Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987_01_14 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 14, 1987, IN THE COURTROOM, TOWN OFFICES 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Sanford A. Bell, Chairman Mary Carlson Anton Schramm Lester M. Bliwise Norman L. Cannon Absent: Gaetano Scutaro Patricia Latona Also Present: Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. , Town Attorney Gary B. Trachtman, Town Engineer Shirley Tolley, C2 MC Phyllis Whittner, CZ MC Mary Ann Johnson, C2 Mb Joseph Jacoby, Public Stenographer from: J & L Reporting Service 180 East Post Road White Plains, New York Jean A. Marra, Recording Secretary SCHEDULING The Chairman stated that the next meeting of the Planning Board will be held on February 11, 1987. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Due to a lack of a quorum, action on the Minutes of December 10, 1986 was tabled. January 14, 1987 At this time, Mrs. Carlson inquired if a requirement for drains could be added to the resolution in the minutes for Madison-Larchmont to which Attorney Hoffman explained that would be made a condition of the building permit. * * * * * 2. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Salem Drive & Boulder Circle Block 309 Parcels 1799 & 3 Mr. Robert Armour Mr. William Maker, attorney for the applicant requested tha this matter be placed at the foot of the agenda. * * * * * 3. PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL 1375 Boston Post Road Block 411 Parcel 196 Midland Construction, Inc. No one was in attendance to present the application at this time. * * * * * 4. PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS & WATER COURSES PERMIT 875 Fenimore Road Block 312 Parcel 1 Mr. R. Scheuer Mr. Richard Scheuer submitted new sets of plans together with a letter addressed to him from Mark Simon of Centerbrook Architects and Planners, Essex, Connecticut. - 2 - January 14, 1987 At this time, Mrs. Carlson inquired if a requirement for drains could be added to the resolution in the minutes for Madison-Larchmont to which Attorney Hoffman explained that would be made a condition of the building permit. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPRCTJAL Salem Drive & Boulder Circle Block 309 Parcels 1799 & 3 Mr. Robert Armour Mr. William Maker, attorney for the applicant requested that this matter be placed at the foot of the agenda. * * * * * 3. PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL 1375 Boston Post Road Block 411 Parcel 196 Midland Construction, Inc. No one was in attendance to present the application at this time. * * * * * 4. PUBLIC HEARING - FRESHWATER WETLANDS & WATER COURSES PERMIT 875 Fenimore Road Block 312 Parcel 1 Mr. R. Scheuer Mr. Richard Scheuer submitted new sets of plans together with a letter addressed to him from Mark Simon of Centerbrook Architects and Planners, Essex, Connecticut. - 2 - January 14, 1987 Ms. Tolley stated this this application was approved by the CZ MC and certain suggestions and recommendations were made at that time. It was stated by Mr. Trachtman that in his letter of December 12th, he addressed the items Mrs. Tolley was referring to and he made certain recommendations to Mr. Scheuer and apparently that is what Mr. Scheuer was presenting tonight. Mr. Scheuer noted that these were minor changes and no suggestions about a drywell being required was mentioned. Mr. Trachtman explained that if the plans had been submitted earlier, perhaps they could have been reviewed but. . . to which Mr. Scheuer added that the only change made was the relocation of the drainage pipe. He said the previous plans gave full details and provided all the explanation needed. At time time, Mr. Trachtman reviewed the plans which Mr. Scheuer just submitted. Mrs. Carlson questioned the policy of the Board regarding the submission of plans at a meeting and not fifteen days prior as is specified in the rules to which Chairman Bell explained that this was a continued matter and the plans would just be looked at. Mr. Trachtman pointed out that the new plans offered a different concept than what had been suggested in that the area being discussed contributes a relatively small amount of flow into the stream; also, the new plans was a scaled- down version of the original plans submitted. After further discussion, on motion by Mr. Schramm, seconded by Mr. Bliwise, it was unaimously RESOLVED, that this matter be declared as non-significant for SEQRA purposes in that no additional drainage or silt will be placed into the stream and the only environmental impact is upon the wetland in the water basin and that has been provided for; and - 3 - January 14, 1987 be it further RESOLVED, that the Consulting Engineer to the Town has reviewed the application and offers no objection to it. At this time, on motion by Mr. Schramm, seconded by Mr. Bliwise, with Mrs. Carlson voting nay, it was resolved that the public hearing be dispensed with. Mrs. Carlson stated that this matter was advertised as a public hearing and she was opposed to it being waived. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Schramm, seconded by Mr. Bliwise, the following resolution was adopted: Block 312 Parcel 1 WHEREAS, Mr. Richard Scheuer has applied for a permit pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is a Type I Action and that this Planning Board is the appropriate Lead Agency with respect to Environ- mental Quality Review; and WHEREAS, the Consulting Engineer to the Town and the C7MC have submitted comments and recom- mendations in writing regarding this application to the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined, pursuant to Local Law #7, Section 88-6 (D) , that the activity proposed is of such a minor nature and is compatible pursuant to 6 NYCRR 665.7; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: - 4 - January 14, 1987 1. The activity proposed is of such a minor nature as not to effect or endanger the balance of systems in a controlled area; 2. The proposed activity will be compatible with the preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, because (A) the proposed activity will have only a minor impact, (B) it is the only practical alterna- tive, and (C) is compatible with the economic and social needs of the com- munity and will not impose an economic or social burden on the community; 3. The proposed activity will result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of, any part of the wetland, because of the minor impact of the activity and the protective conditions imposed by this resolution; 4. The proposed activity will be compatible with the public health and welfare, because of its minor impact in the controlled area; AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board determines that a public hearing pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986 be, and hereby is, waived; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Mr. Richard Scheuer for a permit, pursuant to Local Law #7 of 1986, be, and it hereby is, granted subject to the following terms and conditions: a. This permit shall expire upon completion of the proposed activity or one year from the date of its issuance, whichever first occurs; b. This permit is personal to the applicant and may not be transferred to any other individual, entity, or a combination thereof; - 5 - January 14, 1987 c. The applicant is required to deposit $500 with the Town Comptroller to ensure satisfactory completion of the proposed project and the rehabilitation of any effected or disturbed areas; d. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M.; e. The recommendations regarding technical aspects are hereby made conditions of this permit, to wit: (1) Compliance with Erosion Control Plans being sub- mitted by the applicants and approval of said plans by the Consulting Engineer; (2) Providing hay bales at the locations shown on the Temporary Protective Barrier Plan received by the Consulting Engineer and in accordance with the specifications of the Westchester Best Management Practices Guidelines for Construction Related Activities. Mrs. Carlson voiced her objection, not to the plans, but to the timliness of the way in which the plans were presented to the Board this evening by Mr. Scheuer, thus not leaving sufficient time to review them. * * * * * 5. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION 178 Myrtle Blvd. Block 133 Parcel 627 Coughlin Realty Corp. Mr. Donald Mazin, the attorney for the applicant, statE that the principal occupant of the proposed building wou: be Coughlin Insurance and that most of the employees were Town residents. He added that the structure was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would be an improvement. - 6 - January 14, 1987 c. The applicant is required to deposit $500 with the Town Comptroller to ensure satisfactory completion of the proposed project and the rehabilitation of any effected or disturbed areas; d. Work involving site preparation shall only take place from Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M.; e. The recommendations regarding technical aspects are hereby made conditions of this permit, to wit: (1) Compliance with Erosion Control Plans being sub- mitted by the applicants and approval of said plans by the Consulting Engineer; (2) Providing hay bales at the locations shown on the Temporary Protective Barrier Plan received by the Consulting Engineer and in accordance with the specifications of the Westchester Best Management Practices Guidelines for Construction Related Activities. Mrs. Carlson voiced her objection, not to the plans, but to the timliness of the way in which the plans were presented to the Board this evening by Mr. Scheuer, thus not leaving sufficient time to review them. * * * * * 5. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPLICATION 178 Myrtle Blvd. Block 133 Parcel 627 Coughlin Realty Corp. Mr. Donald Mazin, the attorney for the applicant, stated that the principal occupant of the proposed building would be Coughlin Insurance and that most of the employees were Than residents. He added that the structure was in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would be an improvement. - 6 - January 14, 1987 Mr. Meltzer of Design Collaborative, White Plains, NY, explained that there was a discrepancy in the the previous plans submitted regarding the height of the building. He said the above-average grade would be 29.35 feet and not 27.50 feet and that this was still below the 30 foot height requirement. Mrs. Carlson asked at what point that was measured to which Mr. Mazin explained it was a measured medium point. In answer to Mrs. Carlson question, Mr. Meltzer explained that the property sloped so the building would be 32 feet high on one side and only 26 feet on the other side. At this time, certain procedures were discussed as well as the designation of Lead Agency status and Chairman Bell stated that this application had to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals as well. Mr. Mazin offered that the Zoning Board usually takes on the Lead Agency standing but that would have to be decided by the Planning Board. Mrs. Carlson explained that the two Boards had different issues before them and that the scope of concerns would differ also. Attorney Hoffman said the real question was whether the Planning Board felt, with their expertise, they were in a better position to evaluate this matter than the Zoning Board and, if that were the case, then they should declare themselves as Lead Agency. Mr. Schramm stated he felt that the Planning Board would be more qualified as Lead Agency regarding the environmental impact issues and Mr. Bliwise concurred that this appli- cation would be best served by the Planning Board. Attorney Hoffman explained that neither Board could make a decision on Site Plan Approval or variances until the environmental review process was completed. - 7 - January 14, 1987 After further discussion, on motion by Mr. Schramm, seconded by Mr. Bliwise, it was unanimously resolved that the Planning Board be designated as the Lead Agency. Some various items, such as utilities, drainage, relationship of building to existing building in the rear, were discussed and Mrs. Carlson requested an alternative building plan that would conform to the zoning regulations. Mr. Mazin said he never saw that as part of an environmental study but he would meet with counsel to discuss the matter. Chairman Bell explained that alternatives with regard to particular environmental concerns such as traffic, drainage, etc. , could be discussed but site plans and building plans were not part of the environmental process. Mrs. Carlson stated that she would like to see an alternate plan regarding the environmental impact of a building that conforms to the zoning requirements versus the environmental impact of a building that does not conform. Mr. Bliwise pointed out that a traffic study could be done on the proposped structure versus one being built in accordance with the zoning requirements and Chairman Bell added that it would be based on square footage. To this, Mr. Mazin added that the type of occupant in the building would also have a bearing on the traffic impact; and it was his opinion that a traffic study would reflect that the increase in traffic would not be significant. If parking was required for 68 cars, the traffic would have to increase, Mrs. Carlson noted but Mr. Mazin thought the parking requirement was very strong and, in his opinion, that much parking would not be required. At this time, Chairman Bell requested that this matter be referred to the Traffic Committee for their input. - 8 - January 14, 1987 Mr. Trachtman stated that an attempt had been made to indicate what the critical elevations at the end of the property were and he requested the applicant to supply that information which Mr. Mazin said that issue would be addressed. Also, Mrs. Carlson requested that she be provided with plans showing the relationship between the apartment building and the proposed building since it would be blocking out light and air which was an environmental issue to which Mr. Mazin stated that would be true of any building. If it were built under the zoning ordinance, the building could be located at the westerly end of the property and it would not interfere with the residents of the apartment building, Mrs. Carlson explained. It would be done, but it would reduce the quality of the building, Mr. Mazin offered. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Cannon, it was unanimously resolved that this matter be declared as an Unlisted Action with mandatory referral to the Coastal Zone Management Commission. Mrs. Tolley said if (L M reviewed the plans now, they would probably not be the plans ultimately adopted since the matter also had to go before the Zoning Board and she suggested waiting in order to review the final plans. Mr. Mazin stressed if that were the case, it would take an additional three months and was unfair since there was a building moratorium for quite a while and then a change in the method of procedures and also the fact that money was involved. Chairman Bell stated that they were trying to coordinate the procedure and Attorney Hoffman indicated that one of the functions of CZM was to comment, not only on the local waterfront, but also on environmental issues and that the Zoning Board should have the benefit of CL M's input on this particular proposal. He added that if the Planning Board decided that the plan was not acceptable, than a subsequent referral might be necessary. - 9 - January 14, 1987 Mrs. Tolley asked if new plans would have to be submitted if the Zoning Board denied the application to which Attorney Hoffman explained that the Zoning Board could not act until the Planning Board finished its environmental review process and they needed input from CZ M for this. The earliest the Zoning Board could decide on the merits of this application, would be at the February meeting, Mr. Hoffman offered. Mr. Trachtman stated that, based on plans to date, CLM should be able to review the general concept to determine if additional input is needed in other areas. In this way, Mr. Trachtman explained, the applicatiion would still be moving forward and the applicant would have the benefit of the additional input. Any changes to the building, compared to the overall concept, should not be a major concern at this point, Mr. Trachtman added. Attorney Hoffman indicated that this matter can not be scheduled for a public hearing until at least March because of the zoning variances that have to be applied for. Mr. Coughlin requested that this matter be expedited and that the Board not be so technical on every single item. He then stated that many of his employees attended the meeting tonight and he requested that they be heard. Chairman Bell explained that this was not a public hearing, but said he appreciated Mr. Coughlin's position, and he said a few persons could be heard later on but their remarks would not necessary be a part of the record. Mr. Coughlin mentioned that the parking lot across from the proposed building would be decal parking for residents and it would bring in revenues to the Town. Aside from the delay in additional parking for Town residents, many other people will be hurt by the delay in this application, Mr. Coughlin offered. Chairman Bell pointed out that this application had to go before the Zoning Board because of the required variances and under the law, it also had to go to CLM. He said it was not within their power to eliminate any of those steps. - 10 - January 14, 1987 Mr. Coughlin asked if all those in favor of the application could stand up and be heard to which Mr. Schramm said that was not necessary and even if they spoke, it would not make a difference. He said at the appropriate time, the Board would listen to them. Mr. Mazin offered that at the last meeting Mr. Alexrod spoke in opposition to the proposal and his comments were even in the newspaper. With that, Mr. Coughlin introduced his family and several of his employees who spoke in favor of the application. Mr. Mazin then thanked the Board members for their time and input regarding Mr. Coughlin's proposal. * * * * 6. INITIAL CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 1 Gaillard Place Block 504 Parcel 252 Mr. & Mrs. Mark Rocconi Mr. Mark Rocconi, of 3 Gaillard Place, presented his application for initial consideration of subdivision and stated that he would also have to appear before the Zoning Board for a variance on a subdivision on a private road (Town Law 280-a) . Mrs. Carlson inquired as to the status of Gaillard Place as it existed in New Rochelle to which Mr. Rocconi stated it was still unimproved at the present time and would probably never be developed. He said the road ends in front of his property. When questioned about sewer hookups, Mr. Rocconi explained that was no problem because there were two possible ways of connecting and the Town sewer was located in his easement to which Attorney Hoffman said that information would have to be documented. When questioned by Mr. Trachtman if the sewer provided services to the existing home, Mr. Rocconi answered in the affirmative. - 11 - January 14, 1987 After a brief discussion, and on motion by Mr. Bliwise, seconded by Mr. Cannon, it was unanimously resolved