Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981_12_09 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD DECEMBER 9, 1981 , IN THE AUDITORIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGEWOOD AVENUE, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER Since there was no Chairman appointed, the members voted to select a Chairman for this meeting. The Board voted to have Mr. Kalos chair the meeting. Mr. Kalos called the meeting to order at 8: 15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Paul Kalos, Chairman Mrs. Mary Carlson Mr. Warner Pyne, Jr. Mr. Anton Schramm Also present: Mr. Charles R. Elfreich, P.E. , Town Engineer Mr. James J. Johnston, Town Attorney OLD BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARING - SUBDIVISION OF LOT - 36 COLONIAL AVENUE - BLOCK 120 PARCEL 253 Mr. Forbes , the Attorney for the applicant, Mr. Harrington, explained to the Board that this application had been made back in June to the Planning Board. Mr. Forbes stated that since the Planning Board did not have the authority to grant a variance in regard to the frontage they had applied to the Zoning Board and obtained a variance. Mr. Forbes said that at the meeting of the Planning Board on October 14th they had been given preliminary approval on the subdivision and they are now requesting final approval . The Board found that there would be no environmental im- pact since it was a one family residence and will not cause significant problems to the water supply, sewerage disposal , drainage, fire protection or noise. The Board voted on the application with Mr. Kalos abstain- ing since he is a nearby resident of Colonial Avenue and with a vote of 3 to 0 the application was approved. The following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Michael J. Harrington, owner of the premises located at 36 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 120 Parcel 253 has filed an application with this Board for the approval of the subdivision of this plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 276 and 277 of the Town Law, a Public Hearing was held on December 9, 1981 after notice was published in the offi- cial newspaper of the Town of Mamaroneck, the Daily Times; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and determined that the same are all satisfactory; and WHEREAS, this Board has determined that since the application was for a one family residence it will not cause problems to the water supply, sewerage disposal , drainage, fire protection or noise and therefore will not have any signi- ficant adverse affect upon the environment; and RESOLVED, that the application of Mr. Michael J. Harrington be approved and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to sign such division map as evidence of the approval of same. PRELIMINARY HEARING - SUBDIVISION OF LOT ON OLD HOMMOCKS ROAD - BLOCK 412 PARCELS 338, 347 AND 365 Mrs. Novak, the owner of the property, was represented by Mr. Edward P. Tanenbaum, an Attorney of 271 North Ave- nue, New Rochelle. Mr. Tanenbaum said that there has been a problem as to whether Old Hommocks Road is a pub- lic street and that there was a Town Board Resolution which was dated 1964 listing all the streets in the Town and old Hommocks Road was on the list. Mr. Tanenbaum pointed out that the new Hommocks Road was not built at that time and he read a portion of the Resolution . Mr. Tanenbaum further said that the Novaks have owned the property for many years and they have a builder who wants to build three houses. In addition, Mr. Tanenbaum said he felt that the Community needed the money and the homes would add taxes. The Board questioned as to whether the lots conformed to the zoning and it was pointed ou that they were all in conformance. Mr. Johnston said that the Resolution Mr. Tanenbaum referred to was a form that the Town sends once a year to the State for funds for the Highway Depart- ment to cover snow removal , etc. In conclusion, Mr. Tanen- baum said that they were aware it would be necessary to go before the Zoning Board to get permission to build because of the road. After further discussion the Board decided that they would have a Public Hearing at the next meeting to be held on January 13, 1982. APPLICATION OF GARFIELD HOUSING CORP. - PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Kalos explained that he had asked Mr. Johnston, the Town Attorney to be present to assist the Board in cer- tain determinations that may or may not be made. Mr. Joel Sachs, an Attorney with the firm of Plunkett and Jaffe of 1 North Broadway, White Plains, represented Gar- field Housing Corporation and said that he had presented members of the Board a "Memorandum of Law" and a brochure which the Secretary had hand delivered to the members of the Board along with a letter from Mr. Neale who repre- sents the Larchmont Hills Assocation. Mr. Sachs presented the members of the Board and the Secretary with a copy of a statement that he wanted to make on behalf of Gar- field Housing Corp. Mr. Sachs said they wanted to set the record straight that the applicant has always been Garfield Housing Cor- poration and not Mr. Feder's project. Mr. Sachs stated that Garfield Housing is a subsidiary of the Gotham Organiza- tion , Inc. a major real estate developer who have been constructing resident buildings and other structures in the New York Metropolitan area for about 50 years. Mr. Kalos read the Public Notice as follows: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Law, the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on December 9 , 1981 , in the Auditorium of the Weaver Street Firehouse, Weaver Street and Edgewood Avenue, Town of Mamaroneck, Larchmont, New York at 8: 15 P.M. to determine whether its decision not to require an Environ- mental Impact Study on the application of Gar- field Housing Corporation rendered at the meet- ing of said Board on July 15, 1981 should be reversed. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that all persons present will be given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Kalos said in view of the concerns of the Community and the material that was received by the Board after they had made their determination at the July 15th meet- ing they have to decide whether or not they would reverse their decision not to require an Environmental Impact Study. Mr. Kalos asked Mr. Johnston if they would be free to reverse if they find the same set of facts and Mr. Johnston advised that they could but would have to give the reasons why they are reversing since the Courts are looking for facts. Mr. Kalos questioned Mr. John- ston as to whether if they asked for an Environmental Impact Study would a full form be required and Mr. John- ston replied that the Board would be the judge of that and after the form was received they could determine whether they wanted any additional information. Mr. Kalos asked Mr. Johnston whether if the Planning Board determined to reverse their decision would it bar the Zoning Board from obtaining the information which would be obtained in an Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Johnston replied no and the Chairman said the Zoning Board could ask for information with respect to any issues they wished and the Planning Board findings would not be a posi- tive bar to that action . Mr. Sachs said the applicants had submitted a 24 page memo- randum and that since the Board had determined on July 15th that an Environmental Impact Study would not be required Garfield Housing Corp. had expended thousand of dollars for major additional work on the development proposal . Mr. Sachs stated that the applicants would not have with- drawn their application but would not have gone ahead if the Planning Board had not given their approval . Mr. Sachs further said that the Planning Board as Lead Agency had allowed sufficient time for the agencies involved to ex- press their objections which they had not done. Mr. David Tulchin of 9 Lafayette Road said he objected to Mr. Sach 's statement that the reasons the planners wanted the hearing reopened was because the public "stampeded" the Board and Mr. Tulchin said the neighbors were concerned that certain answers that had been made on the Environmental Assessment Form were incorrect. Mr. J. Henry Neale, Jr. , an Attorney, said he represented the Larchmont Hills Association and there was nothing in the Town Law or related statutes that prohibits or restricts a Planning Board from reversing a prior determination. Dr. Alan Mason, who is a member of the Conservation Advisory Commission said he did not feel that the Planning Board was being "stampeded" . Mr. Sachs said that the Conservation Advisory Commission 's report was dated August 4th which was after the July 15th meeting and the time allowed for the answer of the Notice designating the Planning Board the lead agency. Mr. Robert Barrett, Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Commission said that they received the notice designating the Planning Board the lead agency but did not have an opportunity to discuss the Environmental Assessment Form until their meeting of July 16th. Mrs. Adrienne Fousek of York Road said as a taxpayer she was concerned as to whether if there were any drainage problems would the Town be liable. Mrs. Abt of 7 Lafayette Road said she did not know why the builder was so afraid of an Environmental Impact Study. Mr. Goldstein of 21 North Chatsworth Avenue said he had been into the Engineer's Office and had reviewed the plans and the plan presented at the meeting showed the road in a different place. Mr. Goldstein said the Zoning Board had postponed their hearing because the plans in front of their Board were different from those presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Goldstein said the moving of the road on the property which at the present time belongs to the Town will necessitate the removal of trees and parking q7 spaces . Mr. Johnston pointed out that there was provision in the contract between the Town and Garfield Housing Corp. to provide parking even during construction . Mr. Neale said that the Board should vote to open the Public Hearing and make their determination since they had decided at the last meeting they would hold the Pub- lic Hearing. Mr. Sachs said that they were asking the Board to reverse their decision to hold the Public Hearing since it was the same project and there was no new information. Motion was made and seconded and on a vote of 4 to 0 the Board decided to proceed with the Public Hearing to determine whether they would reverse their decision made on July 15th . Mr. Sachs said on behalf of his client he was not acknow- ledging that the Board had jurisdiction to reverse their decision since they had been provided with a number of documents including the short Environment Assessment Form and the long one, a report by Woodward-Clyde Con- sultants, Inc. plus the transcript of 65 pages from the meeting of July 15th . It was decided that all the re- cords would be reviewed including the comments from Mrs . Kaplan, the CAC report and letters from the Premium Point Association . Mr. Sachs pointed out that the Engineer who had prepared the Environmental Assessment Form was present and if the Board had any questions they could call on Mr. Mor- genroth. It was pointed out again that it was the same project as was before the Board in July and there were no changes and no new evidence. In addition the appli- cation was the same but certain letters and reports that were not received until after the meeting of July 15th plus the opposition from the neighborhood. Mrs. Carlson said Mr. Sachs had referred several times to the Public Hearing on July 15th but she said it was not. Mr. Tulchin said the residents were not heard at the July meeting and the September meeting was the first meeting they were given an opportunity to present their case in detail . Mrs. Agnes Doran of 21 North Chatsworth Avenue questioned the value of the applicant filling out the Environmental Assessment Formand felt it was "self-serving" . Dr. Leo Wilson said he has lived on Lafayette Road for a long time and has experienced many floods in his base- ment. Dr. Wilson said he had spoken to the Town Council and they have put in new sewers but we have not had any heavy rains