Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987_08_25 Coastal Zone Management Commission Minutes (2) 9 io Town of Mamaroneck Village of Lar �'RCEIVED OCT 23 £987 PATRICIA DiCIOCCIO Co TOWN CLERK ‘, � . MAMARONECKRICIA lit j NY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES A regular meeting was scheduled for Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) on Tuesday, August 25, 1987, at the Town Center, 740 West Boston Post Rd, Mamaroneck, N.Y. The meeting commenced at 8:09 P.M. Members present: Robert S. Schoenberger Bruce Allen Elinor Fredston Wallace Irwin, Jr. Arthur Katz Lawrence Lowy C. Alan Mason Howard McMichael Shirley W. Tolley Phyllis Wittner Others present: Geoffrey P. Young, liaison, Village of Larchmont Lawrence Lerman, liaison, Town of Mamaroneck Claudia Ng, Environmental Coordinator Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator Robert Matarazzo, Westchester County Dept. of Environmental Facilities Anthony Trelury, Westchester County Dept. of Environmental Facilities David Ohman, Blasland & Bouck St. Clair Richard, Soundview News Howard Sloane, Town resident Carolyn Chubet, Town resident Maxine K. Steffens, resident, 15 Briarcliff Tom Webler, resident, 35 Sheldrake Ave. William Maker, Jr. , attorney for Collins Bros. F.E. Webers, Collin Bros. Maria Mora, Recording Secretary Approval of Minutes Mr. Schoenberger suggested that minutes be handed in with corrections to Ms. Ng. Refferals County Sewer Project - Messrs. Matarazzo and Trelury displayed maps/ construction plans and gave an overview of the project. The County will Address Correspondence to CZM Commission, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543 (Phone 914-381-6133) CZMC minutes - 8/25/87 be reconstructing the sewer system from Rockland Avenue to the Duck Pond (Gardens Lake). The pipes will be replaced not removed. There was discussion on the proposed 30-inch pipe which would elevate very close to the stream in several places. It was suggested that inflow and infiltration be eliminated to decrease the overflow of sewage. Also, it was stated that the sewage upstream in Valley Road has been a problem for a long time. The pipe widens as it goes downstream, but the major feeder appears to be coming from the Valley Road stream. Mr. Ohman, the consultant engineer, believes that the size of the pipe increases because another county interceptor comes in. Mr. Matarazzo reported that the County would like to start this project in January. He stated that this is a 10-month project; therefore, he would like to commence at the hardest time of the year which is the wintertime. It was commented that this is a very difficult and messy job which the Town will be involved with. Mr. Irwin asked if the construction process would include measures to minimize siltation in the coastal area. Mr. Matarazzo said such measures had been outlined in a project report, a copy of which had been given to Ms. Ng. Ms. Ng, in turn had distributed it to specific members, such as Mrs. Tolley, who then stated that she felt that this project was very thoroughly planned, but she feels that there might be a problem with enforcement and supervision of the construction. Mr. Matarazzo mentioned the fact that resident engineers would be present at all times. Rip-rapping will be done only if the construction cannot be completed on time. It was stated that if this project is not started by March, the funds will be lost. There are certain specifications in the contract which state how close this pipe or work being done is to be to a house. If there is construction near a house, it was suggested that the resident photograph or videotape his home before and after the construction. This way if there is any damage done to the property, it will be documented. Some blasting and rock removal may also be necessary. Mr Matarazzo explained that the contractor is typically insured for any liability. Potential conflicts with the Army Corps of Engineers proposed flume project was briefly discussed. Dr. Mason proposed a possible alternative of eliminating the need for a flume by laying in another pipe on top of the new sewer line for stormwater by-pass capacity, since they were going down 6 to 8 feet deep. Mr. Matarazzo felt that it would not be that simple. Mrs. Wittner recommended that the feasibility and cost of this alternative be investigated. Mr. Schoenberger pointed out the relationship between the concept of the pipe and the Army Corps of Engineers flume proposal, which was to come up next, and stated that the opinions of the immediately affected residents should be taken into account. Army Corps of Engineers proposed flume - Dr. Mason felt that this project should be started as soon as possible. Mrs. Fredston recommended that the Town Engineer look into other alternatives besides the concrete flume. Mr. Schoenberger appointed Dr. Mason as a subcommittee with the Town Engineer to investigate the feasiblity of this project and report back to the Commission. Dr. Mason gave an oral presentation on the pros and cons of the flume project based on his memo, "Stream Improvement Upper Sheldrake West Basin," copies of which were distributed to everyone present at this meeting (copy on file). It was noted that the Army Corps of Engineers is proposing a diversion tunnel for the Village of Mamaroneck, which will divert the entire Sheldrake River under Fenimore Road and out into Mamaroneck Harbor. -2- CZMC minutes - 8/25/87 Mr. Altieri explained the general timetable for this project. The Town Council would need to receive CZMC's comments and notify the affected residents in the next few weeks so that it could respond to the Corps in time for inclusion of the project in the federal FY 1988 budget. If the project is accepted, design would be started in 1988 and construction would probably begin 2 to 4 years later. Mr. Irwin noted that the LWRP already contains a project for the affected area, Project 3 in Section IV-B. He said the Corps alternative is evidently better for the reduction of flooding, but is aesthetically poor. Several members felt that the aesthetics will only affect bordering residents. Mr. Webler, an affected resident, reported that the walls of the stream in his area are collapsing and that the Town of Mamaroneck might have to do something about it regardless of the approval of this project. He stated that he already has a concrete structure above the bank, with a hedge around it, to keep the water back. Mr. Allen asked about the maintenance of the flume. Dr. Mason replied that that had been detailed in the original Corps report. Mr. Altieri commented that the federal government is responsible for capital maintenance and the Town for routine maintenance. Mr. Allen questioned about the flume's potential for erosion and sediment accumulation. Dr. Mason stated that he believes that it will have a 30-year life and that there will be very little sediment build-up. Mrs. Wittner questioned whether the Town had explored any other possibilities. Mrs. Steffens, another concerned resident, commented that the Town talks a lot every time there is a bad flood but that they never do • anything about it. The Chairman summarized that the general feeling of the Commission appears to be approval of the proposed flume subject to the following conditions: (1) there would be zero increase in flooding downstream, (2) it would be made aesthetically pleasing as possible, and (3) there would be strict monitoring and maintenance. Mr. Irwin moved deferment of a CZMC response to next month's meeting in order to obtain the opinion of the Soil and Water Board. By a 6 to 2 vote, the commission rejected the motion, and then decided by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to recommend acceptance of the project with the noted conditions. Collins Brothers Warehouse - Mr. Webers explained to the Commission that his company, in the moving business, wished to build a warehouse for "dead storage" down by the railroad tracks near the northwest corner of the Village of Larchmont. No site plan had yet been prepared, but a map of the project was displayed. The applicants are proposing a 15,700 sq. ft. building with 4 loading docks and a 60-space parking lot. The Village Planning Commission had referred the project to the CZMC. In reply to questions from Commission members, Mr. Webers and Mr. Maker stated that all loading and unloading will be done at the back (northeast end) of the building. Traffic will not be heavy since the warehouse will be used only for long-term storage. The applicants would not be interested in renting parking spaces to the people in the area because they need all the room for loading and unloading the trucks when they come in. The only maintenance work to be done in the parking area would be the changing of tires. ® Mr. Webers and Mr. Maker were advised that LWRP policies concerning drainage, oil pollution, and protection of habitats and wetlands must be complied with in view of the location of the site near Pine Brook. Members of the commission suggested the installation of an oil trap designed for 60 -3- CZMC minutes - 8/25/87 cars or the predicted magnitude of trucking use, whichever is greater, and noted that designs for such devices could be obtained from the Acura dealership, the Volvo dealership, and Midland Construction Co. It was also suggested that they may want to incorporate stormwater retention devices, but in any case, there must be zero increase in runoff. It was also mentioned that there will be lights around the building to help secure it. Mrs. Fredston expressed her concern that nearby residents might be disturbed by the lighting. The applicants said that they would present revised plans to the Village of Larchmont Planning Commission for further consideration at its meeting on September 14. Mr. Schoenberger informed them that CZMC will send a letter to the Planning Commission embodying the above suggestions for inclusion in the site plan. The CZMC would be prepared for further review of the project at its next meeting in September. Gardens Lake Dredging - Mr. Altieri noted that he would write a letter to the Board giving them in general the comments of CZMC. In reply to a suggestion made at the last CZMC meeting, he reported on a letter by the Army Corps of Engineers which explained that federal law does not allow any