Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_10_13 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK OCTOBER 13, 1999, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky C. Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Absent: Linda S. Harrington Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel Anthony C. Catalano, Consulting Engineer Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Michele DiEdwards, Public Stenographers 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 8:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of the September 8, 1999 and if there were any amendments and/or corrections. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Papazian, seconded by Dr. Mason, the September 8, 1999 Minutes were unanimously approved. On a motion made by Ms. Reader, seconded by Ms. Aisen, 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. Chairperson Reader informed those present that a letter was received from the attorney representing the applicant in regard to the following application requesting an adjournment to the November, 1999 Planning Board meeting: PUBLIC HEARING-FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT-Goldberg- 10 Evergreen Lane, Block 309, Lot 21 (adjourned 6/9/99;7/14/99;8/11/99;9/8/99) After some discussion regarding the number of adjournments for this matter, Chairperson Reader suggested that counsel contact the applicant's counsel to discuss this matter. Ms. Gallent said it is her understanding that the Goldbergs,who originally started the application,decided not to buy the land. the owner of the property wants to pursue the permit, but the engineer that was working for the Goldbergs declined to work for the owner, which has created a problem. Planning Board October 13, 1999 Page 2 After further discussion, it is RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, adjourned to the November 10, 1999 Planning Board meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL PERMIT RENEWAL/Thomas Gubin - CITI PARK SERVICE STATION - 613 Fifth Avenue - Block 131, Lot 1 Ms. Reader informed those present that this is a Public Hearing for the renewal of a special permit previously granted. Thomas Gubin appeared to represent Citipark Service Station for the renewal of the special permit. He stated that the building will be used as an existing facility for private use to repair corporate service vehicles and that there will be no additional changes or modifications made. After some discussion, Ms. Reader asked if there had been any citations, complaints or violations of any of the previously granted conditions or any traffic concerns. Mr. Carpaneto said there had been none, but the applicant was asked to restripe an area in front which was done. Ms. Reader said that was one of the previously granted conditions, that cars not be parked on the striped area and asked if that has been accomplished. Mr. Carpaneto said it has been accomplished to his knowledge. Ms. Reader said that also discussed as no parking on Fifth Avenue and asked if that was correct. Mr. Carpaneto said to the best of his knowledge there have been no violations or citations. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. There being none, ms. Reader said that Ms. Harrington had issues about parking on the striped zone. Ms. Reader said she has driven by and has not noticed that. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments from the board or the professional staff. Ms. Gallent said this matter is a Type II action. On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Dr. Mason, the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS, Thomas Gubin, Citipark Service Center, submitted an application for the renewal of the Special Use Permit for use of the premises at 613 Fifth Avenue/2 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131, Lot 1 as a private auto garage; and WHEREAS, this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing having been held on October 13, 1999 pursuant to notice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board having considered the application for renewal of the Special Use Permit, the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant,comments and responses to questions by the applicant,the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; and Planning Board October 13, 1999 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets; 2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Use Permit; 3. The proposed Special Use Permit use will be in harmony with the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board APPROVES the application of Thomas Gubin, Citipark Service Center for the RENEWAL of the Special Use Permit for a private auto garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation of the garage shall be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 2. Petroleum waste shall be removed from the premises by a properly licensed disposer of such material. 3. The operation shall be limited to servicing corporate vehicles; it shall not be open to the general public. 4. There shall be no parking or storage of any vehicle on the 4 ft. wide area along the lengths of the Fifth Avenue boundary and the Valley Place boundary; these areas shall be striped: the words "No Parking" shall be painted on both sides of the Fifth Avenue side and Valley Place side. 5. There shall be no parking of any vehicles belonging to either employees or vehicles being serviced on Fifth Avenue, where the local law provides no parking. 6. No car parts or metal shall be stored outside the building except in the properly enclosed refuse containers. 