Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984_03_14 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD MARCH 14, 1984, IN THE AUDITORIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGEWOOD AVENUE, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:20 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Paul Kalos, Chairman Mrs. Mary Carlson Mr. Warner Pyne, Jr. Mr. Anton Schramm Mr. Emil Nicolaysen Also present: Mr. Charles R. Elfreich, P.E., Town Engineer Mr. Lee Hoffman, Jr., Town Counsel Mrs. Caroline Silverstone, Councilwoman APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of February 14, 1984 were pre- sented and on motion duly made and seconded approved as submitted. Mr. Kalos said they would discuss the last application on the agenda first. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT - 5 FIFTH AVENUE - BLOCK 132 PARCEL 609 - REFERRAL FROM TOWN BOARD Mr. Kalos noted that the Building Inspector had written a memo to the Board which was read, stating that there existed a violation on the property at present and it would be necessary for Mr. Auricchio to apply to the Zoning Board for variances. The Chairman pointed out that under the circumstances the Board should defer the hearing until next month so an application could be made to the Zoning Board or the violation corrected. A motion was made and seconded that the hearing be deferred until next month with all the members voting in favor. APPLICATION OF LMR ASSOCIATES - 2155 PALMER AVENUE A motion was made to open the discussion which had been deferred from the last meeting. Mr. Kalos read a Resolu- tion that he had prepared and asked Mr. Pyne to read a letter which Mr. Clifford had presented to the members. The letter was from Raamot Associates, P.C., who had made the drainage and subsurface investigation and stated that C because of the change in the building the resulting storm- water discharge will be further reduced from the calculated levels given in their report of August 1982. Further, Mr. Mosley said in his letter that it will have a beneficial impact on the Pine Brook drainage system. Mrs. Carlson said she was not sure that it answers her questions about the roof retention system and that she was concerned about some of the issues that have been raised. It was pointed out that when the applicant submits his building plans the Building Inspector and the Engineer should require that the water will be retained so there will be no increase in water to the storm water system. Mrs. Carlson said it was a question of maintenance. Mr. Kalos said that at the last meeting there had been inquiries about the roof retention and they had decided it should be dealt with by the Engineer. Mrs. Carlson asked Mr. Hoffman whether this Board had jurisdiction over this matter. Mr. Hoffman said the concern should be made known to the Zoning Board and it was the Zoning Board's jurisdiction to place conditions. Mrs. Carlson said she had also discussed the traffic pro- blem and according to the last word it was to be a coopera- tive effort. Mr. Clifford said the applicant had agreed to share the cost of the light. Mrs. Carlson discussed the possibility of the need to followup and said she had spoken to Mr. Fried in the County Traffic Department who said he has not seen the new plan and would have to examine the plan to make any determination. Mr. Kalos pointed out that in the Board's previous state- ment that numbers 18 and 19 concerned traffic and consider- ation of a traffic light. After further discussion a motion was made and seconded to accept the FEIS and on a vote of 4 to 1 the Board decided no further SEQRA proceedings are required. Mrs. Carlson said that she had not voted to accept the previous EIS and she still had some concern about the traffic, drain- age and the 24 cars that may be parking on neighborhood streets. The following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, LMR Associates (Applicant) has hereto- fore filed a final Environmental Impact State- ment (FEIS) concerning a proposed office build- ing at 2155 Palmer Avenue (Site), which was ac- cepted as complete by this Board on March 8, 1983; WHEREAS, Applicant withdrew his application for variances pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals and subsequently reapplied to the Zoning Board of Appeals for different variances; WHEREAS, Applicant has requested this Board to determine that the FEIS previously filed and accepted is covered by said FEIS and that this Board transmit findings to the Building Inspec- tor and to the Zoning Board of Appeals; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 4. 1. The FEIS previously accepted for the prior application is hereby accepted for the pending application and no further SEQRA proceedings are required by the Board. 2. The Statement previously adopted and annexed hereto is hereby restated and readopted concerning the applica- tion for use by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Inspector. 3. The new application further addresses environmental concerns minimizing ad- verse environmental impacts present in the old application. 