dumping in the Sound. He also reported that Ms. Ng, Mr. Trachtman, and he had met with DEC officials at New Paltz. He stated that Ms. Ng has drawn up a letter to them to request their comments on the project. Mr. Altieri commented that the EP (Extraction Procedure) Toxicity Tests are being considered. He noted that landfills require toxicity tests to be performed on any materials to be used for landfill cover. He noted that it would be difficult to get commitments for future acceptance of the material, giving the example of a similar dredging project in Wilton, Connecticut, which took the spoils four to six months to dry on a field. The Town Board is considering other tests. Two alternatives mentioned were: (1) drying on banks of the lake in containment pens; and (2) cutting off the backside of the lake near the thruway and using that to contain the dredge spoils. Ms. Ng distributed copies of the memorandum, dated August 20, 1987, that Mr. Schoenberger had forwarded to the Town Council noting CZMC's concerns over spoil transportation and the use of the Hommocks Marsh as a dumpsite. After several CZMC members made substantive comments on the memo, the commission decided that this memo should be withdrawn and a revised one issued which would more fully convey CZMC opinions. The revision of this memo was done during this meeting. Mr. Sloane distributed his memo to the CZMC, dated August 25, 1987 (copy on file). Legislative Matters Freshwater Wetlands and Water Courses Code Revision - Ms. Ng reported that the building inspector has expressed his desire to try to weed out the insignificant building applications from the review process. He suggested using a provision similar to what is found in the State Freshwater Wetlands regulations. Mrs. Tolley urged that the proposal be put in writing. Ms. Ng related the fact that all the building inspector wants is their opinion on any other alternatives. The Chairman agreed with Mrs. Tolley that the request should be presented to CZMC in memorandum form. Ms. Ng suggested CZMC appoint a subcommittee to work with the building inspector. It was decided, however, that the building inspector be asked to submit a memorandum outlining his proposal to CZMC before they would take any action. -4- • CZMC minutes - 8/25/87 Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat Designation - Mrs. Wittner reported on the status of the proposed state designations. She explained that the state agency had omitted the Pryer Manor Marsh from the Premium Wetland Complex submitted for designation. At the public hearing on August 18, there were many speakers, including the Town Supervisor and the Village Mayor, who spoke on behalf of the designations in Westchester and even requested the expansion of the boundaries. LWRP Projects Premium Feasibility Study - Mrs. Wittner reported that she has been made aware of the fact that there is some oil getting into the Premium. She stated that she called and spoke to the Coast Guard and other people about this. She was informed that the original oil spill had occurred in November or December of last year and involved a 30,000 gallon underground tank of oil under the jurisdiction of the New Rochelle Housing Authority which has since been repaired and is above ground now. She has written to the Executive Director of the Housing Authority and sent copies to the Coast Guard and to Syrette Dym and John Heller to make them aware that the Premium has been designated as a Critical Environmental Area. CZMC expressed their thanks to Mrs. Wittner for her initiative. Annual Report • Mr. Irwin distributed the first draft of the CZMC's first annual report. It was longer than had been expected, but he did his best to report exactly what has happened with CZMC in the past year. Mr. Irwin called attention to blank spaces in the report and asked commission members to help fill them in. He also distributed a matrix which helps to show the relationships between the LWRP proposed actions and its various policies. He urged members to have their comments in by September 10th so that he can prepare a revised draft before the next meeting. New or Other Business 1. It was reported that it is "Coast Month" and that the Premium Tour might be good to have at this time. 2. Mrs. Wittner, Mrs. Tolley and Mrs. Fredston were appointed to be in a subcommittee to find out about employing the services of a professional consultant for the Commission. 3. It was noted that the Village of Larchmont will be holding a public hearing on the proposed additions for Tony's Nursery on September 14. 4. Mr. Irwin will inquire and report on the status of efforts to obtain appropriated funds from the State Legislature for the State coastal zone management program. Next Meeting The next CZMC meeting will be on September 22, 1987. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. -5- Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION November 9, 1987 To: Mayor and Trustees, Village of Larchmont Supervisor and Council Members, Town of Mamaroneck In conformity with the Town and Village laws of June 30, 1986, establishing the Coastal Zone Management Commission, the Commission submits herewith its first Annual Report on the implementation of the bi-municipal Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The report covers the first year of the Commission's active existence, from September 1986 throigh September 1987. This period coincided approximately with the first yaiar during which the LWRP was in full effect with its important new policies and projects to protect and enhance our coastal environment. It hill be recalled that the Commission's basic mandate is to "monitor and coordinate" the implementation of the LWRP. Through the "consistency referral" process, the Commission also has a key advisory responsibility in helping t a assure that local land-use and other actions do not conflict with the LWR.�. However, operational and decision-making,responsibilities for implementation of the LWRP lie elsewhere--with the two elected Boards, the municip al agencies, and in some instances key nongovernmental organiza- tions. The involvement of these many bodies is essential, for the LWRP is a wide-ranging and long-term program, serving a coastal area that embraces the entire unincorporated area of the Town and all of the Village of Larchmont. Adapting State coastal policies to local conditions, it is designed to protect our residential areas as well as our shoreline and wetlands and wildlife habitats against flooding, erosion, pollution, and damage to recreational, historical and scenic resources; and to enhance and, where necessary, restore these priceless community resources. No single agency could accomplish these things alone. This report, therefore, records activities not only of this Commission, but of all those Town and Village bodies, both governmental and volunteer, that have a share in the implementation of the LWRP. Finally, and of particular importance, the report points out key Address Correspor dence to C7M Commission, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10'43 (Phone 914-381-6133) policies and projects in the LWRP that still require implementing action, and makes recommendations for priority actions in the corning year-- including steps to improve relevant legislation and administrative arrangements. Much has been accomplished in the first year of our bi-municipal Waterfront Program. But much more remains to be done. The LWRP is not self-executing. Its coastal policy goals can be fully realized only by vigorous and sustained community efforts. In those efforts, the Coastal Zone Management Commission, as the focal point for monitoring and coordinating the entire Program, looks forward to continuing to play its part under the leadership of the Town and Village Boards. Id464141447— Robert S. Schoenberger Chairman l(� FIRST ANNUAL REPORT of the Town of Mamaroneck - Village of Larchmont COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Submitted to the Town and Village Boards on November 9, 1987 $ r t f f 5 a t If f f. Town of Mamaroneck Village of Larchmont 1 (a COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION November 9, 1987 To: Mayor and Trustees, Village of Larchmont Supervisor and Council Members, Town of Mamaroneck In conformity with the Town and Village laws of June 30, 1986, establishing the Coastal Zone Management Commission, the Commission submits herewith its first Annual Report on the implementation of the bi-municipal Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The report covers the first year of the Commission's active existence, from September 1986 through September 1987. This period coincided approximately with the first year during which the LWRP was in full effect with its important new policies and projects to protect and enhance our coastal environment. It will be recalled that the Commission's basic mandate is to "monitor and coordinate" the implementation of the LWRP. Through the "consistency referral" process, the Commission also has a key advisory responsibility in helping to assure that local land-use and other actions do not conflict with the LWRP. However, operational and decision-making responsibilities for implementation of the LWRP lie elsewhere--with the two elected Boards, the municipal agencies, and in some instances key nongovernmental organiza- tions. The involvement of these many bodies is essential, for the LWRP is a wide-ranging and long-term program, serving a coastal area that embraces the entire unincorporated area of the Town and all of the Village of Larchmont. Adapting State coastal policies to local conditions, it is designed to protect our residential areas as well as our shoreline and wetlands and wildlife habitats against flooding, erosion, pollution, and damage to recreational, historical and scenic resources; and to enhance and, where necessary, restore these priceless community resources. No single agency could accomplish these things alone. This report, therefore, records activities not only of this Commission, but of all those Town and Village bodies, both governmental and volunteer, that have a share in the implementation of the LWRP. Finally, and of particular importance, the report points out key . Address Correspondence to C7M Commission, 740 West Boston Post Road, Mamaroneck, NY 10543 (Phone 