Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_11_13 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 13, 1996, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman 0111_11.May W. Aisen 'IQ Richard H. Darsky � Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Stephen Andrew Moser '. ,11 7114944P Edmund Papazian Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel • Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Susan Sturino, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 40 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:28 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the October 9, 1996 meeting and if there were any amendments. Mr. Trachtman made a correction on page 4, stating Mr. Mustacato is an architect not an engineer. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the amended Minutes for October 9, 1996 were approved, 6-0. Mr. Darsky was not present at that meeting and did not vote. Ms. Reader then said the third matter on the agenda, the Board knowing what the application is for, is going to be a very quick matter and asked if there was any objection from the other applicants if the third matter was taken out of order and heard first. There being no objection, Ms. Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION - MODIFICATION/FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tricarico - 771 Forest Avenue -Block 210 Lot 35 Mr. Widulski,the engineer for the project, appeared and stated the applicant had received an approval from the Board some months back for the construction of a swimming pool in the rear yard at 771 Forest Avenue. Mr. Widulski said that during the course of construction new ideas arose, however, there was no mechanism to stop the project as it would have caused greater environmental damage which the applicant was trying to avoid. Mr. Widulski said four(4)changes were made, stating the swimming pool size was reduced from 20 ft. by 40 ft. to 18 ft. by 36 ft., creating an additional walkway where there was very little without increasing the footprint of the upper area of the pool. Mr. Widulski said by shrinking the pool size, the applicant was able to create a 5 ft. wide landscaped strip to one side of the pool which originally was not existing. Mr. Widulski said the applicant also changed from concrete surface to concrete pavers, individual pieces set in sand and filled in the joints with sand, which help absorb the rainfall. Mr. Widulski said the major improvement made was to the retaining wall. A small retaining wall had been Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 2 discussed to pull the soil slope out of the floodplain area, which was carried further because it was aesthetically pleasing and pulled out the soil slope in all areas in addition to the one critical area which diminished the possibility of wash from the slope until the landscaping was approved. Mr. Widulski then presented as-built pictures to the Board for its perusal. Ms. Reader then asked Mr. Trachtman if her understanding was correct, that the entire project now has less encroachment than the original project in the control area. Mr. Trachtman agreed. Dr. Mason asked if there was less encroachment on the entire project or just the pool. Mr. Trachtman said in the vicinity of the pool, and said Mr. Widulski described an area, as one looks at the drawings, to the right which has undergone more construction than originally contemplated but is no closer to the stream. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the site, the control area and impervious surface in the project. Mr. Trachtman said the area that has been changed from grass to some type of less pervious surface, is larger than what it was before, but changed from an impervious wet concrete surface to a porous concrete paver system laid in sand. It is not as impervious as the original design, but there is more area that has the new design. Ms. Reader asked about the impact. Mr. Trachtman said in his letter of November 5, 1996 Malcolm Pirnie indicated that on balance there is somewhat less of an impact on the freshwater wetlands area. A discussion ensued about the absorption of water and flooding. Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Widulski why Mr. Widulski said he had to go ahead with the plans before receiving Board approval. Mr. Widulski said the applicant was into construction, needed fill,which was exposed, and decided to use the precast wall system, rather than stop the job, leave the fill exposed and possibly have the fill erode after a storm. A discussion ensued regarding when the construction had taken place, the details regarding getting approval originally and the fact that the work for the modification was done before getting Board approval. Ms. Reader asked if the matter should be referred to CZMC. Ms. Gallent said it is a Type II action and does not have to be referred to the CZMC. Ms. Reader asked if anyone was present from the Building Department to explain what procedures should be followed in this type of situation, other than appearing before the Board after the fact. There being no one present from the Building Department, Ms. Reader asked the secretary to send a memo to the Building Department for the next meeting, the Public Hearing, recommending the proper procedure to be followed in this type of situation and a verification about coverage, impervious surface and whether the applicant is within those limits. A discussion ensued regarding when the modification was filed. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Reader, it was unanimously Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 3 RESOLVED, that the matter be adjourned and scheduled for a Public Hearing at the December 11, 1996 meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING -FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - S.A.B. DEVELOPMENT - Andrew Saines - 28 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52.1 On a motion 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. Ms. Reader said nearly everyone has the new plans which were just distributed,and asked Mr. Trachtman if he had a chance to review the plans. Mr. Trachtman said he only very briefly reviewed the plans. Ms. Reader asked if he wanted an opportunity to review the plans, and Mr. Trachtman said he would. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Saines to explain the revised plans. Andrew Saines and Fred Grippi of R.M.G. Associates appeared. Ms. Reader asked if there was anyone in the public that would like to see the plans. The plans were provided to those who requested to see them. Ms. Reader said there is a question from a member of the audience and asked the individual to state her name. Judith Dichter appeared and said she is present with another neighbor. Other neighbors are not present because they are out of town on business, and in addition because of some things that were going on with the property during the week, the lawyer that the neighbors are working with chose not to be present because the property was going to be sold, which is not taking place. Ms. Lindsay of 23 Bonnie Way appeared and said that Mr. Ladner who is not able to be present this evening, felt the best way to shortcut the problem was to try to buy the property. Ms. Lindsay said that due to the price of the property, the sale did not take place and due to the legal expenses involved, the lawyer was put on hold until the sale negotiations were completed. Dr. Mason asked who the immediate next door neighbors of the property are. Ms. Dichter said the Ladners are the next door neighbors of the property, and are in California on business. A discussion ensued regarding onto whose property the drainage pipe is going to discharge; i.e. the McCarthy property. Mr. Saines said a channel will be cut through the rock and a 24 in. pipe will be installed that will discharge directly to the stream. A detailed discussion ensued. Mr. Trachtman said he understands the calculations are being done and will review them for the next meeting. Planning Board • November 13, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Trachtman said he only received the new plans one-half hour before the meeting started and cannot comment on the new plans. Ms. Reader said the Board cannot make a determination and will have to keep the matter on for consideration. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the installation of the proposed pipe, the capacity and cleanout of the pipe. Further discussion ensued regarding the 48 in. pipe carrying water from the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr. Trachtman said the proposed 24 in. pipe is parallel to a part of the drainage system that exists, and based on today's condition it is picking up some of the flow that doesn't make it into the existing system which has to do with the nature of the inlet conditions at the other end of Bonnie Way. Mr. Trachtman said this proposal is providing a parallel conditional capacity for a portion of the existing piping system. A discussion followed regarding the proposal mitigating the problem that it is creating, the swale in front of the large rock, diversion within the property to the stream, and the wetlands. Mr. Trachtman said he did not feel the wetland will be significantly affected. Mr. Moser asked if what is being proposed is the equivalent to what's happening naturally. Mr. Trachtman said over the length of pipe between the proposed manhole and the bend, there is a distance of approximately 25 ft. of open area that is being graded so surface runoff onto grade at the rear right corner of the house will be allowed to continue to flow to the swale as it flows now. A discussion followed regarding the runoff from the front of the house to the retaining wall, and the material used for the driveway, a more pervious material. Mr. Trachtman said in this particular case the driveway will be used as pathway for the water, rather than any other material. A discussion followed regarding the two locations of the water, the inlet and outlet elevations. A discussion then followed regarding the drainage, the pitch of the yard, the driveway, runoff and cleanout. Ms. Aisen would like Mr. Trachtman to consider, when studying the situation, mandating how frequently the pipe/drain should be cleaned out, which was also a concern at the previous Board meeting. Mr. Moser said the concerns of the neighbors is that this site is acting as a water course, asked to what degree is it acting as a water course, and is what the applicant proposing something that will simulate what is naturally a drain on the site. A discussion ensued regarding the grading, the water runoff, elevation and the drains. Bill Spelman, an attorney who represents Paul McCarthy, appeared. Mr. Spelman said Mr. McCarthy has seen the plans, is aware of the flow and has no objection to what has been proposed. Ruth Gyere, a liaison of the CZMC, appeared. Ms. Gyere said in the discussion about whether this project will impact flooding, of course it will have an impact on flooding as a new property is being built and normally water is contained on the piece of property. Ms. Gyere said now putting the water into a pipe and shooting it into the stream there will be less water on the property, but the level of the stream will rise a little bit higher at the peak flow. Mr. Saines said the water flows there, regardless of whether the pipe is there, as there is a natural course of water. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Gyere said it will impact the level and the rate at which water rises in the Sheldrake River. Ms. Reader said that was one of the questions that was asked of Mr. Trachtman, the Town's Consulting Engineer, to review. Mr. Trachtman said it must be kept in mind that a large portion of the property is rock outcrop, and that the relative imperviousness of the property will not change that much as one impervious surface (rock) is being traded for another(paved surface). Mr. Trachtman said, for practical purposes, a very large portion of the property is not going to change in terms of what its runoff characteristics are. A discussion continued regarding the discharge of water onto land or piping directly into the stream, the grass surfaces in the front yard and on the side yard absorbing water, and the plans submitted this evening regarding elevations. Mr. Trachtman said the only portion of the area going directly into the pipe is the part that is in the left front yard. A discussion continued regarding the runoff into the swale on the McCarthy property, the discharge into the stream, and the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Ms. Lindsay of 23 Bonnie Way said last year the McCarthy's had to move their cars because the driveway was flooded and she claimed she has pictures of it. Mr. Saines said during the last storm there was no flooding. A discussion followed regarding previous flooding. Ms. Lindsay said the area is rock and grass, but another important area, where the proposed house is to be built, is trees. Ms. Lindsay said the trees that will be taken down are a great source of water • absorption, and without trees there will be standing water. Ms. Aisen asked if that would become part of the Tree Commission's report. Ms. Bocca, Environmental Coordinator, said she has met with the neighbors to discuss the tree plan that the Tree Commission received thus far. Ms. Bocca said Mr. Saines will be meeting with Ms. Bocca tomorrow to discuss the most recent plan. Ms. Bocca said Mr. Saines has indicated that because of the pipe, a couple of other trees may not be able to be saved. Ms. Bocca said at this point there is not a complete application, and the Tree Commission is still waiting for other issues; i.e. retaining walls and profiles. Ms. Aisen asked if the Tree Commission considers the absorption quality of the trees before granting a permit. A discussion followed regarding the memo sent to the Planning Board from the Tree Commission. Ms. Bocca said the Tree Commission would hope to reach a compromise between the developer and the residents'concerns, hopefully preserve a number of trees originally scheduled for removal,and also request a certain number of young trees be replanted. A discussion ensued regarding whether younger trees provide the same absorption ability as older trees. Dr. Mason said there is a tree expert in the audience, Mr. Horseman, who is Mr. Vanoli's consultant,who may be able to shed some light on the subject. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Horseman said there is some influence regarding size, the greater the surface area the greater the amount of water absorbed. A discussion ensued regarding the advantage of the drainage pipe on the plan presented this evening and the previous plan submitted, does it serve its purpose and will it always serve its purpose. Ms. Harrington asked about erosion. Mr. Saines said there will be grass in those areas that will stabilize the soil. A discussion ensued regarding grass stabilizing, pitches of grade, the removal of the trees negatively impacting on the flow of water and the potential for erosion and pooling/ponding in certain areas. Ms. Aisen asked about the composition of the Tree Commission, as Ms. Aisen feels the Board needs information from individuals knowledgeable about trees and water, and also asked about CZMC involvement. Ms. Bocca said the Tree Commission composition is the Building Inspector or his designee, the Environmental Coordinator, i.e. Eve Bocca, the Highway Superintendent and two resident volunteers, Nancy Sterbenz and Irma Volk. Ms. Reader said this is a Type II action and was not referred to the CZMC, whereby a discussion ensued. Ms. Gallent confirmed that the Local Consistency Law does not mandate referral of Type II actions. It only deals with Type I actions. Mr. Moser asked what the applicant needs to supply to the Board at the next meeting. Ms. Reader said that the plans being discussed were just handed to Mr. Trachtman moments before the meeting commenced, and Mr. Trachtman will have to review the new design for the drainage system. Dr. Mason said there are rules for submission,i.e. submissions should be received at least one week before the meeting. Ms. Reader said needed for the next meeting will be the Tree Commission report and probable permit to consider, in order to help the Board determine what the impact is on the property. Ms. Bocca asked Mr. Saines when he would be able to submit the completed application regarding which trees will be removed and which will be retained in addition to information on the retaining walls. Mr. Saines said he will do so tomorrow. Dr. Mason asked for a quantification of the rate of dispersal of water for the various types of trees the applicant is dealing with, whereby a discussion ensued. Ms. Lindsay said that in regard to the CZMC issue previously raised, the CZMC looked at the project when it was going for subdivision and there was no discussion of anything being built. Ms. Reader said that both the CZMC and the Planning Board, specifically in its Minutes, indicated the project had to be dealt with as if there was going to be building on that property. Dr. Mason said he was on the CZMC at that time, and there was a discussion about a generic building. Ms. Harrington asked if the applicant needs to submit complete plans as to what type of trees and the size of the trees the applicant is replacing for the wetlands permit. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Gallent said that information is required to obtain a building permit, but it is not a specific requirement for a freshwater wetlands permit. However, Ms. Gallent said, §114-7-G. permits the Planning Board, at its discretion, to require such other information as may be required for the purpose of determining the application. A discussion ensued. Ms. Harrington said she would like to request the applicant to submit complete plans of what type of trees and the size of the trees the applicant is replacing. A discussion ensued regarding the removal of trees and pooling/ponding on the property. Ms. Gallent said if pictures are available showing the pooling/ponding on the property that they be brought to the next meeting for the Board to review. Mr. Spelman spoke regarding pooling/ponding after the last Nor'easter on Bonnie Way and Bonnie Briar. A discussion ensued. Mr. Trachtman said he will take under consideration the impact of discharge on what is happening further down stream, which is a much larger issue. Mr. Trachtman said he does not feel that what is happening on the proposed site is similar as to what is going on down stream. Ms. Gallent again stressed the importance of submitting pictures that have been referred to tonight so that they can be considered by the Board at the next meeting. In particular, any evidence of the pooling/ponding on the property that has been referred to should be made available, if the applicant and/or the neighboring residents want the Board to consider such evidence. On a motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the matter be adjourned and scheduled for a Public Hearing at the December 11, 1996 meeting. On a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Saines to provide copies of the revised plans to the Board members that did not receive the plans, Ms. Harrington, Mr. Darsky, Mr. Papazian, also two sets for the Planning Board files. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION -SUBDIVISION-Laurel Manor/James J. Vanoli-1001 Fenimore Road-Blocks 301 and 302 Lot 1 (adjourned 5/8/96, 6/12/96, 7/10/96, 10/9/96) James Vanoli, the engineer of record for the subdivision, appeared. Mr. Vanoli said the purpose of appearing before the Board this evening is to ask the Board to grant the project a Negative Declaration and schedule a Public Hearing for the next meeting. Mr. Vanoli said he redid portions of the Environmental Assessment Form, because the form previously submitted had references to earlier plans and stated the EAF should stand on its own with the plans the Board has before it. Mr. Vanoli then explained the changes. Mr. Vanoli said the activities have been coordinated with the CZMC and staff. Mr. Vanoli said he received Malcolm Pirnie's letter of November 13, 1996 this evening, had chatted about the matters on the phone and does not have any problems with the letter or meeting any conditions. Mr. Vanoli said the driveways were always intended to be blacktop only within the right-of-way and at the garage apron. Mr. Vanoli said the balance of the driveways were intended to be 3/8 in. blue stone gravel on top of 1 in. gravel on top of natural dirt and would be a pervious surface, which was brought up in the CZMC letter of November 12, 1996 to the Board. Mr. Vanoli said that detail will be added to the plans. Mr. Vanoli Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 8 said the driveway will be lined with stone curbing, so there will not be any migration out of the driveway area. Mr. Vanoli said other matters in the November 12, 1996 letter from the CZMC were establishment of the long-term management or Conservation Easement, which the applicant has agreed to and is working with the Town Manager, reducing the number of walkways, particularly one path for lots 5 and 6, and the elimination of one of the footbridges on lot 5, the one closer to lot 6. Ms. Reader said the macadam path around the perimeter of the property will be removed, which also addresses #4 in the CZMC letter of November 12, 1996. Mr. Vanoli said he obtained a design guide on the geoweb that was proposed, and would like to use it for the walkways as a base and described the product. A discussion ensued regarding the letter from Malcolm Pirnie to the Board dated November 13, 1996 describing various procedures to be corrected, i.e. abandon a portion of drainage ditch on Lot 6 outside (west) of the project wetland limit. Mr. Horseman said a note was put on the drawing to that effect. Mr. Vanoli continued going through the