7. This Special Use Permit is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-30B of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Gubin how many cars are maintained in that space. Mr. Gubin said it varies, depending on whatever happens to come in at any time. there is existing space for 28 cars. On a motion made by Ms. Reader, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared closed. Chairperson Reader read the next application as follows: Planning Board October 13, 1999 Page 4 CONSIDERATION - SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - Carlton House Condominium -35 North Chatsworth Avenue - Block 134 Chairperson Reader said this matter is on for consideration, at which time the Board will vote for the matter to go to a public hearing. The purpose of this meeting is to advise the Board what the application is about, giving the Board the opportunity to review it, get additional information if needed and make the appropriate referrals to relevant boards that act as advisory boards to the Planning Board. No minutes will be taken by the court stenographer until the public hearing. Joan Mazo, currently the president of the Carlton House Condominium at 35 North Chatsworth Avenue, appeared to address the Board and said fellow board members are also present. They are present on behalf of all the residents of the Carlton House requesting the Board review the site plan, as they are requesting a site plan amendment. They are asking the Board to reconsider the entrance-way on North Chatsworth Avenue. Currently it is an ingress and egress through Madison Avenue, as indicated on the original site plan. They are requesting that the driveway on North Chatsworth Avenue become an ingress and egress area. A Traffic consultant was hired to survey the area. The residents of the Carlton House are concerned about safety. It is extremely dangerous to exit onto Madison Avenue, because of the many intersections of Fifth Avenue, Jefferson Street, madison Avenue and I-95 creating a tremendous amount of traffic at that area. It is very difficult for the residents of the Carlton House to exit out of the driveway and get into the flow of traffic. The current yield signs do not provide adequately for the residents to get into the flow of traffic. Ms. Maw said the traffic engineer did a survey, measured the traffic flow at peak hours and also consulted with Lt. Anderson, the traffic person in the area, concerning accidents in that area. It turns out that it is safer for the residents to exit out onto North Chatsworth and to exit out into the back at Madison Avenue. The traffic flow is lighter, the site distances are better, there have been no accidents cited in the area of the driveway, where the other two areas where they need to go to try to get onto North Chatsworth have proven to be areas that are accident prone areas. Ms. Mazo said she will not go through the whole report, unless the Board feels the need for her to do so. She reiterated that the request really stems from a safety concern and hopes the Board will consider it. Ms. Gallent asked what is proposed for Madison Avenue. Ms. Maw said it will be left as an exit only. The way the property is situated, the driveway is around the curve. While the traffic engineer did say that it would be alright to have traffic come in that way, the residents living there feel that the site distance is not adequate, it is a narrower driveway and it is felt it will not be as safe having individuals corning in that way. they would just like to keep it as an exit. Ms. Aisen commented that is the way it has been used. Ms. Maw said they are asking just for the front to be changed. When the elderly residents, herself included, exit out the back area it is very difficult and dangerous to get into the flow of traffic at that point. There is an awful lot of traffic coming through that intersection. The way it is situated, the service station has many trucks parked on that street and it is very difficult to see the driveway. People come down Madison Avenue and turn quickly onto Fifth Avenue and pay no heed at all to that driveway. Mr. Darsky asked if there are any objections to the plan presented. Ms. Maw said there are no objections. Dr. Mason said when this was originally laid out, it was not overlooked but discussed thoroughly. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Final Environmental Impact Statement were very large. Dr. Mason asked if they are available. Chairperson Reader said that the Town has the records. AO Planning Board October 13, 1999 Page 5 Dr. Mason said that he would like to review those issues before the public hearing, to see what prompted making it the way it is. Dr. Mason stated that the Board is aware that the traffic pattern has changed in the area and has increased. The blind left turn coming in on the back road is nasty. The traffic coming down the hill tends to move on Chatsworth Avenue, traffic is going fast and the applicant is adding another intersecting road bringing traffic into Chatsworth Avenue. There haven't been accidents at that entrance- way thus far, but that my change with added traffic. Ms. Mazo said there is probably'a fairly good history of accidents that have occurred. Dr. Mason said to say it has been accident free or relatively accident free, that is not the question. Will it be accident free when the change is made. Ms. Mazo said that the traffic engineer's report has addressed that issue. With the number of cars that will be exiting out of that area, it will be quite minimal. Dr. Mason said he doesn't always rely on the experts and the Board would like to see both sides of the issue. Ms. Reader asked if this should be referred to the Traffic Commission. Ms. Gallent said that it has already been referred to the Traffic Commission. Ms. Mazo