in recent years to determine whether or not they will be effective. Dr. Wilson further said that they felt an apartment building will have a significant effect on the water, flooding, etc. and a building of this size will have a serious impact on the area. Also, Dr. Wilson said they are concerned about the streets being "dead end" as a lot of children play in the streets and an apartment house will cause traffic problems. Mr. Morgenroth said the Assessment Form was a basic form and was filled out on the basis of information available. Mr. Morgenroth said that the questions are to provide obvious answers and not misleading ones and there had been a question about visual impact of the building . Mr. Morgenroth, also, said that the Town Board had zoned the property for multiple residence and you cannot take somebody's lot and say it cannot be developed. Finally, Mr. Morgenroth said a report had been prepared on the drainage and some water lines and drain lines would have to be relocated. Mrs. Wilson said she recognized the fact that Mr. Morgen- roth is an Engineer but their property is lower and the thruway property slopes down toward their area plus there are underground streams. Mrs. Goldstein of 21 North Chatsworth Avenue said that according to Mr. Morgenroth's Assessment Form they an- ticipated 60 cars an hour and felt that the air quality would be more affected than it is at present from the cars on the thruway. Mrs. Carlson said the consolidation of the three roads into one will cause the polution to be centered in a smaller area and that at present cars that are using three roads will induce traffic to be centered on a single road. Mr. Frank Connelly, who is Mr. Guadagnolo's Attorney said they had appeared before the Board in February of 1972 and it was pointed out that there would be no foun- dation problems and the Town Engineer at that time said there would be no foundation problems. The Superinten- dent of Highways said that there would be no sewer pro- blems and the Chief of Police said there would be no traffic problems . Mr. Connelly said 10 years ago the Zoning Board felt that the traffic could be easily han- dled for 162 units on the Guadagnolo property and there would be no drainage problems and we had "experts" and we would like to think they told the truth. Mr. Kenneth Schmelkin of 3 Washington Square said since this has been going on since 1966 the developer to be secure could do an Environmental Impact Study and he would like to remind the Board that Mr. Blair had made the statement that if the Town Attorney would allow, the Board would reverse their decision. Mr. Neale said they should have a full SEQR statement and provide the thirty days after the notice for the agencies to reply. Mrs . Carlson said on July 15th she voted to require the Environmental Impact Statement for the following reasons : 1 . The history of this site is well known . Proposed developments here have generated en- vironmental concerns for at least 12 to 15 years . Any development which further disturbs the al- ready unstable soil and water conditions of this site will affect not only the immediate neighborhood, but the several neighbhorhoods downstream through which the Pine Brook and Premium River flow, as well . These streams empty into the Premium Marsh Conservation area which is protected by the Town, the Village of Larchmont and the City of New Rochelle. 2. Under Town Local Law #1-1977 (our own En- vironmental Quality Review Law) it was clearly a Type I Action requiring an EIS as specified in parts (c) and (d) on page 2306. 3. Section 10 of the State Environmental Quality Review Law, also, applies to this project and requires an EIS. Furthermore, the Environmental Assessment Form submitted by the developer was inaccurate and incomplete and therefore unacceptable. Mrs . Carlson further said she felt these con- siderations were too important for her to waive an Environmental Impact Statement and based on the opinion of the Town Attorney of Novem- ber 12th that the Board reconsider their pre- vious action and require an Environmental Im- pact Statement she was voting to require the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Sachs said that from Mrs . Carlson 's statement he felt she was opposed to any further development of the property and from the history of the parcel in question it is evident that many of the people in the room would like the property to remain vacant. The Chairman said he thought they should vote on whether they should reverse their decision and he had voted in July to have the Impact Statement. Mr. Kalos further said that at the July meeting they had decided it was a "type 1 " action but since then new evidence has come in and their decision should be reversed. Mr. Sachs questioned as to what the new evidence was and Mr. Kal(p said the concerns of water and drainage were a significant issue. Mr. Tulchin said that on September 16th more new evidence had been presented. Q� 1� Mr. Pyne recommended that they should reverse their deci- sion and Mr. Schramm agreed. The following Resolution was therefore adopted: WHEREAS, members of the Planning Board agreed that they should reverse their decision rendered at the meeting of said Board on July 15, 1981 that no Environmental Impact Study should be required on the application of Garfield Housing Corp. , and RESOLVED, that the Board will not convene on this application until they receive a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with SEQR. Mr. Neale said he would recommend that if the applicant wanted to press forward that he, Mr. Sachs and Mr. Barrett get together and prepare the recommendations on how to proceed. Dr. Mason who is a member of the Conservation Advisory Commission said that if the Board wants them to assist they will work with Mr. Sachs. Mr. Sachs agreed that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Johnston and Mr. Neale. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 11 :15 P.M. t, K. ita A. Joh9 n, Secretary NOTE : A Court Stenographer was present for the applica- tion of Garfield Housing Corp. and his report is filed in the folder for the applicant. hl /1 `i'