Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986_02_12 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD FEBRUARY 12. 1985, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN CENTER, 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:27 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Sanford Bell, Chairman Mr. Emil Nicolaysen Mrs. Mary Carlson Mr. Lester Bliwise Mrs. Caryl Mahoney Mr. Gaetano Scutaro Mr. Anton Schramm Also Present Mr. Lee Hoffman, Counsel to the Town Mr. Gary Trachtman, Engineering Consultant Mr. Steve Altieri, Town Administrator Ms. Cynthia Fawcett, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1985 M. Carlson raised a question on page two regarding traffic. L. Hoffman answered that the special permit reads that way, but that he would check it. The Chairman asked if the special permit was actually passed on that date, noting that with the passage of time it is difficult to remember. M. Carlson added that the site plan was taken up in the October meeting. The Chairman clarified that on the bottom of the page it should say "public hearing on the site plan application". L. Hoffman noted this correction. M. Carlson then said that on the Maloney-Berringer case she had voted no and gave her reasons. This is not stated in the minutes; the minutes do not record any vote. The Chairman asked, as a matter of mechanics, what they will do with these changes. L. Hoffman took it upon himself to make sure the minutes get corrected and is recording the changes as noted. M. Carlson said that the board has never received corrected minutes. She would like the corrected minutes circulated. The Chairman said that when minutes were done they were given to the Chairman first. He agreed they be circulated to all board members. M. Carlson noted that requirements in subdivision regulations do not include length of the cul-de-sac, which is 1500 and 1700 feet. This inclusion was made. A. Schramm made the motion to accept the minutes as corrected, and M. Carlson seconded the motion. The minutes were accepted, as corrected, unanimously by the board. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 1985 MEETING M. Carlson mentioned a typographical error on page 2, paragraph 2 which should read "fence". On the first page, 3rd paragraph "preliminary sight proposal" was corrected to read "subdivision proposal". M. Carlson asked if this was the meeting when the public stenographer walked out, and was answered that no, it was not. The Chairman asked if it is required that the minutes state that they were taken off a tape recording. L. Hoffman answered that it was not necessary. This statement, the last statement on the last page, was omitted. L. Bliwise moved to accept the minutes as corrected, which was seconded by A. Schramm and approved unanimously by the board. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 1985 MEETING The Chairman asked if all board members had copies, noting that he received these minutes in January. Apparently all board members had copies. M. Carlson had a question on page 6 concerning access to lot 7 and 8. L. Hoffman clarified that the sense of the board was that curbing was not necessary from an aesthetic point of view. Also, this provided a place to put snow; without a curb it is much easier to plow. A. Schramm confirmed this, adding that this resulted from a request from the highway department. Steve Altieri confirmed this. Otherwise, this is a street built to town standards and accessible to emergency equipment. A. Schramm questioned page 4. The board confirmed that the applicant is required to gather information and present it to the board before blasting. To date, Gary Trachtman has not received this information. L. Hoffman added that it might be in by March. M. Carlson made the motion to accept the minutes as written, which was seconded by C. Mahoney. E. Nicolaysen abstained from the vote, as he had not been at that particular meeting. All other board members voted in favor accepting the minutes as written. 0 VARIOUS SUBJECTS - MORATORIUM The Chairman stated that the moratorium is in effect, and asked what the status of it is. L. Hoffman answered that it expires at the end of February. There is a stay on applications for rezoning. There is some discussion about extending the moratorium. M. Carlson thought that the moratorium should be extended. L. Hoffman continued, saying that the Town Board set a hearing for February 27 to consider local law which would contemplate a 6 month ex- tension until September 1 of this year. The Chairman asked if that were constitutional, and L. Hoffman answered yes. He continued, saying that if there is a master plan, then a moratorium could be imposed as long as it is in expectation of completion of work. In this case, they are waiting for the completion of Coastal Zoning. The Joint Planning Board is not going to have this done by March; maybe they will have it com- pleted by September. L. Hoffman added that the board can support the extension of the moratorium on whatever grounds the board thinks is appropriate. VARIOUS SUBJECTS - GARFIELD The Chairman had received a letter from Gary Trachtman on January 7, 1986. He had assumed that all other members had also received this letter. However, they had not. G. Trachtman explained the contents of the letter. The architects decided that they wanted to change the height of each story and by doing that they would be able to raise the bottom of the building, but the overall height of the building would not change, or maybe even lower than before. It involved a different method of construction. The required roof plan in- formation was included. He had described this situation in the letter, the changes involving only minor detail. The reason for the change was to take advantage of what was available to them, rather than to have to reconstruct a series of drains and pipes. M. Carlson asked if the zoning ordinances stipulated floor to ceiling heights. L. Hoffman answered that the construction requirements for minimum floor height are governed by state building codes. A. Schramm emphasized that he had not received a copy of the letter. He expressed concern that the board worked hard and long in the approval of the original plan, and he thinks the board should be directly involved in any plan changes. L. Hoffman noted that the procedural point is that information that comes in must be circulated to all the board members. He will take it up with the Secretary. G. Trachtman added that when bringing something to a meeting, he brings sufficient copies for the board. Beforehand, he assumes the town will make necessary copies. The Chariman asked for clarification on wording in the letter written by Gary Trachtman. Is this a "recommendation" or a "requirement"? G. Trachtman answered that is is a recommendation to the town. He does not have the authority to make this a requirement. L. Hoffman explained that if the applicant thinks the plan is acceptable, then