that the Planning Board be designated as the Lead Agency regarding this application. Mr. Trachtman stated that the application did not appear to be subject to the Freshwater Wetlands but that erosion control methods would have to be taken and the sewer may have to be inspected. Mrs. Johnson questioned the relationship of the subject property to the Premimum Marsh area to which Mr. Trachtman explained its location and stated this would not be considered a Type I Action. Mr. Rocconi added there was some marsh area but that it was more than 100 feet away from his property but Mrs. Carlson said she would like further information on the proximity of the marsh to the New Rochelle line and she requested that this matter be referred to CL M for their input. Mr. Schramm stated that the sewer issue also had to be resolved. Attorney Hoffman stated that both CZ M and the Planning Board have raised questions relating to the impact of construction on the marsh and they also had questions on the sewers. He then asked Mr. Rocconi if the Planning Board declared this as a Type II Action, if he would agree to have this appli- cation reviewed by CZM to which Mr. Rocconi said yes. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Schramm, seconded by Mr. Cannon, it was unanimously resolved that this matter be classified as a Type II Action with referral to the CL MC. Attorney Hoffman indicated that the applicant's next step would be the Zoning Board of Appeals and he also recommended that the applicant keep in contact with Gary Trachtman. At this time, on motion by Mrs. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Bliwise, it was unanimously resolved that this matter be scheduled for a Public Hearing on February 11, 1987. - 12 - January 14, 1987 Mr. Rocconi then thanked the Board, Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Trachtman for their help. * * * * * 7. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION Fenimore Road Block 347 Parcel 1 Winged Foot Golf Club Mr. James Nolletti and Mr. Robert Elonzi appeared in support of the application to erect a shed to store equipment. Chairman Bell stated that a public hearing would be required because this was a Special Permit application. After some discussion, and on motion by Mrs. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Bliwise, it was unanimously resolved that the Planning Board be designated as Lead Agency regarding this application. Mr. Trachtman stated that apparently some excavation work will be done on this site and he added that none of the construction debris should be able to work its way into the pond. Chairman Bell said that certain conditions could be stipulated for the building permit. Attorney Hoffman stated that this application lies in a Critical Environmental Area and, on motion by Mr. Cannon, seconded by Mrs. Carlson, it was unanimously resolved that this application be designated as a Type I Action with referral to the CL M. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Bliwise, it was unanimously resolved that this matter be scheduled for a Public Hearing on February 11, 1987. * * * * * - 13 - January 14, 1987 2. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL Salem Drive & Boulder Circle Block 309 Parcels 1799 & 3 Mr. Robert Armour Mr. William Maker, Mr. William Morgenroth and Mr. Robert Armour appeared in support of the application and Mr. Maker stated that it appeared that the favored plan was the original one submitted but with a shared driveway. The Public Stenographer was present for this application and his minutes will become a permanent part of this record. Mr. Maker once again stated that this site would be treated as an R-30 zone even though it was an R-20. He added that there are no water courses to be concerned with and that the land was relatively flat. Mr. Maker continued that the plans would be revised for the Final Subdivision Approval and that a variance would have to be obtained for the one lot which was lacking sufficient street frontage and that, under Town Law, the Planning Board would be allowed to grant that variance. Some question was raised regarding the configuration of the driveway possibly needing a Zoning Board of Appeals variance since it was tentatively planned to be at the edge of both lot lines and Mx. Armour offered that his co-applicant, Frank Campalong, and he would be sharing the driveway. Attorney Hoffman stated that Preliminary Subdivision Approval could be made conditional upon clarification regarding the common driveway. Following a discussion regarding the pros and cons of a shared driveway, and on motion by Mr. Schramm, seconded by Mr. Cannon, it was unanimously resolved that Attorney Hoffman draft a proposed resolution for Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Attorney Hoffman then stated that there are a number of standard