914-381-6133) policies and projects in the LWRP that still require implementing action, and makes recommendations for priority actions in the coming year-- including steps to improve relevant legislation and administrative arrangements. Much has been accomplished in the first year of our bi-municipal Waterfront Program. But much more remains to be done. The LWRP is not self-executing. Its coastal policy goals can be fully realized only by vigorous and sustained community efforts. In those efforts, the Coastal Zone • Management Commission, as the focal point for monitoring and coordinating the entire Program, looks forward to continuing to play its part under the leadership of the Town and Village Boards. Robert S. Schoenberger Chairman TABLE OF CONTENTS First Annual Report of the Town of Mamaroneck-Village of Larchmont COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION Summary Page 1 Part I: Implementing Actions Taken During the Year 4 A. The Premium-Pine Brook Area 5 B. The Sheldrake River Area 7 C. The East Creek-Horn mocks Area 13 D. Other Implementing Actions 15 Part II: The Consistency Referral Process 19 Part III: Recommendations A. Program Priorities 22 B. Consistency Procedure 26 C. Budget and Staff 26 D. Public Involvement 27 AATNEYfs-- A. LWRP Implementation Status Chart B. Consistency Referrals (Table and Map) C. Members of the Commission D. Historical Background of the LWRP SUMMARY During the year September 1986 to September 1987, when the newly created Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) began its work, important beginnings were made in implementing the new Town/Village Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). By adopting the LWRP in June 1986, the Town and Village Boards set major coastal policies and projects designed to protect and enhance long-term residential, environmental, recreational and other values in their portion of the New York State coastal area. Implementation of the Program requires active leadership and decisions by both Boards as well as by municipal agencies and key citizen organizations. This report covers implementing actions by all concerned. as well as the work of the Commission which serves as the focal point for coordination. The concluding section makes recommendations to the two Boards for further action. Highlights of Implementing Actions 1. Planning for restoration and protection of the environmentally important, badly silted and polluted Premium River-Pine Brook Wetlands Complex moved forward with initiation in April of a Premium Feasibility Study, financed with the aid of a $25,000 grant from New York State. (On October 26, 1987, New York State notified the Commission that the entire Complex, including major portions in New Rochelle, has been designated as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat.) 2. The above-ground section of East Creek, which flows toward the sensitive Hommocks Marsh southeast of the Boston Post Road, was declared by the Town and Village to be a Critical Environmental Area 1 entitled to special protection. Action is under way to clean up and restore the area. 3. In July the Town of Mamaroneck joined with Scarsdale and New Rochelle in a project aimed at cooperative management of traffic and stormwater drainage in the "Weaver Street Corridor," which includes a large part of the flood-prone Sheldrake watershed in all three municipalities. This is an important step toward intermunicipal cooperation in management of shared watersheds. 4. The Commission, on referral from the Town and Village Boards and other municipal agencies, wrote a total of 23 "consistency opinions" designed to assure that land-use and other physical actions in the coastal area are consistent with the LWRP policies. This work, involving intensive study and consultation, took up a major part of the Commission's time. In addition to private development applications, the opinions dealt with several issues referred by the Town and Village Boards, with recommendations as follows: 0 To the Town Board: That dredged material from Gardens Lake be dried before transportation, and that dredged material not be deposited in the Hommocks athletic field without full assurance against damage to the adjacent Hommocks marsh. The Town has called for further study of both aspects of the problem. 0 To the Village Board: That the Village retain ownership of a small, critical parcel of land upstream from the Larchmont Reservoir Conservancy, inappropriate use of which could damage the Sheldrake watershed. The Board decided not to sell. 0 To the Town Board: That acceptance of the pending Corps of Engineers She!drake (West Branch) flume project be conditioned on steps to safeguard environmental and scenic values, ., and suggesting as an alternative flood control measure construction of a stormwater bypass pipe under the river bed. The Board is studying these recommendations. 2 The report makes 21 recommendations. Most call for further implementation of LWRP projects for siltation control; sewer repair and elimination of illegal storm drain-sanitary sewer connections; control of pollution in streams, marshes and coastal waters; etc. Other recommendations call for a Town-Village working group to iron out remaining difficulties in the consistency referral process and to recommend related improvements in local laws; and additional funding for environmental consultant services to the Commission to help evaluate projects referred to it. Concluding, the report points out that full implementation of the LWRP requires public understanding and involvement, and recommends that the Town and Village Boards give full publicity to their decisions on further implementation of the Program. * * * * * * * * * * * 3 Part I Implementing Actions Taken During the Year This section records the most significant actions taken or set in motion during the year that served to implement one or more of the policies and projects in the LWRP. Most of them are grouped according to the portion of our coastal area in which the action was taken or had its main effect. In each case, footnote references show the coastal policies and/or projects in the LWRP which the action helped to implement.' Included in the list are land- use or other decisions taken by municipal authorities which were based in part on the advice of the Commission, rendered under the "local consistency" laws of 1986, regarding consistency with the LWRP. Because LWRP policies on protection of wetlands and wildlife, flood and erosion control, recreation, scenic values, and pollution control are closely interrelated, many of the actions described below are shown as helping to implement two or more of the coastal policies. For a general overview of the complex interaction between policies and implementing projects, the reader is referred to the "Implementation Status" chart appended to this report (Appendix A). 'References in this report to policies or projects in the LWRP are given by policy, section, or page number, and refer to the Final Text,September 1986,of the Village of Larchmont- Town of Mamaroneck Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Copies are available for inspection in the Town of Mamaroneck Conservation Office, 740 West Boston Post Road,Mamaroneck (phone 914-381-6133)or in the Village Clerk's office, Municipal Building,Larchmont(phone 914-834-6230). 4 A. The Premium - Pine Brook Area I. Premium Area Feasibility Study In October 1986 the Commission, with the consent of the Town and Village, applied for a New York State Waterfront Implementation Grant in support of a feasibility study on rehabilitation of the Premium River, Marsh and Mill Pond.2 On October 21 the New Rochelle City Council adopted a resolution expressing the City's intent to cooperate in this undertaking--an important step since substantial parts of the vulnerable tidal wetlands and wildlife habitat in the Premium area lie on the New Rochelle side of the municipal boundary. The application was approved by the Department of State, which granted $25,000 to the Town and Village on an 80-20 matching basis, with the local portion, equivalent to $6,250, to be provided by the two municipalities in funds and in-kind services. The grant period runs from April 1, 1987 to June 1, 1988. On the recommendation of the Commission, the Town and Village Boards awarded a contract to Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to conduct the feasibility study, since its proposal best encompassed the basic sciences with required testing and engineering capabilities. The study is under way. This study will provide essential guidance for the repair, protection and use of this, our largest tidal wetland area, now heavily silted and damaged by oil and other pollutants. Based on it, steps can be taken to realize the full value of the Premium River-Pine Brook Wetlands Complex as a wildlife habitat, a barrier to coastal flooding, a facility for quiet recreation and environmental education, and a scenic and historical treasure. 2. Designation of the Premium Area as a "Significant" Habitat In July 1987 action was initiated to secure for the entire tri-municipal Premium River-Pine Brook Wetland Complex, which straddles the boundaries of the Village of Larchmont, the Town of Mamaroneck, and the 2LWRP Part IV-B,Project 1 (page 80).This project is a major means of implementing Policies 7/7A (protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitats) and 44 and 44A (protection and restoration of wetlands). Implementation of these policies was also furthered in June 1986 by action of the Town and Village Boards conferring on their respective portions of the Premium area--as well as the Hommocks and Reservoir- Sheldrake-Leatherstocking areas--the status of Critical Environmental Area,entitled to special protection against adverse action. 5 City of New Rochelle, an important new status. The Commission proposed to the Department of State that this entire area be designated on the State coastal map as a "Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat."3 (On October 26, 1987, as this report was being written, word was received from State officials that the proposed designation, including the portions of the Complex • lying in New Rochelle, had been approved.) 