that is the bond G. Trachtman posts. The board gave G. Trachtman the authority to set the bond. G. Trachtman added that if, in the future, the board would prefer, he can send these recommendations to the building inspector and have copies sent to the board. L. Bliwise stated that there are two issues. The first is the contents of the letter, and the second is a question of procedure. L. Hoffman agreed. He added that in this case the level of changes requested did not warrant making the applicant come back to the board, particularly because the impact on the rest of the world was actually smaller than in the approved plan. A. Schramm asked what the total change in height was. G. Trachtman answered that it is on the order of 3-4 feet. A. Schramm repeatedly remarked that the Planning Board should be involved. The Chairman agreed that the board should at least be notified, if not directly involved. L. Hoffman repeated that he had made a note for the Secretary that all information pertaining to cases will be sent to every member of the board. VARIOUS SUBJECTS - THE DON EMILIO LETTER In the site plan law there is a waiver if both the Building Inspector and Engineer agree that an issue is minimal it does not need to go before the Board. M. Carlson asked for clarification. She understood that because of other problems, Don Emilio did not get his building permit. L. Hoffman said that several months ago that was true. The situation has been corrected; Mr. Paonessa is going to issue the permit. He explained that it is the opinion of the Counsel's Office that a Site Plan Approval cannot be issued if there are any violations on the property. VARIOUS SUBJECTS - THE GARAGE FOR GARFIELD M. Carlson asked if there is any possibility that negotiation would get the garage built. L. Hoffman thinks that for the time being that is a dead issue. They don't think it is economically feasible. 7 VARIOUS SUBJECTS - TIME REQUIREMENTS ON SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION L. Hoffman asked the board if they should require information 20 days before the meeting. The Chairman reminded the board that during a work session in September they had talked about a 25 day requirement. A. Schramm agreed the board needs information sooner. L. Bliwise thinks there is a problem with a 20 day requirement when meeting are scheduled every 30 days. The applicants would have only ten days to prepare information. L. Hoffman said that most applications don't go one month to the next. Unless it is something very simple, they all have to wait 2 months if they submit something that is important. He added that the Zoning Board procedure has a 15-20 day rule. L. Bliwise thinks 14-18 days is sufficient. L. Hoffman suggested 15 days. The Chairman noted that this would give the applicant 2 weeks after the meeting to submit something. L. Hoffman said he thinks that one of the things that will happen is that applicants will not try to rush back next month, and will, therefore, take the time to do it right. M. Carlson asked G. Trachtman if that will give him sufficient time to review material. G. Trachtman said that the lead time varied and the submit time varied. With SEQRA, it is 10-15 days. G. Trachtman suggested that the board look at the flow chart and indicate if they think it is reasonable. The Chairman suggested drafting a resolution to accept the flow chart to which changes can be made in the future. L. Hoffman said that is set up for the next meeting. VARIOUS SUBJECTS - WATER WETLANDS G. Trachtman said he would like to address the preliminary layout stage. He continued, saying that we are supposed to give information to the Commission. Actually, we direct the applicant to give information to the Commission. We have to make a report and then they turn around and hold a post hearing. Based on the results, they submit a report to the Planning Board. The Chairman asked who does the homework on these wetlands applications. L. Hoffman suggested it should be the engineer's responsibility. G. Trachtman added that eventually the applications will get back to this board, unless it is a homeowner. He continued to say that the Commission will either suggest a permit be issued or rejected. The ultimate decision will be up to this board. A. Schramm asked if the board can legally go against the law. G. Trachtman clarified that once SEQRA is filed, Wetlands is one of the permits that has to be issued. This is why he thinks the bulk of work should be in the preliminary layout. After the preliminary layout comes the Wetland Com- () mission, and the final decision is made by the Planning Board. L. Hoffman added that the Commission is responsible for consulting with the Board and rendering a determination within the time limit specified by the Board. The Chairman asked if the Wetland Map will have to be accepted by a Public Hearing. Steve Altieri is not sure if it has to be formally adopted. He assumes the local law would reference the map. The Chairman announced that there is going to be a formal meeting between the consultant and the Board. He wants the members of the Planning Board to be aware that 1) Shopwell is sold, 2) Hoffman is in the final stages, and 3) Auto Spa may not build. L. Hoffman reminded the Board that the Hoffman application has been re- submitted and it may take a long time. The Chairman asked what they should tell the consultants. E. Nicolaysen suggested condominiums for Myrtle and Fifth. A. Schramm considered re- zoning the area, which both G. Scutaro and M. Carlson agreed with. L. Bliwise asked who Shopwell was sold to, but no one knew. It was mentioned that the Honda Dealer is almost finished. A. Schrauuu suggested a work session for next month. L. Bliwise thought it would be a good idea to have a map in consideration of rezoning. The Chairman announced that the Joint Planning Board meets on the fourth Monday of the month. He thinks it is appropriate for anyone available to participate in that meeting, which takes place at 8:00 P.M. behind the Village Center. The Chairman said that another consideration is the traffic there. An immediate planning problem is on our side of the thruway. We don't have any well developed view of what we should do there. E. Nicolaysen asked why the Planning Board had not been involved in Myrtle. Steve Altieri answered that it is a state traffic project, known as the "Topic Program". VARIOUS SUBJECTS - CHANGE IN LOT LINES The Chairman asked about the change in lot lines. L. Hoffman explained that he had told him he didn't have to come and see the board. Lot 18 has no restrictions. It's of no consequence to anybody. It is just one less house in the subdivision. This requires no amending of the Site Plan. He deeded out a portion of the subdivision, which he can do. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, A. Schramm moved to adjourn. The Chairman seconded this motion, and the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Cyn is Fawcett, Secretary 42.,