conditions which the Town puts into the Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution so the resolution will contain much more than what has been discussed here. He added that Mr. Maker will be in receipt of a proposed draft resolution regarding this matter. * * * * * - 14 - January 14, 1987 3. PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL 1375 Boston Post Road Block 411 Parcel 196 Midland Construction, Inc. The Public Stenographer was present for this application and his minutes will become a permanent part of this record. Mr. Victor D'Ortona, of Midland Construction, Mr. Jan Degershein, Mr. Attila Bodnar and Mr. William Morgenroth appeared in support of the application and Attorney Hoffman stated that this matter was referred to CLM and the Traffic Committee for their input. He also stated that there has been no determination made as to what type of action this was. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Cannon, it was unanimously resolved that this application be designated as a Type I Action. In answer to Chairman Bell's question, Mr. Trachtman stated that there were no outstanding environmental issues to be concerned with. Mr. Degershein responded to a memorandum from William Paonessa, the Building Inspector, by stating that the roof was flat so the 10% coverage of the roof area was in conformance. Mr. Schramm then questioned the height of the building with the proposed skylights and Attorney Hoffman stated that the Planning Board did not have the authority to override the Building Inspector's determination and upon Mr. Paonessa's review of revised plans, this matter could be subject to a public hearing. Mr. D'Ortona stated that the skylights and the height of building were the issues and inquired if approval could be obtained subject to certain requirements. Attorney Hoffman answered in the affirmative stating that the applicant would have to appear before the Planning Board again anyway. - 15 - January 14, 1987 The Public Hearing was then opened and Mr. George Forbes stated he was the owner of property, to the right of the applicant's property as you faced it. He added that the applicant's parcel may be the subject of adverse possession and also that, in his opinion, there were too many driveways in that location. Mr. Degershein stated that the second driveway was a safety measure in order for emergency vehicles to access the property. Attorney Hoffman offered that the property was not being subdivided; it was just being divided and Mr. D'Ortona added that you needed two driveways if you had two parcels. Mrs. Carlson pointed out that curbcuts had to be approved by the New York State Department of Transportation and Mr. D'Ortona said that application to them was made but that they are extremely slow in responding. Mrs. Carlson raised the question of "No Left Hand Turn" signs being installed there and Richard Mari, who was there of behalf of the Traffic Committee, said there were many accidents in that location and "stacking" (making cars in back stop while someone turns) should be avoided. Mr. Mari also raised the issue of parking to which Mr. D'Ortona explained that IHOP had 30 spaces and that will be increased; the combined total parking area would be for 129 spaces for both buildings. He explained once again that different "peak hours" for the restaurant would be the "off-peak" hours for the proposed office building. Mrs. Carlson stated that she would need more information regarding the question of one or two driveways before she rendered an opinion. She then questioned drainage plans to which Mr. Trachtman said that would be the applicant's responsibility. Mr. Morgenroth added that the plans would be submitted to the County of Westchester for their review. Attorney Hoffman then stated that the Board did not have enough information regarding this issue and he suggested that the record be held open. - 16 - January 14, 1987 Attorney Hoffman then requested that a written memorandum be received from the Traffic Committee to which Mr. Mari agreed adding that a set of plans was never received. Chairman Bell stated there were still many questions to be answered: traffic issues; ingress and egress; authorized curbcut locations; sketch of surrounding area; zoning issues had to be clarified; maintenance regimen and general findings. Attorney Hoffman requested a copy of the parking easement for IHOP and Mr. D'Ortona said he would furnish a copy of it. Thereafter, on motion by Mrs. Carlson, seconded by Mr. Cannon, and with the consent of the applicant, it was unanimously resolved that the Public Hearing be kept open. * * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion by Mr. Cannon, seconded by Mrs. Carlson, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 12:03 A.M. %/;47,-YA 7./4/1Alt/ Jean A. Marra Recording Secretary - 17 -