3. Consistency Referrals in the Premium Area During the year the Commission responded to 7 consistency referrals from Town and Village agencies concerning private building applications in the Premium/Pine Brook drainage area. Four of these were residential projects in the Town on Deane Place and Gaillard Place, all of which drain into the Premium Marsh; in these cases the Commission's responses stressed the need for clearly delineated property lines as well as controls on runoff and erosion by means of drywells, terracing, etc. to protect the marsh. In addition, two commercial building projects of significant size were referred, one for an office building on Myrtle Boulevard in the Town and the other for a moving and storage warehouse on North Street by the railroad tracks in the Village. Both these sites drain into Pine Brook. In both cases the Commission made recommendations aimed at controlling stormwater runoff and siltation and preventing oil pollution from parking lots. The recommendations were accepted and no inconsistency was found.4 4. Public Information Sheet on the Premium Salt Marsh Complex As a means of promoting community awareness and support for the rehabilitation and protection of the Premium area, in early July the Commission, acting as co-sponsor with the Conservation Advisory Commission, distributed a four-page "Information Sheet about the Critical Environmental Area (CEA) known as the Premium Salt Marsh Complex." The paper explains the meaning of terms such as CEA and the value of tidal wetlands, and suggests what individuals can do to help restore and safeguard them. It is designed for distribution to the general public, especially in neighborhoods and commercial areas near the Premium, as well as to applicants for construction permits in or near the area. The Commission 3LWRP Policy 7. In the absence of State designation,local policy 7A was included in the LWRP, designating those parts of the Complex within the Town and Village as a"locally important" fish and wildlife habitat entitled to protection and,where practicable, restoration 4The main policies cited in regard to these seven referrals were 7A, 14, 14A, 30, 33,and 44. 6 plans to issue similar sheets about the other wetland/habitat areas in the bi- municipal coastal zone. B. The Sheidrake River Area 1. Consistency Referrals in the Golf Course Area Of the 24 proposals5 referred to the Commission during the year for consistency opinions, 9 were located wholly, and one partly, in the Sheidrake watershed, which drains major portions of Scarsdale and northern New Rochelle as well as approximately half of the unincorporated area of the Town. Of these 9 proposals, 8, all referred by the Town Planning Board, concerned construction projects in the general area of the Winged Foot and Bonnie Briar golf courses. In assessing the consistency of the referred projects with the LWRP, the Commission had in mind primarily the importance of preventing or mini- mizing flooding and erosion, which could cause damage downstream not only to residences but also to wetlands and wildlife habitats in this area.6 The Commission, after detailed study and discussion, either found the plans acceptable as written or recommended changes for improved control of stormwater runoff. Upon substantial acceptance of these recommendations by the applicants (or by the Town of Mamaroneck in one case involving a Fenbrook sewer connection), the Commission was able to issue an affirmative consistency opinion in all cases except one. In one referral, the Commission made a finding of inconsistency with LWRP policies on flood control and on protection of wildlife habitats and wetlands. However, the Commission's finding of inconsistency was not accepted by the Planning Board, which approved the site plan. 5See the table and map in Annex B for details on the referred projects including the location of each For a discussion of the Commission's advisory role under the Local Consistency laws, see Part II. 5See especially Policies 14 (flood control), l4A (best management practices during construction 1, 7A (protection of important wildlife habitats)and 44 (protection of wetlands) Town laws adopted June 30, 1986 in implementation of these policies include Local Law No 6 (regulating rates of stormwater runoff in new developments); Local Law No 7 (protection of freshwater wetlands and watercourses); and Local Law No. 8 (designation of Critical Environmental Areas including the 520-acre Reservoir- Sh eldrake-Leath erstockin g area). 7 The case concerned a proposed building site in the Fenbrook subdivision,7 through which a tributary of the East Branch flows. Commission members made several visits to the site, scrutinized the site plan for the entire subdivision, and gave particular attention to the tributary of the East Branch as it flows through the subdivision and through the individual building site that was the subject of the referral. It was apparent that a sizable and important wetland lying along the tributary was being filled in so that houses could be built on or near it--the individual site plan before the Commission being part of that process. Primarily on this ground, the Commission issued an opinion that the referred application was inconsistent with relevant policies of the LWRP. This opinion was in a direct line with letters that had been submitted by the Conservation Advisory Commission, the Town Engineer, and the Town Conservation Consultant to the Planning Board prior to its approval of the subdivision, all of which had recommended that this wetland area along a tributary of the Sheldrake be left undisturbed. In addition, the Westchester County Soil and Water Conservation District had expressed concern about development in this wetland area. The Commission also brought to the attention of the Planning Board that the proposed site plan did not comply with deed restrictions included in all Fenbrook subdivision sites as they were purchased from the developer. The Planning Board itself had required these individual deed restrictions in its original declaration of approval for the Fenbrook subdivision. 2. Question of Sale of Village of Larchmont Property along Upper Sheldrake In January 1987 the Village Board requested the Commission to advise it on an offer to buy, in connection with a planned residential subdivision, a small north-south strip of land owned by the Village in northern New Rochelle, flanking the west side of Pine Brook Boulevard just south of Stratton Road. The Sheldrake River flows through this strip. A major concern was the possible impact of the proposed sale on flood control and water quality in downstream portions of the river, including the Larchmont Reservoir. In a letter to Mayor Cumin dated February 25 the Commission stated its view that protection of the Sheldrake, in line with the applicable LWRP policies, could best be assured by retaining ownership; but that if the property were sold, appropriate deed restrictions be applied and compliance _ monitored by quarterly inspection. Noting that the proposer to buy has a 7Block 309,Parcel 28, on Fen brook Drive.The Commission's opinion vas dated May 8, 1987. 8 revocable license from the Village to maintain and landscape the Village strip, the letter further recommended quarterly inspection by the Village of the condition of the property and revocation of the license if maintenance is found to be deficient. Members of the Commission spoke at the Village Board meeting on September 15, 1987, at which time the further point was made that the site has potential value for installation of sensors for improved flood control in the Sheldrake. The discussion ended in a unanimous Board decision to retain ownership. 3. The Corps of Engineers Flume Project Early in 1987 it was learned that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was planning, subject to the Town's agreement and Congressional appropriation, to reinstate a former project to relieve flooding in the Sheldrake below the Sheldrake Conservation Area by constructing a concrete flume. A Commis- sion memorandum to the Town Board called attention to the fact that a less drastic flood control project for the same area, to be carried out locally, is included in the LWRP.8 In July the Corps asked for the Town's reaction to a design for a concrete flume from the Conservation Area to a point below Briarcliff Road. Corps authorities made it clear that a masonry flume, suggested by Town authorities as scenically and ecologically more acceptable locally, would not meet their criteria. The Commission, asked by the Town for its opinion, decided on August 25 to recommend that the concrete flume project be approved provided that precautions are taken to minimize adverse impact on scenic and environmental values; that the runoff rate below the flume is not increased, and that regular inspection and maintenance of the structure is provided for. During the Commission's discussions, a suggestion was made based on the current Westchester County plan, as part of its program to correct "Infiltration and Inflow" problems (see item 1 in section D below), to install a new sanitary sewer main in approximately the same part of the Sheldrake river bed. It was suggested that, as an alternative to the flume, a high- velocity parallel stormwater bypass pipe could be installed in the river bed during the excavation for the County sewer main, accomplishing most of the flume's flood control effect while avoiding permanent damage to the river's scenic and ecological value. (On October 7 the Board authorized a feasibility study of the bypass pipe solution.) 