CZMC letter of November 12, 1996, stating#3 was elimination of construction in the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Vanoli said proposed construction within the 100-year floodplain has been reduced considerably, it is 0.05 acre-feet, which is insignificant. Mr. Vanoli referred the Board to the last two pages on the revised EAF form. A discussion ensued regarding the amount of disturbance within the 100-year floodplain, elevations and encroachment. A discussion then ensued regarding the proposed trees, Maple and Oaks vs. Japanese Elm, considered for planting, with Mr. Horseman stating the trees are compatible. Ms. Gyere, liaison for CZMC, said the opinion of the entire commission was rather than have exotic species, the applicant should go back to the originally discussed native species. A discussion ensued regarding the life and stability of the trees. Mr. Vanoli said the intent originally was to plant alternating trees, so if there was a blight on one the other trees would survive. Mr. Vanoli said it was decided to proceed with the proposed, which has become very popular especially appearance wise. A discussion ensued with Mr. Vanoli and Mr. Horseman making comment regarding various diseases, the hardiness of the trees, where the trees will be placed and the use of other trees at various locations on the subdivision. Mr. Vanoli also made reference to another subdivision where similar trees have been used. Mr. Horseman continued discussing the hardiness of the trees and said, about twelve or fifteen years ago, the Zelcova was identified as a tree that exhibited the same or similar characteristic of the American Elm and because of all of the problems with the American Elm, has been used as a substitute. A discussed ensued regarding the life expectancy of the Zelcova and the existence of Elms on the property. Dr. Mason said he feels the landscape architect and Mr. Vanoli have put a tremendous effort into trying to make the subdivision work. Dr. Mason feels the it has been demonstrated that there is a good design in place at this time. A discussion ensued. Ms. Gallent said this evening the Board, if it feels it has enough information, should make a determination as to whether the proposed action may have a significant environmental affect. Ms. Gallent said the Board has two choices in a Type I Action. It can either issue a Negative Declaration or Positive Declaration and asked Mr. Trachtman's input. Mr. Trachtman referred to his letter of November 13, 1996, and a discussion ensued. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Reader said making a determination is one part, but the question also relates to what the Board is thinking in terms of the subdivision, assuming that there is a Negative Declaration. Ms. Reader said the discussions about the trees relates to the Board's consideration of the factor for subdivision approval, especially since there has been a change in the plans compared to what was before the Board three or four months ago. A discussion ensued, at which time it was stated that Mr. Trachtman said the trees are not a matter environmental concern. Ms. Reader then referred to the paragraph in Mr. Trachtman's September 13, 1996 letter regarding the proper use of fertilizers and pesticides, which the Board felt was a very general statement, and Mr. Vanoli said his response to that would be O.K. Mr. Trachtman said it would be helpful to discuss ways in which the message could be delivered to the public. Ms. Moser then stated two months ago when there was a continuation of the consideration on this matter, Mr. Moser asked Mr. Vanoli to present to the Board a plan which indicated less than six (6)buildings on it. Mr. Moser said as this matter has not been addressed, he is not ready to issue a Negative Declaration this evening. A discussion ensued regarding the runoff, impervious surface of the driveways and the setback of the proposed lots to Fenimore Road. Dr. Mason said considering the size of the piece of property and the number of houses proposed, it is not an unreasonable number of homes. Dr. Mason said he appreciates Mr. Moser's concerns about the appearance on Fenimore Road, and feels it can be preserved with the proper plantings of trees. Dr. Mason said he feels what has been proposed will be sufficient. Dr. Mason said when the opportunity arises he will move for a Negative Dec, as he feels it is appropriate. A discussion ensued regarding the amount of impervious surfaces to remain under the Proposed action. Mr. Moser said he stands corrected. Mr. Vanoli said as-of-right the applicant can build eight(8) lots, and as far as setback, the applicant meets all the Zoning requirements. Ms. Gallent said that Mr. Trachtman's letter suggests that there is no significant impact on runoff that will result from the current proposal. Ms. Reader said that Mr. Vanoli has worked very closely with the advisory board, CZMC, and from what the original application was to what is now being proposed has been tremendously revised, all with consideration of impact on the wetlands, runoff and flooding in the community. Ms. Reader said in the process of doing that, various alternatives of drainage systems and how to maintain and preserve the wetlands have been considered. Ms. Reader said the proposal now before the Board is one, from the letter of the CZMC, that is fully endorsed. Ms. Reader said the number of lots would be important if there were to be a determination that there is a negative impact. Ms. Gallent said the Town Subdivision Law lists items required for an application to be complete, which Mr. Trachtman and Ms. Gallent reviewed at the beginning of the meeting, and there are certain items needed to make the application complete. Ms. Gallent directed Mr. Vanoli's attention to §190-12-B., C., N. and P. Ms. Gallent explained that a Public Hearing must be scheduled within 62 days of the Board receiving a complete application, and said the application would be the plan dated October 15, 1996 received by the Board October 22, 1996. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 10 RESOLVED, that this is a Type I Action. Ms. Reader said that counsel has drafted a proposed Negative Declaration, due to the complexity of the project, and asked the Board to review it. After a few modifications, on a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, the following was ADOPTED, 6-1. Mr. Moser was in opposition. RESOLVED, there is no significant negative impact on the environment as the result of the proposed project as presented in the plans dated October 15, 1996 received by the Building Department on October 22, 1996 consisting of sheet#1-7 inclusive, the long form EAF filed with the Board, dated November 12, 1996,and all comments and correspondence received from CZMC,Mr. Trachtman and statements received during the presentation of the consideration incorporating the language as prepared in the draft Negative Declaration. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the meeting be,and hereby is,adjourned to the December 11, 1996 conditioned on the completion of the application with details required by the Town Subdivision Law. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on December 11, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Reader, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Marguerite Jma, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK NOVEMBER 13, 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 Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason Stephen Andrew Moser Edmund Papazian Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Gary B. Trachtman, Consulting Engineer Susan Sturino, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 40 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman, Marilyn Reader at 8:28 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the October 9, 1996 meeting and if there were any amendments. Mr. Trachtman made a correction on page 4, stating Mr. Mustacato is an architect not an engineer. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Aisen, the amended Minutes for October 9, 1996 were approved, 6-0. Mr. Darsky was not present at that meeting and did not vote. Ms. Reader then said the third matter on the agenda, the Board knowing what the application is for, is going to be a very quick matter and asked if there was any objection from the other applicants if the third matter was taken out of order and heard first. There being no objection, Ms. Reader read the application as follows: CONSIDERATION - MODIFICATION/FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Mr. & Mrs. Frank Tricarico - 771 Forest Avenue -Block 210 Lot 35 Mr. Widulski,the engineer for the project, appeared and stated the applicant had received an approval from the Board some months back for the construction of a swimming pool in the rear yard at 771 Forest Avenue. Mr. Widulski said that during the course of construction new ideas arose, however, there was no mechanism to stop the project as it would have caused greater environmental damage which the applicant was trying to avoid. Mr. Widulski said four(4)changes were made, stating the swimming pool size was reduced from 20 ft. by 40 ft. to 18 ft. by 36 ft., creating an additional walkway where there was very little without increasing the footprint of the upper area of the pool. Mr. Widulski said by shrinking the pool size, the applicant was able to create a 5 ft. wide landscaped strip to one side of the pool which originally was not existing. Mr. Widulski said the applicant also changed from concrete surface to concrete pavers, individual pieces set in sand and filled in the joints with sand, which help absorb the rainfall. Mr. Widulski said the major improvement made was to the retaining wall. A small retaining wall had been Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 2 discussed to pull the soil slope out of the floodplain area, which was carried further because it was aesthetically pleasing and pulled out the soil slope in all areas in addition to the one critical area which diminished the possibility of wash from the slope until the landscaping was approved. Mr. Widulski then presented as-built pictures to the Board for its perusal. Ms. Reader then asked Mr. Trachtman if her understanding was correct, that the entire project now has less encroachment than the original project in the control area. Mr. Trachtman agreed. Dr. Mason asked if there was less encroachment on the entire project or just the pool. Mr. Trachtman said in the vicinity of the pool, and said Mr. Widulski described an area, as one looks at the drawings, to the right which has undergone more construction than originally contemplated but is no closer to the stream. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the site, the control area and impervious surface in the project. Mr. Trachtman said the area that has been changed from grass to some type of less pervious surface, is larger than what it was before, but changed from an impervious wet concrete surface to a porous concrete paver system laid in sand. It is not as impervious as the original design, but there is more area that has the new design. Ms. Reader asked about the impact. Mr. Trachtman said in his letter of November 5, 1996 Malcolm Pirnie indicated that on balance there is somewhat less of an impact on the freshwater wetlands area. A discussion ensued about the absorption of water and flooding. • Mr. Papazian asked Mr. Widulski why Mr. Widulski said he had to go ahead with the plans before receiving Board approval. Mr. Widulski said the applicant was into construction,needed fill,which was exposed, and decided to use the precast wall system, rather than stop the job, leave the fill exposed and possibly have the fill erode after a storm. A discussion ensued regarding when the construction had taken place, the details regarding getting approval originally and the fact that the work for the modification was done before getting Board approval. Ms. Reader asked if the matter should be referred to CZMC. Ms. Gallent said it is a Type II action and does not have to be referred to the CZMC. Ms. Reader asked if anyone was present from the Building Department to explain what procedures should be followed in this type of situation, other than appearing before the Board after the fact. There being no one present from the Building Department, Ms. Reader asked the secretary to send a memo to the Building Department for the next meeting, the Public Hearing, recommending the proper procedure to be followed in this type of situation and a verification about coverage, impervious surface and whether the applicant is within those limits. A discussion ensued regarding when the modification was filed. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Reader, it was unanimously Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 3 RESOLVED, that the matter be adjourned and scheduled for a Public Hearing at the December 11, 1996 meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING -FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - S.A.B. DEVELOPMENT - Andrew Saines -28 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52.1 On a motion 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. Ms. Reader said nearly everyone has the new plans which were just distributed,and asked Mr. Trachtman if he had a chance to review the plans. Mr. Trachtman said he only very briefly reviewed the plans. Ms. Reader asked if he wanted an opportunity to review the plans, and Mr. Trachtman said he would. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Saines to explain the revised plans. Andrew Saines and Fred Grippi of R.M.G. Associates appeared. Ms. Reader asked if there was anyone in the public that would like to see the plans. The plans were provided to those who requested to see them. Ms. Reader said there is a question from a member of the audience and asked the individual to state her name. Judith Dichter appeared and said she is present with another neighbor. Other neighbors are not present because they are out of town on business, and in addition because of some things that were going on with the property during the week, the lawyer that the neighbors are working with chose not to be present because the property was going to be sold, which is not taking place. Ms. Lindsay of 23 Bonnie Way appeared and said that Mr. Ladner who is not able to be present this evening, felt the best way to shortcut the problem was to try to buy the property. Ms. Lindsay said that due to the price of the property, the sale did not take place and due to the legal expenses involved, the lawyer was put on hold until the sale negotiations were completed. Dr. Mason asked who the immediate next door neighbors of the property are. Ms. Dichter said the Ladners are the next door neighbors of the property, and are in California on business. A discussion ensued regarding onto whose property the drainage pipe is going to discharge; i.e. the McCarthy property. Mr. Saines said a channel will be cut through the rock and a 24 in. pipe will be installed that will discharge directly to the stream. A detailed discussion ensued. Mr. Trachtman said he understands the calculations are being done and will review them for the next meeting. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Trachtman said he only received the new plans one-half hour before the meeting started and cannot comment on the new plans. Ms. Reader said the Board cannot make a determination and will have to keep the matter on for consideration. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the installation of the proposed pipe, the capacity and cleanout of the pipe. Further discussion ensued regarding the 48 in. pipe carrying water from the Leatherstocking Trail. Mr. Trachtman said the proposed 24 in. pipe is parallel to a part of the drainage system that exists, and based on today's condition it is picking up some of the flow that doesn't make it into the existing system which has to do with the nature of the inlet conditions at the other end of Bonnie Way. Mr. Trachtman said this proposal is providing a parallel conditional capacity for a portion of the existing piping system. A discussion followed regarding the proposal mitigating the problem that it is creating, the swale in front of the large rock, diversion within the property to the stream, and the wetlands. Mr. Trachtman said he did not feel the wetland will be significantly affected. Mr. Moser asked if what is being proposed is the equivalent to what's happening naturally. Mr. Trachtman said over the length of pipe between the proposed manhole and the bend, there is a distance of approximately 25 ft. of open area that is being graded so surface runoff onto grade at the rear right corner of the house will be allowed to continue to flow to the swale as it flows now. A discussion followed regarding the runoff from the front of the house to the retaining wall, and the material used for the driveway, a more pervious material. Mr. Trachtman said in this particular case the driveway will be used as pathway for the water, rather than any other material. A discussion followed regarding the two locations of the water, the inlet and outlet elevations. A discussion then followed regarding the drainage, the pitch of the yard, the driveway, runoff and cleanout. Ms. Aisen would like Mr. Trachtman to consider, when studying the situation, mandating how frequently the pipe/drain should be cleaned out, which was also a concern at the previous Board meeting. Mr. Moser said the concerns of the neighbors is that this site is acting as a water course, asked to what degree is it acting as a water course, and is what the applicant proposing something that will simulate what is naturally a drain on the site. A discussion ensued regarding the grading, the water runoff, elevation and the drains. Bill Spelman, an attorney who represents Paul McCarthy, appeared. Mr. Spelman said Mr. McCarthy has seen the plans, is aware of the flow and has no objection to what has been proposed. Ruth Gyere, a liaison of the CZMC, appeared. Ms. Gyere said in the discussion about whether this project will impact flooding, of course it will have an impact on flooding as a new property is being built and normally water is contained on the piece of property. Ms. Gyere said now putting the water into a pipe and shooting it into the stream there will be less water on the property, but the level of the stream will rise a little bit higher at the peak flow. Mr. Saines said the water flows there, regardless of whether the pipe is there, as there is a natural course of water. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Gyere said it will impact the level and the rate at which water rises in the Sheldrake River. Ms. Reader said that was one of the questions that was asked of Mr. Trachtman, the Town's Consulting Engineer, to review. Mr. Trachtman said it must be kept in mind that a large portion of the property is rock outcrop, and that the relative imperviousness of the property will not change that much as one impervious surface (rock) is being traded for another(paved surface). Mr. Trachtman said, for practical purposes, a very large portion of the property is not going to change in terms of what its runoff characteristics are. A discussion continued regarding the discharge of water onto land or piping directly into the stream, the grass surfaces in the front yard and on the side yard absorbing water, and the plans submitted this evening regarding elevations. Mr. Trachtman said the only portion of the area going directly into the pipe is the part that is in the left front yard. A discussion continued regarding the runoff into the swale on the McCarthy property, the discharge into the stream, and the elevation of the 100-year floodplain. Ms. Lindsay of 23 Bonnie Way said last year the McCarthy's had to move their cars because the driveway was flooded and she claimed she has pictures of it. Mr. Saines said during the last storm there was no flooding. A discussion followed regarding previous flooding. Ms. Lindsay said the area is rock and grass, but another important area, where the proposed house is to be built, is trees. Ms. Lindsay said the trees that will be taken down are a great source of water - absorption, and without trees there will be standing water. Ms. Aisen asked if that would become part of the Tree Commission's report. Ms. Bocca, Environmental Coordinator, said she has met with the neighbors to discuss the tree plan that the Tree Commission received thus far. Ms. Bocca said Mr. Saines will be meeting with Ms. Bocca tomorrow to discuss the most recent plan. Ms. Bocca said Mr. Saines has indicated that because of the pipe, a couple of other trees may not be able to be saved. Ms. Bocca said at this point there is not a complete application, and the Tree Commission is still waiting for other issues; i.e. retaining walls and profiles. Ms. Aisen asked if the Tree Commission considers the absorption quality of the trees before granting a permit. A discussion followed regarding the memo sent to the Planning Board from the Tree Commission. Ms. Bocca said the Tree Commission would hope to reach a compromise between the developer and the residents'concerns, hopefully preserve a number of trees originally scheduled for removal,and also request a certain number of young trees be replanted. A discussion ensued regarding whether younger trees provide the same absorption ability as older trees. CDr. Mason said there is a tree expert in the audience, Mr. Horseman, who is Mr. Vanoli's consultant,who may be able to shed some light on the subject. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Horseman said there is some influence regarding size, the greater the surface area the greater the amount of water absorbed. A discussion ensued regarding the advantage of the drainage pipe on the plan presented this evening and the previous plan submitted, does it serve its purpose and will it always serve its purpose. Ms. Harrington asked about erosion. Mr. Saines said there will be grass in those areas that will stabilize the soil. A discussion ensued regarding grass stabilizing, pitches of grade, the removal of the trees negatively impacting on the flow of water and the potential for erosion and pooling/ponding in certain areas. Ms. Aisen asked about the composition of the Tree Commission, as Ms. Aisen feels the Board needs information from individuals knowledgeable about trees and water, and also asked about CZMC involvement. Ms. Bocca said the Tree Commission composition is the Building Inspector or his designee, the Environmental Coordinator, i.e. Eve Bocca, the Highway Superintendent and two resident volunteers, Nancy Sterbenz and Irma Volk. • Ms. Reader said this is a Type II action and was not referred to the CZMC, whereby a discussion ensued. Ms. Gallent confirmed that the Local Consistency Law does not mandate referral of Type II actions. It only deals with Type I actions. Mr. Moser asked what the applicant needs to supply to the Board at the next meeting. Ms. Reader said that the plans being discussed were just handed to Mr. Trachtman moments before the meeting commenced, and Mr. Trachtman will have to review the new design for the drainage system. Dr. Mason said there are rules for submission,i.e. submissions should be received at least one week before the meeting. Ms. Reader said needed for the next meeting will be the Tree Commission report and probable permit to consider, in order to help the Board determine what the impact is on the property. Ms. Bocca asked Mr. Saines when he would be able to submit the completed application regarding which trees will be removed and which will be retained in addition to information on the retaining walls. Mr. Saines said he will do so tomorrow. Dr. Mason asked for a quantification of the rate of dispersal of water for the various types of trees the applicant is dealing with, whereby a discussion ensued. Ms. Lindsay said that in regard to the CZMC issue previously raised, the CZMC looked at the project when it was going for subdivision and there was no discussion of anything being built. Ms. Reader said that both the CZMC and the Planning Board, specifically in its Minutes, indicated the project had to be dealt with as if there was going to be building on that property. Dr. Mason said he was on the CZMC at that time, and there was a discussion about a generic building. Ms. Harrington asked if the applicant needs to submit complete plans as to what type of trees and the size of the trees the applicant is replacing for the wetlands permit. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Gallent said that information is required to obtain a building permit, but it is not a specific requirement for a freshwater wetlands permit. However, Ms. Gallent said, §114-7-G. permits the Planning Board, at its discretion, to require such other information as may be required for the purpose of determining the application. A discussion ensued. Ms. Harrington said she would like to request the applicant to submit complete plans of what type of trees and the size of the trees the applicant is replacing. A discussion ensued regarding the removal of trees and pooling/ponding on the property. Ms. Gallent said if pictures are available showing the pooling/ponding on the property that they be brought to the next meeting for the Board to review. Mr. Spelman spoke regarding pooling/ponding after the last Nor'easter on Bonnie Way and Bonnie Briar. A discussion ensued. Mr. Trachtman said he will take under consideration the impact of discharge on what is happening further down stream, which is a much larger issue. Mr. Trachtman said he does not feel that what is happening on the proposed site is similar as to what is going on down stream. Ms. Gallent again stressed the importance of submitting pictures that have been referred to tonight so that they can be considered by the Board at the next meeting. In particular, any evidence of the pooling/ponding on the property that has been referred to should be made available, if the applicant and/or the neighboring residents want the Board to consider such evidence. On a motion made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the matter be adjourned and scheduled for a Public Hearing at the December 11, 1996 meeting. On a motion made and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Ms. Reader asked Mr. Saines to provide copies of the revised plans to the Board members that did not receive the plans, Ms. Harrington, Mr. Darsky, Mr. Papazian, also two sets for the Planning Board files. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-SUBDIVISION-Laurel Manor/James J. Vanoli-1001 Fenimore Road-Blocks 301 and 302 Lot 1 (adjourned 5/8/96, 6/12/96, 7/10/96, 10/9/96) James Vanoli, the engineer of record for the subdivision, appeared. Mr. Vanoli said the purpose of appearing before the Board this evening is to ask the Board to grant the project a Negative Declaration and schedule a Public Hearing for the next meeting. Mr. Vanoli said he redid portions of the Environmental Assessment Form, because the form previously submitted had references to earlier plans and stated the EAF should stand on its own with the plans the Board has before it. Mr. Vanoli then explained the changes. Mr. Vanoli said the activities have been coordinated with the CZMC and staff. Mr. Vanoli said he received Malcolm Pirnie's letter of November 13, 1996 this evening, had chatted about the matters on the phone and does not have any problems with the letter or meeting any conditions. Mr. Vanoli said the driveways were always intended to be blacktop only within the right-of-way and at the garage apron. Mr. Vanoli said the balance of the driveways were intended to be 3/8 in. blue stone gravel on top of 1 in. gravel on top of natural dirt and would be a pervious surface, which was brought up in the CZMC letter of November 12, 1996 to the Board. Mr. Vanoli said that detail will be added to the plans. Mr. Vanoli Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 8 said the driveway will be lined with stone curbing, so there will not be any migration out of the driveway area. Mr. Vanoli said other matters in the November 12, 1996 letter from the CZMC were establishment of the long-term management or Conservation Easement, which the applicant has agreed to and is working with the Town Manager, reducing the number of walkways, particularly one path for lots 5 and 6, and the elimination of one of the footbridges on lot 5, the one closer to lot 6. Ms. Reader said the macadam path around the perimeter of the property will be removed, which also addresses #4 in the CZMC letter of November 12, 1996. Mr. Vanoli said he obtained a design guide on the geoweb that was proposed, and would like to use it for the walkways as a base and described the product. A discussion ensued regarding the letter from Malcolm Pirnie to the Board dated November 13, 1996 describing various procedures to be corrected, i.e. abandon a portion of drainage ditch on Lot 6 outside (west) of the project wetland limit. Mr. Horseman said a note was put on the drawing to that effect. Mr. Vanoli continued going through the CZMC letter of November 12, 1996, stating#3 was elimination of construction in the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Vanoli