asked if Mr. Stern, a member of the Carlton House Condominium Board, can address the Board. Wynne Stern addressed the Board. He stated that he is a member of the Carlton House Condominium Board and past president of the Carlton House. He has been a resident of the Town of Mamaroneck for 33 years He is one of the original unit owners of the Carlton House, ten or eleven years ago. He went into the history of it and said there was a problem getting this building constructed. People in the area were not in favor of having the building built at that time. There might have been some litigation that was resolved by allowing the building to be in the late '80's to mid-80's. The people who lived in that area, until the building was built,were afraid there would be a negative impact on their living and their lifestyle. There are not several residents of the Carlton House who lived in that area that had protested against having the building built, and now want to have the ingress and egress changed as requested. The people were initially fearful, weren't basing fear on anything analyzed and the Town made an accommodation at that time. Dr. Mason said that the original plan called for a 96 ft. tall wall up to the property line of one-family split ranch houses. There w^s an accommodation made and it was to build from roughly 80% lot coverage to 20% lot coverage, lower the wall and move it back. But, what the original plan called for was literally a 10-story high wall on the property line with one-family residences and there was opposition to that. Mr. Stern said that having lived there and having experienced what the traffic flow has been over that time, sometime during the time before the sponsor got out of control, Mr. Stern believes the ingress and egress changed on the ground as a practical matter with people leaving through Chatsworth Avenue and coming in right up to approximately a month, two or three months ago. Mr. Stern said they are faced with the following. there have been no accidents over a 10-year/8-year period of time. The number of people who actually go out either way if relatively small on any given day. A lot of the residents use the train, don't use the car and walk to the train station. Mr. Stern said they are not dealing with great numbers of cars to begin with, but their experience has been that going out through Chatsworth Avenue has not created a problem. There is great trepidation going out the back for a lot of people, those people who have lived in the area had second thoughts about this originally, have moved into the Carlton House, have seen what a good neighbor the Carlton House is and are in favor of this change. Ms. Reader asked if Ms. Mazo had anything further that she wanted to say. Planning Board October 13, 1999 Page 6 Ms. Maw said not at this point, and asked if any more information is needed. Ms. Reader said that prior to the beginning of this evening's meeting in anticipation of this matter being on the calendar, she spoke with Mr. Carpaneto and corns*1. She said it is their understanding that there is an EIS in the town file from the original approval. Ms. Reader said the Board does not need the entire EIS, only those portions that relate to sculpting of the traffic issues; in the draft, in the final and any documentation that might have been submitted by both the technical commission, traffic commission and any private sectors involved with respect to traffic codes on that building. Ms. Reader asked if this has been referred to the traffic commission. Mr. Carpaneto said it has. He does not know why they have not yet responded, as he had a conversation with John Anderson, who is a member. Possibly they have not yet met. Ms. Reader asked if the traffic study submitted as done on August 31, 1999, a single day. Ms. Maw said that is correct, Tuesday, August 31, 1999. Ms. Reader made an observation with respect to that. The time the traffic study was done happened to be a heavy vacation week in the community. One of her concerns is, even though Ms. Maw said there have been no accidents there, it may speak very well for the original certification/condition why there are no accidents there. Ms. Reader is suggesting Ms. Mazo addresses the problem; it is apeak vacation period; there is no train traffic on Chatsworth Avenue and Murray Avenue; there are no people driving to the train station on that day. Ms. Reader said Ms. Maw may want to have a study done during a busy week. Ms. Gallent said that can be required. Mr. Catalano said it is not fully representative of what one would expect to see on a typical day. Ms. Reader asked counsel if she has the authority to direct an additional study. Ms. Gallent indicated that the Board has the authority. Ms. Maw asked if Ms. Reader is directing that they supply an additional study. After further discussion,Ms. Maw said the traffic engineer said what was done was sufficient. A Tuesday was picked, not a Monday and a Friday, because they were vacation times and would not interfere with long weekends. Ms. Reader informed Ms. Maw that she should not have to pay for another study. Mr. Papazian said one thing that is going to come up at the public hearing, that he didn't see in the study, is coming out of North Chatsworth, is whether it will be a right turn only or a left-hand turn only. He stated as Dr. Mason said, those cars come down the hill very quickly on North Chatsworth and making a right turn might be a modification or might be an in-between position that the Board might want to explore. He said if Ms. Maw is going to have the traffic expert look at that issue, she might want to take a look at that as well. Ms. Maw said she thinks it is important for the Board to know the