8LWRP Project 3, page 81 9 4. Gardens Lake Dredging Project In 1986 the Town asked Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to recommend methods for dredging the heavily silted Gardens Lake and for disposing of the dredge spoil. The Pirnie report recommended excavation of some 6,000 cubic yards by dragline dredging without dewatering; transportation of the wet dredged material in lined trucks; and deposit of it in the Hommocks athletic field. Only the dredging aspect of the project, directly affecting the area near Gardens Lake,9 is discussed here: transportation and disposal of the dredged material is discussed in item 2 of Section C, "East Creek-Hommocks Area." The Pirnie report was referred in July 1987 to the Commission for its advice, and was considered at two Commission meetings in July and August. The Commission's memorandum of advice to the Supervisor and Town Council was dated August 26, 1987. Regarding dredging, the Commission pointed out the recurrent nature of the Gardens Lake siltation problem and recommended that the Town establish "a long-term plan for dredging and disposal which minimizes the environmental damage within the Town" and encompasses, among other things, regulation of upstream development and installation of catch basins in order to retard siltation. Regarding the immediate dredging method, the Commission recommended against dredging without dewatering as too likely to result in leakage and spillage during transportation, and suggested that the material be dried before being trucked to a disposal site. 5. Intermunicipal Cooperation: The Weaver Street Corridor Project During 1987 the Town of Mamaroneck joined with officials of the Town- Village of Scarsdale and the City of New Rochelle, under the auspices of the Westchester County Department of Planning, in initiating a study of traffic and drainage conditions in the rapidly developing Weaver Street/Heathcote Corridor, which includes a large part of the Sheldrake (West Branch) watershed upstream from the Town. In regard to drainage, the study is designed to "assess the impact of development of major vacant and underutilized properties on the storm water flows in the Sheldrake River Basin" and provide "storm water discharge standards for use by local officials in reviewing...development 96ardens Lake is important to a range of LWRP policies,notably 7 and 7A (fish and wildlife habitat), 14 (flood control), 19 and 21 (public access to water-related recreation), and 44 and 44A (protection and restoration of wetlands), 10 • proposals." The data-gathering phase of the study is already under way. The Commission expressed its strong support for, and readiness to contribute to, the drainage phase of this project, which promises to give important impetus to intermunicipal cooperation in shared watersheds--a level of cooperation that is of fundamental importance to the control of flooding and erosion.10 6. Automation of Larchmont Reservoir Release Valve During 1987 the Friends of the Reservoir, Inc., a voluntary not-for-profit organization, initiated a plan to automate the release valve in the upper dam at the Larchmont Reservoir-James G. Johnson Jr. Conservancy. The use of this valve in recent years has made it possible to employ the large retention capacity of the Upper Reservoir (Sheidrake Lake) in order to reduce flooding in Town residential areas downstream during heavy rains. Automation will make possible more sensitive, prompt, and effective control of the water level in the lake, thus enhancing its value for flood control while avoiding undue impairment of the scenic beauty of the lake. In the future the control system may be further improved by linking it electronically to a data gathering system based on one or more monitoring stations upstream. This project was developed in consultation with the Village of Larchmont as owner of the Conservancy and the Town of Mamaroneck as operator of the valve. Costs are being shared between the Friends of the Reservoir and the Town. The Commission welcomes this project as a significant addition to the Sheidrake flood control strategy contemplated in the LWRP.11 7. Revision of Town Flood Insurance Map Among the improvements in land use regulation called for in the LWRP to apply to "substantial areas of open space"12 is the creation of an "interim map" of flood plains, flood hazard areas and floodways, to be substituted in the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Law for the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map, which substantially understates these areas, especially in and near the Bonnie Briar golf course. Meanwhile Federal authorities were to be urged to update the Federal map, rendered obsolete over the years as more open space upstream in the Sheidrake watershed was converted into hard surfaces, aggravating flooding in our area. Late in 1986 the Town contracted with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., its engineering consultant, to create the interim map. The project, already well advanced, is now being continued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and it is hoped that FEMA 10See especially Policy 14,paragraph 3-c (page 52). 11Policy 14 12LWRP. Section IV-A-1, pages 73-76. See especially paragraphs d and a pages 75-76. 11 will incorporate the work done locally into its updated Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Town.. The effect will be to apply the stringent regulations in the Town's flood damage prevention law to additional flood-prone lands not hitherto covered by that law. 8. Water Quality The LWRP (Policy 38) calls for protection of water quality, especially of water supply sources--a provision that applies specifically to the Larchmont Reservoir, which remains a standby emergency water source for the Village and nearby areas. A useful step toward implementation of this policy was initiated during 1987. As part of a Westchester-based program named Project Riverwatch, conducted under the auspices of the State University at Purchase, volunteer teams recruited by the Friends of the Reservoir, using testing equipment partly financed by that organization, have undertaken a regular program of water quality testing in Sheldrake Lake and Goodliffe Pond (the upper and lower reservoirs). Test records will serve as a data base for future evaluation of water quality in the Sheldrake--significant not only for human water supply but also for fish and wildlife in that habitat area. 9. Recreation Among the major purposes of the LWRP is the encouragement of, and assurance of public access to, water-related recreation.)3 This purpose was substantially advanced in the Sheldrake area during the year by the opening of a new visitors' center at the Larchmont Reservoir-James G. Johnson Jr. Conservancy. The work was financed by the Friends of the Reservoir with the aid of a grant from the Junior League of Westchester on the Sound. Using this new facility, the Friends of the Reservoir, in consultation with the Village of Larchmont as owner and in cooperation with the L.I.F.E. Center, now conduct a year-round program of nature walks, bird walks and other events at the 60-acre Conservancy, where walk trails were extended during 1987 around portions of the upper reservoir. These steps have added substantially to the opportunities for environmental education and quiet recreation in natural settings which have long been offered by the L.I.F.E. Center at the Town's Sheldrake-Leatherstocking, Premium and Hommocks Conservation Areas. 13Policies 19 and 21 12 C. The East Creek-Hommocks Area 1. Protection and Restoration of East Creek An inadvertent omission from the legislation called for in the LWRP14 was repaired in 1987 when the Town and Village Boards, on the recommendation of the Commission, conferred Critical Environmental Area status on their respective portions of the above-ground section of East Creek. This section flows for about 900 feet between the Post Road and the Hommocks School parking lot, intersecting the Town-Village boundary at several points. This action is important not only because of the potential of East Creek itself for rehabilitation as a natural area, but also because the creek flows into the Hommocks tidal marsh, already protected as a CEA, part of a Town Conservation Area, and an important fish and wildlife habitat. The Commission has made arrangements for monitoring of water quality in this section of the creek, with special attention to outfalls into it from nearby properties. (On October 15, 1987, Town and Village crews made a start on rehabilitation of the creek with the removal of two truckloads of gross litter and brush from the creek bed.) 2. Gardens Lake Dredge Spoil Disposal15 The greatest difficulty the Commission encountered in considering the Gardens Lake project centered on the method of disposal of the dredged material. The Town's initial proposal called for deposit in a 70-foot line of short, 5-foot-deep trenches, arranged in an "egg carton" pattern, near the lower end of the Hommocks athletic field--an area which abuts the Hommocks Salt Marsh Complex, an important fish and wildlife habitat and a Critical Environmental Area. The Commission, in its August 26 letter to the Town Board, pointed out that the Pirnie report had found tidal water in two test pits along the proposed disposal site; also, that the Gardens Lake dredge spoil would revert to soft silt when in contact with water and, moreover, contained, according to the Pirnie report, "high concentrations of heavy metals and semi-volatile organic materials." (The report presented to the Commission, although declaring these concentrations harmless, contained no information on their chemical nature or their effect on the biology of the 14 Section V-A-2-f,page 94.For background on East Creek and its relation to the Hommocks area, see LWRP Section II,pages 19 and 30-31. 15For discussion of the Gardens Lake dredging project itself, see item 4 in section B above. 13 marsh.) The Commission concluded that this disposal method would "likely cause continued instability of the field and leaching of silt into the Hommocks marsh and Little Harbor Sound." It strongly advised against deposit in the Hommocks field in the absence of conclusive proof that this action "will not have a long-term adverse effect on the condition of the • Hommocks marsh." It recommended "that alternatives be thoroughly studied and that an alternate plan for disposal be made." Criticism of the Hommocks disposal plan was also voiced by the Conservation Advisory Commission and by many residents. As this report was written, a search for alternative means of disposal was under way, and chemical tests of the dredged material had been ordered in order to meet New York State environmental requirements. 