr. Becker to supply the new plans sufficiently in advance to be distributed to the Board members. Ms. Reader then said Mr. Becker had indicated the maximum number of gallons of material to be stored is no more than 440. Mr. Becker said the maximum number of gallons of material to be stored is no more than 444, which was on the first set of drawings the Board received. Mr. Reader said it will be a recommendation that a condition to the Special Use Permit be that the maximum number of gallons of material to be stored be no more than 444 gallons. Mr. Moser asked Mr. Becker about the ventilation of the structure, stating Mr. Becker had said that the temperature would never be higher than 90 degrees and asked if that was safe for the materials to be stored. Mr. Becker said it would be safe for the materials and is not a concern according to DEC guidelines for a storage building providing adequate ventilation. Dr. Mason then asked Mr. Becker if there will be two berms and a wash pit? Mr. Becker said that there will be two berms and a wash pit. 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 adjourned to the July 10, 1996 meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT -Anne D. Ruppel - 871 Fenimore Road - Block 312 Lot 45 Mr. Philip Ruppel, husband of the applicant, appeared along with Richard Hein the architect. Mr. Hein said the applicant is before the board for consideration of the construction of a swimming pool which encroaches 10 ft. into the setback for a drainage ditch, an intermittent body of water that was not found on the Town wetlands map. Mr. Hein contacted the Building Department voluntarily,after visiting the site for the first time. The applicant had hoped to place the pool in a naturalistic rock setting, and the drainage ditch is in the corner of the applicant's property and the neighbor to the rear. Mr. Hein had several site meetings with Mr. Gerety of the Building Department to understand the parameters of the application and the wetlands ordinance. As the proposed area is not technically deemed a wetlands, Mr. Hein said it is hoped the Board will consider the impingement on the wetlands as minor. The applicant has agreed to Annex I, which is attached to the application, which states "the location of the proposed activity does not fall within the definition of Control Areas Wetlands, it does fall within the definition set forth in 88.2 A.2 Rainfall Drainage System in that it will be within one hundred feet of a stream which by virtue of its location conveys "surface water runoff from its source to and including its ultimate points of discharge wholly or partially within Town limits." The proposed activity is next to a small stream that is less than 6 ft. in width which flows into the east branch of the Sheldrake River. Mr. Hein said one of the issues is that an inspection of the site would show it is not a wetlands environment, but it is a woodlands. Mr. Hein feels the stream was constructed during the course of the development of the Fenbrook Development, and that is why it is not on the Town Map. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 13 COMr. Ruppel said the 1986 map does not show the stream. Dr. Mason said he does not recall any stream being developed during his involvement in the processing of the Fenbrook application. The area was a densely wooded area before the development,and the internal mapping of that area was not accurate. Mr. Ruppel said a culvert was installed at the time. Attorney Silverberg said under new regulations the matter is a Type II action, although the Board might want to ask CZMC for advisory opinion. Under the new state regulations Type II involves construction, expansion or placement of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings." Ms. Reader asked Mr. Ruppel is there always water flowing through the stream which may or may not have been preexisting? Mr. Ruppel said he has resided at the residence since August, 1995. When there recently was a torrential rain fall, the stream was full but not above the banks. Where the stream is located, the ground is much higher than the stream itself. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Ruppel to explain where the proposed pool will be in relation to the stream, how close the pool is to the stream, and asked about the elevation differences. Mr. Hein pointed out the proposed location of the pool on the renderings, and said the pool is 90 ft. from 41) the stream to the extreme edge of the pool and 10 ft. above stream level. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Hein will be using bedrock stone or bringing in stone. Mr. Hein said the applicant will be bringing in stone to match. Mr. Papazian asked what happens with the backwash on the proposed pool. Mr. Hein said the backwash is directly to the sanitary sewer, which is the recommendation of the Building Department. Ms. Reader asked about the distance from the house. Mr. Hein said the distance from the house is 35 ft. to the corner of the garage. Dr. Mason asked about the tree removal. Mr. Hein said four (4) trees, Locust, Gray Birch, Dogwood and Maple, will be removed, due to the construction of the pool and the root structure of the trees. Mr. Ruppel said since purchasing the property 25 trees have been planted, and he intends to plant another 20 to 30 trees. Mr. Hein said the applicant has filed a tree removal application with the Building Department. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 14 On a motion made by Ms. Reader, seconded by Mr. Papazian, approved 5-1, it was FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. Dr. Mason voted nay. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the matter was unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on July 10, 1996. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-SPECIAL PERMIT-Larchmont Station Luncheonette-176 Myrtle Boulevard- Block 132 Lot 642 Anthony T. Russo, owner for Larchmont Station Luncheonette, appeared and said he is taking over the previous Gold Lake Delicatessen and Restaurant. Mr. Russo wants to change the name to Larchmont Station Luncheonette and is keeping everything else the same, i.e. seating,hours. Mr. Russo said the sign has already been approved. Mr. Papazian asked if Mr. Russo was going to renovate inside. Mr.Russo said there will be no renovation,just cleanup and stated that the luncheonette is now spotless. Mr. Russo said the Building Department has been very helpful. Attorney Silverberg said due to change of ownership it is necessary to have a Special Use Permit, which must be renewed every two (2) years. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On a motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Dr. Mason, the matter was unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on July 10, 1996. Mr. Russo asked if could install the sign. Ms. Reader said Mr. Russo could not put the sign up until approval is received from the Building Department. Ms. Reader then told Mr. Russo to check with Mr. Gerety. Ms. Reader told Mr. Russo to contact the secretary, Ms. Roma, regarding notice to neighbors as it is his responsibility to notify the neighbors. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Anthony Coschigano III - 2 Carroll Place - Block 222 Lot 390 Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 15 • Anthony Coschigano III appeared. He said he is proposing a kitchen terrace addition and was informed that he had to prepare an erosion control plan. When that was submitted he was informed that he was within 100 ft. of the Freshwater Wetlands. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Coschigano knew how much into the 100 ft. he is. Mr. Coschigano said he was not sure, and that the architect could not be present this evening. Mr. Coschigano said he is proposing to raise the grade approximately 1 ft., approximately 60 ft. x 100 ft., which will not change any of the runoff. Ms. Reader asked is the proposed addition and terrace is within the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Coschigano said the addition and terrace encroaches within the 100-year flood plain. Dr. Mason said the way the land lays, the encroachment is not going to have a significant visual impact beyond a line that would be drawn along the back of the houses. The impact of the addition is minor. The impact on the wetlands is minor compared to the wetlands on the applicant, and is 14 in. going to solve the problem. Mr. Coschigano said 14 in. definitely will solve the problem, as he has researched the problem. Ms. Reader asked why the Cross County Parkway was referred to on the survey. Mr. Coschigano said that was on the original survey when it was prepared, and stated it was sold to the Town. Eve Bocca said an original balance of the Port Chester Parkway was originally slated to run along the Leather Stocking Trail. Many years ago the County sold it to the Town for $1.00 if it is maintained as a quiet recreation and study. Attorney Silverberg said the matter was a late entry to the agenda, and he asked Gary whether it would be helpful to have a better delineation of where the wetlands is situated. Mr. Trachtman said a good portion of the property is within the 100-year flood plain, which the existing FEMA map also indicates. There are issues about the encroachment on the flood plain. Construction would have to comply with the flood damage prevention code. The drawing received this evening uses a elevation data which is arbitrary on the site. The data that is indicated on the house has an arbitrary datum elevation of 100. There is approximately a difference of about 15 ft. between that elevation and the datum in the flood study. The elevation of the 100-year flood in NGVD terms is roughly 78 to 80. You need to subtract the 15 ft. from the elevations on the drawing. There needs to be a delineation of NGVD terms so it can be correctly related to the flood plain. Ms. Reader suggested Mr. Coschigano have the architect speak to Mr. Trachtman, the consulting engineer to the Town. Mr. Trachtman can advise the architect to show different elevations, consistent with the USGA, and a geographical study to show the Board more specifically where the wetlands are in relation to the proposed addition. Attorney Silverberg suggested Ms. Reader advise Mr. Coschigano to submit the materials requested well in advance of the meeting to the Board. Dr. Mason said it would be helpful if Mr. Trachtman would sketch out the guidelines of the flood damage prevention control to which the construction plans must conform. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 16 Mr. Trachtman said the most significant items are the elevation of the first floor and the distance above the hundred year flood, and the nature of what the proposed construction below that elevation has to be. Mr. Coschigano has to comply with the requirements. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Moser, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. On a motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Dr. Mason, the matter was unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on July 10, 1996. Mr. Darsky said the Board will do everything they can to help Mr. Coschigano. Mr. Coschigano thanked Mr. Darsky and the Board. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - SITE PLAN APPROVAL - NAUTILUS DINER OF MAMARONECK - DeRaffele Mfg. Co. - 1240 Boston Post Road - Block 408 Lot 110 Steve Efstathiou and Tom Ravo appeared. Mr. Ravo said the applicant wants to install a 66 ft. x 9 ft. Garden Room in the front of the building. The proposed addition will be 20 in. from the property line, which will have low plantings across the front. There will be ample parking. Ms. Reader said a memo was received by the Planning Board from the Mr. Jakubowski of the Building Department regarding parking dated June 12, 1996 and gave the memo to Mr. Ravo to peruse. The memo states Mr. Jakubowski is reviewing the parking situation, and that there may be a referral to the Zoning Board. Ms. Reader informed Mr. Ravo that he will have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Jakubowski after this evening's meeting. Mr. Efstathiou said they have already gotten approval from the Board of Architectural Review(BAR) for the trees. Mr. Moser asked if the BAR specified what type of trees should be planted. Mr. Ravo said the Board specified Bradford Pear trees be planted. Ms. Reader asked what happens when the windows are removed facing the Post Road, and how does the proposed addition connect to the existing diner. Mr. Ravo said the diner has archways, and the applicant wants to get rid of the arch look. The applicant will install a square window. Inside the room the walls will be stripped, leaving the uprights in, and there will be booths on one side. Ms. Aisen asked how may more feet will be added to the front of the building. Mr. Ravo said 9 ft. will be added to the front of the building. Dr. Mason asked how many tables will that accommodate. Mr. Ravo said approval was received for 18 tables, and the applicant will put 12 tables of four in the additional space. Planning Board June 12, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Moser asked if it will be a skylight addition. Mr. Ravo said the top will be a roof as glass is too hot. There will be glass in the front. Ms. Reader asked if the addition will be walls and glass windows. Mr. Ravo said the bottom is all stone, and from table height and upwards will be glass. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency and solely responsible for determining whether the proposed action may have a significant impact on the environment; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action. Ms. Reader suggested this matter be referred to the CZMC for their comments. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the matter was unanimously adjourned for a Public Hearing to be held on July 10, 1996. Dr. Mason informed Mr. Efstathiou and Mr. Ravo to contact Marguerite Roma, the secretary to the Planning Board regarding the notice of the Public Hearing to be held, as the applicant must notice the neighbors on site plan approval on a timely basis. Ms. Reader said before the meeting is adjourned it is her understanding that tonight is the last meeting for counsel, Steve Silverberg. Ms. Reader said personally she has found Mr. Silverberg wonderful to work with not only for his knowledge on the statutes but on his judgment per application of procedures. He is a terrific attorney. Mr. Darsky also said Mr. Silverberg is a terrific attorney. Elaine Price, Supervisor of the Town of Mamaroneck said there will be a party for Mr. Silverberg in July before the Town Board meeting, and that he will still be counsel in July for the Town. Dr. Mason said as probably the person on the Board who has worked with and against Steve longer than anybody, he would like to second the comments made in reference to Steve with pleasure. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on July 10, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Marguerite oma, Recording Secretary