4. The new application no longer in- cludes a height variance request which revises item 20. PUBLIC HEARING - GARFIELD HOUSING CORPORATION - BLOCK 133 PARCELS 149 and 299 Mr. Kalos stated that back in November and December of 1982 the Board had adopted a series of recommendations concerning the amalgamation of the two parcels. Mr. Kalos further said that an agreement has been concluded between the neighbors and the developer and litigation previously commenced has been discontinued. Mr. Hoffman, the Planning Board Counsel pointed out that the original map needs additional signatures and there remains a question about the closing of Garfield Street. Mr. Hoffman said that he preferred that the street should be closed prior to final subdivision approval and the ap- plication should be held over. Mr. Pyne read the Public Notice and the hearing was opened. Mrs. Carlson raised the issue of who owned Adams Street and what would be done. Mr. Sachs made a representation that his title report showed that Adams Street had never been dedicated and the adjoining property owners each owned half of the street bed. The 171 ft. wide street bed will be sold to the applicant by Mr. Guadagnolo. However, this is not part of the proposed subdivision. The applicant agreed to give the Town an easement for access to the water and sewer lines in the bed of Adams Street. A discussion was held in which Mr. Kaplan, Mr. Cammer and Dr. Wilson participated and they all said that the agree- () ment that had been reached between the neighbors and the developer was satisfactory. A Court Reporter was present and his transcript will be part of the record. The Fire Department, Police Depart- . ment and Traffic Committee had been notified regarding © the application and a letter from the Town of Mamaroneck Police Department was read by Mr. Pyne. In their letter the Police Department said their only major concern was the possible loss of parking now available on the thruway extension for the occupants of the existing apartment build- ings. Lt. Mahoney said in his letter that after talking with Mr. Elfreich, the Town Engineer and looking at the plans it was ascertained that when the Town had gone into contract for the sale of the property an agreement had been made to provide parking for the residents while the project was under construction and when the new roadway was complete parking would be available there. On a 3 to 1 vote with Mr. Kalos abstaining the Board decided to adjourn the Public Hearing to April 11, 1984. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Z-=--#. a Rita A. John , Secretary 0 0 STATE='‘,ENT CONCERNING APPLICATION OF LMR ASSOCIATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDING AT 2155 PALMER AVENUE, LARCHMONT, TOWN OF MAMARONECK, NEW YORK 1 . The Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board served as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and/or pursuant to Local Law 1-1977 of the Town of Mamaroneck. 2. The currently vacant site is on a commercially developed county highway, Palmer Avenue, and has had a history of other actual and proposed uses. 3. The site is currently zoned "B" business district which permits 25% building coverage, maximum floor area of 50%, a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet, and developer is seeking substantial variances for the proposed structure. 4. Based upon an Environmental Assessment Form prepared by the Developer, this Planning Board as lead agency determined the pro- posed action was an unlisted action and required a scoped draft Environmental Impact Statement which was prepared by expert consul- tants retained and compensated by Developer. 5. Pursuant to a petition there was a public hearing before the Town Council of Mamaroneck which determined that the action may have a significant impact on the environment. 6. The major environmental impacts were tratfic and drainage with con- cern over the bulK of the building. 7. A Westcnester County Traffic study was also submitted. 8. A final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Developer and accepted as complete by the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board on March 8, 1933 by a 3 - 2 vote. 9. The site is located in the narrow strip of the Town of Mamaroneck between Larchmont Village and New Rochelle. 10. The matter has been the subject of controversy in the Town of Mamaroneck and particularly in the Village of Larchmont whose Mayor, Planning Board, Traffic Commission and Parks and Trees Committee have filed substantial material and studies expressing concerns over the variances. • 11 . The proposed variance of height and coverage has been opposed by the Pine Brook District Property Owners Association Inc. , a neighborhood association, which has submitted material environmental concerns. 12. No action on this matter is pending before the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board. 13. Developer has stated he is prepared to appear next at the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals to seek the variances. 14. The granting or denial of the substantial variances to be sought before the Zoning Board of Appeals is the most significant action to be taken concerning the environment under SEQKA. 15. In view of the finding of the Mamaroneck Town Council, the Zoning Board of Appeals should carefully review the technical aspects of the SEQRA process and make the appropriate fact findings, consideration of alternatives and mitigation factors, together with rendering its decision and impose appropriate environmental conditions on any variances granted. ' 16. We particularly recommend a review of the various traffic reports and comments thereon, feasible site plans, driveway layouts, street turning lanes, traffic routing, parking patterns, etc. 17. We recommend the consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the impact the proposed variance of building size will have on the traffic pattern in the area. 18. Consideration should be given with respect to a financial contribution requirement concerning a traffic light in the affected area.. 19. Since the traffic impact will be most significantly felt in the Village of Larchmont part of the Town of Mamaroneck, we recommend consulta- tion with their affected agencies, as well as the Town of Mamaroneck Traffic Commission. 20. The Zoning Board should carefully consider the negative impacts of a 50% height variance and a large variance with respect to site cover- age. 21 . We suggest the Town Engineer and Building Inspector propose specific conditions with respect to the adequacy, efficiency and maintenance of the proposed roof retainage system designed to mitigate the drainage problem. 22. We recommend that the Master Plan covering Larchmont Village and the I own and the development of Palmer Avenue be considered..