3. Consistency Referrals in the East Creek-Hommocks Area Three private building applications in the East Creek-Hommocks area were referred to the Commission during the year. Two of these were commercial projects on the southeast side of the Post Road in the vicinity of East Creek--one, referred by the Town Planning Board, an office building; the other, referred by the Village Planning Commission, an automobile dealership and repair facility. In both cases the Commission called attention to the special status of East Creek and the downstream Hommocks marsh, and called for protective measures particularly in preventing oil pollution from parking lots that were called for in both projects. On the Commission's recommendation, adequate oil separation devices were incorporated into both site plans, which the Commission thereupon found to be consistent with the LWRP. 14 D_ Other Implementing Actions 1. Sewers: "Infiltration and Inflow" Program Leakage and backup of raw sewage into coastal waters and several residential areas of the Town and Village, especially after heavy rains, is extensively discussed in the LWRP, which calls for repair of defective sewer facilities and for elimination of long-standing illegal connections between storm drains and sanitary sewers.16 These actions are important to public health and essential to the long-term rehabilitation of tidal marshes along the Sound shore as well as of Long Island Sound coastal waters valued for swimming, shellfishing and other uses. Significant progress was registered during the year toward these objectives. The Town, under a consent order by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, embarked on a two-stage program for the replacement or repair of defective and inadequate sewers and pumping stations. A first stage, to be finished in 1989, will deal with smaller facilities such as manholes and minor sewer pipes. Major work involving sewer mains and pump stations, as well as a new sewer line on Harmon Drive, will be done in the period 1988-1991. Of the total estimated cost of $3.8 million, Federal and State funding will cover approximately $2.5 million, with the remaining $1.3 million financed by the Town. During the summer the Village entered into similar arrangements for municipal sewer repair work for which engineering plans were being drawn up as this report was written. The estimated cost is about $360,000, of which up to 45% is to be borne locally. Plans call for completion of the project by November 1988. In both Town and Village, the above programs include the elimination of all storm drain-sanitary sewer connections on municipal property. These account for a large proportion of the "illegal connection" problem that has greatly aggravated sewage backup in the coastal area in recent years, as described in the LWRP. However, decisive steps still remain to be taken to correct long-standing illegal connections on private property, which are believed to constitute at least half of this problem. 16See discussion in Inventory,pages 34-35;Policies 30, 33 and 33A;and Projects 7 and 8 , pages82-83. 15 2. Davids Island Project--Impact on Larchmont-Mamaroneck Area During 1987 the Commission, at the request of the Village and Town governments, took an active part in studying and reporting on the proposed high-rise condominium development on Davids Island in New Rochelle. • Discussion with New Rochelle city officials and with representatives of the developers, and careful study of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), led to the conclusion that the project as proposed would create unacceptable problems of sewage disposal in the already overburdened New Rochelle sewer district, which includes the Village of Larchmont and a portion of the unincorporated area of the Town; also, that the proposed 50- story apartment towers would severely impair the scenic beauty of the Sound shore as viewed from Larchmont. In April the CZMC Chairman elaborated on these and other points in a letter and memorandum to the New York State Coastal Programs Administrator, basing his comments on policies in the Larchmont-Mamaroneck LWRP with which the Davids Island project was clearly in conflict, and pointing to the LWRP's emphasis on the need for intermunicipal cooperation.» He also testified to the same effect at a public hearing on the DEIS. In August the developer, following State refusal to accept the DEIS as written, and faced with widespread opposition within and beyond New Rochelle, withdrew the document and announced that a new DEIS would be submitted. 3. Waterfront Zoning Among the land-use provisions of the LWRP is a review of the zoning regulations of both Village and Town "with a view to reducing the potential density of development of properties, hitherto zoned R-30, fronting on the Sound and its inlets and estuaries in the lower Premium and Hommocks areas." The LWRP pointed out that about a dozen properties in the zone, each more than twice the required 30,000-square-foot size, could legally be subdivided, with adverse impact on scenic and ecological values.18 Implementation of this provision in regard to the Town properties affected--on the Hommocks peninsula and on Premium Point--was accom- 170n sewage, the policies cited were 8, 10A, 30, 33A, 44 and 44A, on the scenic aspect, Policy 25. 18Section IV-A-3,pages 76-78,and V-A-2-d,page 93.The objectives involved are those of Policy 25 (scenic values), 7 and 7A (fish and wildlife) and 44 (wetlands). 16 plished on July 16,1986, when the Town Board, on the recommendation of the Commission, raised the zoning of these two areas to R-50. In the Village, implementation proved more difficult, partly owing to the wide range of lot sizes in the R-30 waterfront zone. A change to R-50, which the Commission had first recommended, would have made all but a few residential properties in the zone nonconforming. In September and October 1986, at the request of the Village Board, the Commission reviewed the problem and recommended a change to R-40, which would cause a smaller increase in nonconformity while still substantially reducing the potential for subdivision of the largest properties. A corresponding change in setback regulations was later recommended at the Board's request. The Board decided to delay further consideration of this matter pending completion of the review of other Village zoning regulations by the Joint Town-Village Master Plan Review Committee, whose final report was presented to the Town and Village Boards in October 1987. 4. Harbor Security Early in 1987 the Commission, acting pursuant to LWRP policies on promotion of water-related recreation,19 decided to investigate the problem of security in Larchmont Harbor and propose a solution. After consulting the Larchmont and Horseshoe Harbor Yacht Clubs and State, County, and Larchmont Village police authorities, as well as those in neighboring jurisdictions, a member of the Commission proposed to the Village Board the appointment of Bay Constables, officials who serve in locally operated programs sponsored and partially funded by the New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Such programs are in effect in other Sound shore communities. Local costs are financed by per-foot fees on vessels moored in the harbor. Widespread support for this concept was found except from the Larchmont Yacht Club. During discussion in the Larchmont Village Board on September 14, questions were raised about the respective police jurisdictions of the Village and the Town in coastal waters. This legal point is being studied. Meanwhile the Village Board has deferred action on the matter. 19See especially the discussion under Policy 21, pages 57-58. Also cited in this connection was Policy 34 calling for limits on discharge of vessel wastes in coastal waters.For background on the harbor security problem, see LWRP Section II, pages 33- 34 17 5. State Funding of Physical Projects: Preliminary Consultation On July 20 the Commission, at the suggestion of the Coastal Resources staff in Albany, submitted an informal memorandum describing three physical projects in implementation of the LWRP which might be eligible in the coming fiscal year for State participation in funding. The projects listed are: ( 1 ) Pine Brook and East Creek silt and trash traps.20 This is one of a number of LWRP projects aimed at controlling siltation in the area's three major watersheds. A similar installation in the West Branch of the Sheldrake, upstream from the Reservoir area, is also planned, subject to consultation with New Rochelle authorities. Estimated cost is $125,000. (2) Repair and improvement of the Goodliffe Pond dam and spillway. Goodliffe Pond, the smaller and older water body in the Reservoir Conservancy, is an integral part of the Sheldrake system. Its physical integrity is essential to the control of flooding and erosion in downstream portions of the Town.21 The project calls for removal of trees from the dam, resetting of displaced stones, and rebuilding of the spillway at a lower level to accommodate the increased runoff rates of recent years. Estimated cost is $300,000. (3) Upper Sheldrake (East Branch) Retention Basin.22 This project calls for enlargement of a natural stormwater retention area in the Town- owned Sheldrake Conservation Area, where the East Branch flows toward its confluence with the West Branch at Valley Stream Road, a heavily flooded residential area. The importance of this idea, first proposed in 1945 and embodied in the LWRP in 1986, has been increased recently by rapid development of the Fenbrook subdivision upstream in the East Branch. Estimated cost is $30,000. 