nature of the building also, in talking about vacation time, etc. There are a great majority of the residents that leave the building for the winter months. Ms. Reader said that with the building, the traffic is an issue. It is the traffic that goes by all day, with school children, the train station, I-95. It is not a vacation issue. That is probably one week that almost everyone in Town leaves. Planning Board October 13, 1999 Page 7 Dr. Mason said many use it as a thruway to get to I-95. Ms. Gallent suggested that the Town Engineer determine what the appropriate number of days is for a traffic study and discuss this with Ms. Mazo's engineer. Ms. Reader informed Ms. Mazo that before contracting for specifications, have her engineer speak with the Town Engineer. Mr. Papazian said the Board is not trying to throw cold water on the proposal, because he basically thinks it is a good idea based on his exposure to that area. Based on Dr. Mason's point where there was an extensive study done as far as the traffic pattern is concerned, the Board has to look at both sides of the coin. that is why the matter in on for consideration this evening, so that the applicant can be prepared for the public hearing. Ms. Reader reiterated Mr. Papazian's comment. Ms. Mazo asked the time frame. Ms. Reader said the matter will be scheduled for a public hearing next month, November 10, 1999, assuming that everything is done, that being the traffic study, etc., and the Board will proceed with the public hearing. If everything is not ready, the matter will be adjourned to the next meeting. Ms. Aisen said all the material is needed two weeks before the meeting. After come discussion, Ms. Roma said all material must be submitted in sufficient time to allow delivery to the Board one week before the scheduled meeting date. Mr. Stern spoke to clarify one point. He stated that the residents have been going in and out of North Chatsworth for eight or nine years. It was made a dual way for ingress and egress. The history, in fact, has been like that for some time. People who want to use the back do so, and those who want to use the front will do so. Ms. Aisen asked if he is going to change the nature of the entrance, reconstruction. Mr. Stern said no. A yellow line will be put down the middle like before, with arrows showing in and out as done before. Ms. Mazo said the recommendation was made by the traffic engineer as to what would be done. Also submitted were recommendations on what should be done into the back area by Madison to make that safer. Dr. Mason asked if there was suggestion to remove 2 parking spaces. Ms. Mazo said the recommendation was for 1 parking space to be removed for the driveway, so there was better site access. That is not any different than the Board would require on any of the public streets, that same site distance. She thinks the elimination of the space is allowed,only because it is not a public street. Dr. Mason said it represents the problem of making the left turn. Ms. Mazo said there are no cars on the left side. Cars are only on the right-hand side. Mr. Stern said the people overhang that place to park, because they want to find a parking space to take a train. Whether one if making a left-hand turn to go in, that one spot is a bad spot. The recommendation is to eliminate it whatever, even if there is no change. Planning Board October 13, 1999 Page 8 Ms. Maw said that the cars can also park there, they block the handicap sidewalk access on both ends, and it happens also on Jefferson Street. Mr. Stern aid another point is that on new Jefferson the handicap people cannot use the last space close to the street, because of that problem. Mr. Darsky suggested that they also read the appropriate pages of information as discussed, as he thinks the desire is to allow the request. The only objection from the Board is for safety concerns or other valid concerns which are stressed by the engineers, the Traffic Commission in the town or in the old records or public. Mr. Darsky said they can best suit their objectives if they anticipate a few objections where ever they might come from and deal with them. Ms. Mazo said that the main concern is do everything safely, as currently they are living unsafely. Mr. Darsky said those concerns are going to be expressed in written reports or by individuals or engineers in anticipation to meet and deal with the issues. Ms. Mazo said they would have brought the expert along, but he was away at a conference. She said that he did meet extensively with mr. Carpaneto, discussed the issues and knew what he needed to do and submitted it according to those recommendations. After further discussion, Ms. Reader said that the bottom line is a safety issue. Ms. Reader said that the expert should also obtain a copy of the documents. Ms. Maw said that their contact is Mr. Carpaneto or Mr. Catalano. Ms. Reader said that Mr. Catalano is from Malcolm Pimie, the consulting engineer for the town Planning Board. Ms. Reader asked there was anything further. There being no further discussion, Ms. Reader referred this matter to the Traffic Commission. Ms. Gallent said the matter has also been referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning. The matter also has to be referred to the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC). After some discussion, Dr. Mason said recommendations will be made by the November meeting. Ms. Maw said that the Board will then have everything needed at that time. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on November 10, 1999. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Dr. Mason, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:55 p.m. 7)1 Marguerite Roding Secretary