said proposed construction within the 100-year floodplain has been reduced considerably, it is 0.05 acre-feet, which is insignificant. Mr. Vanoli referred the Board to the last two pages on the revised EAF form. A discussion ensued regarding the amount of disturbance within the 100-year floodplain, elevations and encroachment. A discussion then ensued regarding the proposed trees, Maple and Oaks vs. Japanese Elm, considered for planting, with Mr. Horseman stating the trees are compatible. Ms. Gyere, liaison for CZMC, said the opinion of the entire commission was rather than have exotic species, the applicant should go back to the originally discussed native species. A discussion ensued regarding the life and stability of the trees. Mr. Vanoli said the intent originally was to plant alternating trees, so if there was a blight on one the other trees would survive. Mr. Vanoli said it was decided to proceed with the proposed, which has become very popular especially appearance wise. A discussion ensued with Mr. Vanoli and Mr. Horseman making comment regarding various diseases, the hardiness of the trees, where the trees will be placed and the use of other trees at various locations on the subdivision. Mr. Vanoli also made reference to another subdivision where similar trees have been used. Mr. Horseman continued discussing the hardiness of the trees and said, about twelve or fifteen years ago, the Zelcova was identified as a tree that exhibited the same or similar characteristic of the American Elm and because of all of the problems with the American Elm, has been used as a substitute. A discussed ensued regarding the life expectancy of the Zelcova and the existence of Elms on the property. Dr. Mason said he feels the landscape architect and Mr. Vanoli have put a tremendous effort into trying to make the subdivision work. Dr. Mason feels the it has been demonstrated that there is a good design in place at this time. A discussion ensued. Ms. Gallent said this evening the Board, if it feels it has enough information, should make a determination as to whether the proposed action may have a significant environmental affect. Ms. Gallent said the Board has two choices in a Type I Action. It can either issue a Negative Declaration or Positive Declaration and asked Mr. Trachtman's input. Mr. Trachtman referred to his letter of November 13, 1996, and a discussion ensued. Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 9 Ms. Reader said making a determination is one part, but the question also relates to what the Board is thinking in terms of the subdivision, assuming that there is a Negative Declaration. Ms. Reader said the discussions about the trees relates to the Board's consideration of the factor for subdivision approval, especially since there has been a change in the plans compared to what was before the Board three or four months ago. A discussion ensued, at which time it was stated that Mr. Trachtman said the trees are not a matter • environmental concern. Ms. Reader then referred to the paragraph in Mr. Trachtman's September 13, 1996 letter regarding the proper use of fertilizers and pesticides, which the Board felt was a very general statement, and Mr. Vanoli said his response to that would be O.K. Mr. Trachtman said it would be helpful to discuss ways in which the message could be delivered to the public. Ms. Moser then stated two months ago when there was a continuation of the consideration on this matter, Mr. Moser asked Mr. Vanoli to present to the Board a plan which indicated less than six (6)buildings on it. Mr. Moser said as this matter has not been addressed, he is not ready to issue a Negative Declaration this evening. A discussion ensued regarding the runoff, impervious surface of the driveways and the setback of the proposed lots to Fenimore Road. Dr. Mason said considering the size of the piece of property and the number of houses proposed, it is not an unreasonable number of homes. Dr. Mason said he appreciates Mr. Moser's concerns about the appearance on Fenimore Road, and feels it can be preserved with the proper plantings of trees. Dr. Mason said he feels what has been proposed will be sufficient. Dr. Mason said when the opportunity arises he will move for a Negative Dec, as he feels it is appropriate. A discussion ensued regarding the amount of impervious surfaces to remain under the Proposed action. Mr. Moser said he stands corrected. Mr. Vanoli said as-of-right the applicant can build eight(8)lots, and as far as setback, the applicant meets all the Zoning requirements. Ms. Gallent said that Mr. Trachtman's letter suggests that there is no significant impact on runoff that will result from the current proposal. Ms. Reader said that Mr. Vanoli has worked very closely with the advisory board, CZMC, and from what the original application was to what is now being proposed has been tremendously revised, all with consideration of impact on the wetlands, runoff and flooding in the community. Ms. Reader said in the process of doing that, various alternatives of drainage systems and how to maintain and preserve the wetlands have been considered. Ms. Reader said the proposal now before the Board is one, from the letter of the CZMC, that is fully endorsed. Ms. Reader said the number of lots would be important if there were to be a determination that there is a negative impact. Ms. Gallent said the Town Subdivision Law lists items required for an application to be complete, which Mr. Trachtman and Ms. Gallent reviewed at the beginning of the meeting, and there are certain items needed to make the application complete. Ms. Gallent directed Mr. Vanoli's attention to §190-12-B., C., N. and P. Ms. Gallent explained that a Public Hearing must be scheduled within 62 days of the Board receiving a complete application, and said the application would be the plan dated October 15, 1996 received by the Board October 22, 1996. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Darsky, it was unanimously Planning Board November 13, 1996 Page 10 RESOLVED, that this is a Type I Action. Ms. Reader said that counsel has drafted a proposed Negative Declaration, due to the complexity of the project, and asked the Board to review it. After a few modifications, on a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Dr. Mason, the following was ADOPTED, 6-1. Mr. Moser was in opposition. RESOLVED, there is no significant negative impact on the environment as the result of the proposed project as presented in the plans dated October 15, 1996 received by the Building Department on October 22, 1996 consisting of sheet#1-7 inclusive, the long form EAF filed with the Board, dated November 12, 1996,and all comments and correspondence received from CZMC,Mr. Trachtman and statements received during the presentation of the consideration incorporating the language as prepared in the draft Negative Declaration. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the meeting be,and hereby is,adjourned to the December 11, 1996 conditioned on the completion of the application with details required by the Town Subdivision Law. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on December 11, 1996. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Harrington, seconded by Ms. Reader, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Marguerite R na, Recording Secretary