20LWRP Project 5, page 82 21Policy 14 describes the flood and erosion control strategy involved, 22 LWRP Project 4, page 82 18 Part II The Consistency Referral Process As the foregoing discussion has shown, the Commission's role in the consistency referral process has proved an essential, though burdensome, instrument to further implementation of the LWRP during this first year. It may be useful in this first report to recall the legal basis for this process and to give a brief account of how it has worked in practice. State guidelines provide, as a condition of approval of an LWRP, that the adopting municipality must require by law that actions in its coastal area be consistent "to the maximum extent practicable" with the policies and purposes of the LWRP. In the bi-municipal area this requirement was fulfilled by the adoption of Local Consistency Laws by the Town and Village on June 30, 1986, simultaneously with the adoption of the LWRP itself.23 These laws provide in part that any action proposed by, or submitted to, a Town or Village agency, if it is a Type I or Unlisted action within the meaning of the applicable State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) laws,24 must be promptly referred by that agency to the Coastal Zone Management Commission for an opinion, due within 30 days, on whether the proposed action is consistent or inconsistent with the policies and purposes of the LWRP. The Commission's opinion is not binding, but if it is overruled by the referring agency the law requires the latter to give its reasons in the public record for so doing. Appendix B, with map, lists and locates 23 development or construction projects that were referred to the Commission for consistency opinions during its first year. Eighteen of these originated in the Town and 5 in the Village. Two of the Village projects, and three of those in the Town, 23 Town of Mamaroneck Local Law No. 5, 1986, Village of Larchmont Local Law No. 5, 1986 24 Type I categories for the Town are listed in the Town SEAR law,and for the Village in the New York State SEAR regulations. In general, they are intended to define kinds of action whose size, location, and/or character may cause an adverse environmental impact. "Unlisted" actions are those that do not fit either Type I definitions or those of Type Il--the latter being actions deemed unlikely to pose an environmental threat. Exempt from regulation under the SEQR laws are certain categories of actions involving emergencies, maintenance,etc. 19 concerned direct municipal agency actions or municipal properties; all the rest were private development applications. As the map shows, the largest concentration of referred applications was in the Fenbrook subdivision. In order to smooth the procedure and minimize delay, the Commission • from the outset designated individual members as liaison persons to consult with, and attend meetings of, the planning and zoning boards and commissions which originate most referrals. In addition, the Environmental Coordinator, who provides staff support for the Commission, has maintained contact with Town and Village officials including the engineering and building departments, who give professional advice on, and sometimes originate, referrals. Special meetings of the Commission are held whenever necessary to meet the 30-day deadline on referrals. Study and analysis of each question referred is thorough, with liaison members typically attending pre- application conferences between the referring agency and the applicant, studying site plans, inspecting the proposed site at least once, and conferring with the applicant and with responsible officials before the application comes before the full Commission. Such pre-referral consultation provides an opportunity to clear up any uncertainties about the referrability of a given proposal, as well as to call timely attention to relevant policy requirements of the LWRP and implementing laws--thus reducing the likelihood of an inconsistency problem arising at the referral stage to cause further delay. The effectiveness of this approach is attested by the small number of cases in which a finding of inconsistency proved necessary. A further step toward clarifying the land-use decision-making process, including the consistency aspect, was taken for the Town with the adoption of a paper entitled "Land Use Regulations--Town of Mamaroneck." This document, approved by the Town Board in July, lays down procedures for all involved Town agencies to assure prompt compliance with applicable laws. However, problems of procedure and of legal interpretation still remain. Some of these arise from ambiguities in the implementing land-use laws, notably the Town Freshwater Wetlands and Watercourses law and the local laws creating Critical Environmental Areas. Others concern the criteria and procedures for consistency referral laid down in the Town and Village Local Consistency laws, which in turn depend on provisions of the applicable SEAR laws. These criteria and procedures have not always been fully adhered to. In some cases small projects raising no consistency questions have been referred to the Commission, entailing needless paper work; conversely, in other cases the responsible agency has been reluctant to refer proposals 20 which, in the opinion of Commission liaison members, required consistency review. The Commission believes, after a year's experience with the referral process, that greater clarity, equity and speed in processing land-use applications requires a concerted effort among all concerned, especially the referring agencies and this Commission, to agree on the meaning of the relevant legal language and on procedures for consistency referrals. Where the laws themselves are found to be inadequate or ambiguous, amendment of them may be desirable. In this connection the Commission believes a review of the Town and Village SEQR laws is essential, both because the local consistency procedure depends directly on SEQR categories and because new SEQR regulations, with which local SEQR laws must conform, were promulgated in 1987 at the State level. Such a review would give the Village of Larchmont an opportunity to make its SEQR law more clearly relevant to the small-scale realities of land use that confront development within its borders. A recommendation on this matter appears below. 21 Part I I I Recommendations To maintain the momentum of flood control, anti-pollution, recreational, and other purposes of the LWRP, the Commission respectfully submits to the Town and Village Boards the following recommendations on program priorities; improving the consistency procedure; and on budget and staff. A. Program Priorities Projects are listed here in approximate order of their importance and urgency as the Commission views them. The actual order of implementation will necessarily depend on the two Boards' sense of the relative urgency and feasibility, financially and otherwise, of each project. The Commission is prepared to consult with both Boards on an implementation timetable and, in the case of the Town, on integration of LWRP projects in which the Town is involved into its five-year strategic plan. In the nearer term, in order to maintain momentum, it is suggested that the most urgent and feasible projects be selected for action during 1988, and where practicable for completion before the end of that year. 1. Action against sewage pollution. Parallel with County repair and modernization of sewage facilities in the Town and Village, vigorous steps are necessary toward elimination of private storm drain connections to sanitary sewers as called for in Policy 33A of the LWRP. The importance of putting an end to frequent beach closings, damage to aquatic life in our salt marshes and coastal waters, and sewage backup in streets and basements, amply justifies the cost of correcting this long-neglected problem. 2. Flood control in the Sheldrake and Pine Brook-Premium areas, It is recommended that the Town and Village give the highest priority to the range of measures called for in the flood control strategy set forth in Policy 14 and Section IV-A of the LWRP. Pressure for development of • open space continues unrelentingly in the Sheldrake and Pine Brook- 22 Premium drainage areas, both within the Town-Village coastal area and upstream beyond our municipal boundaries. Preservation of remaining open space wherever practicable must be supplemented with measures to minimize increased flooding, siltation and pollution caused by new development where it occurs. Given the geography involved, cooperation of upstream municipalities is of the essence. 3. Silt and trash traps: catch basin improvements. These projects�5 are of basic importance in controlling siltation. Lack of them has contributed to flooding problems, damage to wetlands and habitats, and the need for costly and disruptive dredging. As noted above, preliminary steps have been taken with a view to State financing for two of four planned silt and trash traps. Financing should also be provided for a third one where the Premium River emerges from under the Post Road. Arrangements for the fourth, which is badly needed in the West Branch of the Sheldrake upstream from the Larchmont Reservoir Conservancy, will require the cooperation of the City of New Rochelle and should be vigorously pursued. The local cost of timely completion of this program called for in the LWRP, as well as of the related recommendation for more frequent cleaning of catch basins, will cost less in the long run than delay. 4. Adoption of Erosion and Sediment Control Laws,26 These laws, shortly to be presented as CZMC drafts to the Town and Village Boards, will apply County-recommended "best management practices" to site design and to the construction process in municipal or private land-disturbing actions. (Some, but not all, of these practices are required by existing local site plan approval laws.) Adoption--with adequate inspection and enforcement-- of a more complete code of best management practices will make a major contribution to control of erosion and siltation. 5. Rehabilitation of East Creek. The actions already taken in regard to East Creek (see Part I-C-1 above) need to be followed up if the potential of this area is to be realized. It is recommended that the appropriate departments of the Town and Village be asked to frame a plan for the removal of silt from the creek bed, stabilization of the creek banks, and screening out adjoining commercial areas with appropriate plantings. 6. Follow-up of Premium Feasibility Study. When this study is completed in mid-1988, decisions will be required on its recommendations and on means and timing of implementation. It is recommended that such 25LWRP Part IV-B, Projects 5 and 6 (page 82) 26LWRP Section V-A-2-h, page 94 23 • decisions be given a high priority so that remedial action can be taken with the least delay to restore and protect this seriously pressured wetland and habitat area. 7. New map for Town Flood Damage Prevention law. As noted above (Part I- B-7), this project now involves both local and Federal action. The preferred option would be completion by FEMA of the mapping project begun in 1986 by the Town, with Federal absorption of local costs of the work already done. It is recommended that this option be pursued, but in any event that the Town's Flood Damage Prevention Law be strengthened with the least possible delay by updating its operational map, since major development of open space in the affected area is now a lively possibility. 8. Protection of the Hommocks Marsh. With a view to assuring protection for the Hom mocks Marsh, it is recommended that the Town give high priority to the search for an alternative disposal site for the Gardens Lake dredge spoil (see Part I-C-2 above). 9 . Weaver Street Corridor project. The Town's participation in this project , described in Part I-B-5 above, is potentially a major step in intermuni- cipal cooperation for control of flooding, erosion and pollution in shared watersheds. The Commission looks forward to further consultation with Town authorities on the drainage aspects of this project, and recommends that the Town continue vigorous participation in it. 10. Intergovernmental cooperation on water pollution control, Effective control of the multiple causes of water pollution in our three watersheds, coastal waters and estuaries27 requires (a) obtaining agreement on division of labor among State, County, and local authorities; (b) obtaining cooperation of neighboring municipalities; and (c) improvement of monitoring and enforcement machinery of the Town and Village. 11, "Non-point" pollution: nutrients. pesticides. etc.28 Administrative practices of Town and Village departments need to be reviewed and, where necessary, strengthened to minimize excessive use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, salt, etc., and to improve anti-erosion measures. These principles apply primarily to parks and other municipal properties but also, through education and persuasion, to large private properties. 27See Policies 7, 7A, 8, 10A, 30, 44,and 44A. 28Policy 37 24 12. Premium beach lot. It is recommended that the Village confer Critical Environmental Area status on one additional small but important area-- namely, the small patch of Village-owned beach adjoining the Premium Mill Pond, accessible on foot via Point Road near the lower end of Pryer Lane. This beach lot is part of a sand barrier protecting the Mill Pond. It is also part of the Premium-Pine Brook Fish and Wildlife Habitat Complex, and a favorite vantage point for viewers and photographers of birds and other wildlife in the area. Addition of the area described to the Pine Brook-Premium Border CEA, created by the Village in 1986, would provide a stronger basis for protection and maintenance of this small area and would complete the Town-Village pattern of CEA protection for the entire Premium fish and wildlife habitat. The Commission will shortly propose legislation on this subject for consideration by the Village Board. 13. Reservoir water quality. In the interest of maintaining the viability of the Larchmont Reservoir as a standby water supply source, it is recommended that the Village keep informed of any likely change in State classification of Sheldrake Lake that may result from the current State review of water quality classifications, and take all necessary and practicable steps to maintain the present "A" (all uses) classification of the lake. In this connection the Project Riverwatch testing program (Part I-B-8 above) may prove informative. 14. Sewer connection for the Reservoir Conservancy. The LWRP calls for elimination of existing on-site sewage disposal systems (septic systems) and their replacement by connection to the public sewer system, wherever feasible at reasonable cost.29 The antiquated septic tank serving the "Reservoir House" at the Conservancy is difficult and increasingly expensive to repair. The risk of fecal coliform pollution in the nearby Sheldrake River is worrisome. It is recommended that the Village Board study the most economical means of replacing this system with a sewer connection, and assign a suitable priority to such replacement. 15. Village waterfront zoning. It is recommended that this delayed project, described in Part I-D-3 above, be considered again by the Village Board at an early date with a view to working out an accommodation of the different interests involved. 16. Flint Park leaf dump. The planned conversion of the Hommocks Border CEA into a natural area compatible with the adjoining marsh cannot begin 29Policy 32A • 25 until the Village leaf dump, which now dominates much of the area, is relocated pursuant to the LWRP.30 It is recommended that an active search be made as soon as reasonably possible for a new site or for another mode of disposing of leaves, stumps and other refuse. Meanwhile, a beginning can be made by removing illegally dumped debris from the • area. 17. Control of litter and dog waste.31 It is recommended that the Town and Village Boards take the lead in a bi-municipal effort, involving all relevant agencies and civic organizations, for better control of litter and dog waste. Major progress against these pervasive and highly visible quality-of-life problems is unlikely without a fuller understanding of their causes and a higher priority for measures to combat them. B. Consistency Procedure 1. Consistency referral process: review of laws and procedures, In view of the difficulties described in Part II above, it is suggested that the Town and Village Boards appoint a working group with representation from the Town and Village Boards, the Town Planning Board, the Village Planning Commission, and the Coastal Zone Management Commission, with instructions to consult on this subject with the Town and Village Attorneys and to present agreed proposals to the Town and Village Boards as soon as possible. C. Budget and staff No worthwhile effort is cost-free. The LWRP embraces many of the most important environmental and infrastructure needs of the Town and Village for years ahead. Costs of its implementation can be, and have been, held down by efficient deployment of existing staff, extensive use of volunteers, and obtaining funds from outside sources. But such methods alone cannot suffice where long-delayed capital expenditures, infrastructure maintenance, and stepped-up inspection and enforcement action are involved. On a smaller scale, the CZM Commission's tasks of coordination and consistency review have proved to require expert consulting services which are not sufficiently provided for in the budget. 30Policies 20 and 39, also Part IV-B, Project 10b, page 84 • 31Policy 39A 26 Thus full implementation is bound to entail some additional local costs. Accordingly, it is recommended that 1. The "consulting services" budget line in the CZMC budget for 1988 should be increased from $5,000 to $8,000 for the services of a professional hydrological and environmental consultant to assist in consistency reviews and in formulation of LWRP projects. Independent analysis of soil and drainage factors is crucial in evaluating land-use proposals. This type of analysis is beyond the capabilities of the Commission and its existing staff; nor is it readily available from the town or Village engineering departments. It may be possible to share this service with the Conservation Advisory Commission. 2. Many actions required by the LWRP--cleaning of catch basins and silt traps, enforcement of best management practices, etc--will impose a work load that may exceed the normal capacity of existing staffs. Little or note of such work can be done by volunteers. Realistic budgeting must include funds for performance of such work. 3. In the case of implementation projects recommended in this report which involve new costs, it is assumed that the Town and Village will give budgetary priority to those that appear most urgent. The Commission stands ready to assist in obtaining external financing for such projects wherever possible. D.Public Involvement Public understanding and involvement are vital to the success of the LWRP. This vital ingredient cannot be taken for granted, for many benefits of the program are neither obvious nor immediate and costs often precede benefits. Yet full implementation requires public participation through taxes, volunteer work, and improved community-wide cooperation on such matters as pollution, dumping, litter control, etc. With this in mind, the Commission has striven to inform the public about the LWRP, and to enlist its support, both by word of mouth and through the news media. Some of these efforts are mentioned in this report. It is recommended that full publicity be given to the decisions which the Town and Village Boards will be making in coming months on further implementation of the LWRP, whose positive impact on the quality of life in our bi-municipal area will be felt for many years to come. x x x x x x x x x * x 27 ti nitlex A , -Pnigt-,. Vi I Iage of Larchmont -- Town of Mamaroneck, COAST4L ZONES LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM (LWRP) MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSION STATUS — September 13 7 ''7411 West Boston Post Road. MamargnerJa•.N.Y,10y13 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 S_1 9 to Ai II 13 1 15 16 17 18 19 to L1 22 23 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 33 34 ., 3G, 37 38 39 4- 41 r/, r ` Description of implementing V��S 3, ��°fir, sci rc` <Cjrc9 p rC' ti ors try or .,.0 <°�° 6(.. ,\,rrw, 1 t<j 0I K,u ¢ ..A cr rD t° 4 C- 4' roc' ,cc <c a'' ta< te< oo� ,fie, aS• �c o<'c °� AI� I C�N Sya Q < �'. t er <A re al', 9 r \ u 0 O or `3� e°' \P \, y,9 u L s e 9 � 1.. aP o t S < C. rt < `a o\ 9c o°� <\ e < c c<' �`Rr ,y< ¢ l r to y ; t <I < o y1 ti PL r 1;`° �5\ <3ea 4? . 1°` �> . Cp9 •<9l�P �'` °t ,eyg< r� rP �r �C <a` aG r` \ R°� <a �5 eSct` �1 aoC>✓t 2 d Ol^ I n the LW R P y (o <J 8 ry <e} �cu tcc tcc of ;rA �`\` °h1 trVuta+r6c `�'� Qco (� a�o Oft+ �� y� yrc (o0o r9 tiecc t90 Qe Qr ;utoa ��ia o a<,e a ,a c to 5 ,. r t 5 <1 tr j t ` d o° :.:;,.<(;;;;;;. r` ��' S1s °ram S� ,y° -;itt t r o o tr ,r. c c u a a \a *v ¢.c .�tr cC .,F9 +rQ c< a` tP kc: a1y°. G° t \ tj .a -ofct p• <and of Coasal o c1° ataQ \* r y j t c e t c o t 0 r S cS trt D <` JYc <c uv iv e •�•< F r .r * uy w 9 rcC tl a o . za as 9°`y t'r h QJ9 r< e.r <` �• kJ �< < 5rSe4 0 \ 5. r ysoet to ce a� °o ,a' ,ic c i.-1 t,< .e` 4° d .,r ,` • r e) toe G la 5� '`l� o o 0 oa �a 4° 04 St < '1` ' tr ° ,c4 1V1 < d cb e 9 t \ .i` r� t e \\ \ o ' A <`o- 'l < -r o (l 5 J O 4 (\ yr`< u I(`r C a c r a < L �, e, <r` e ��� ° F u y c s` J` � o K, w -�� t` `� ,,+ sr c,° R° <° r sa r o •c \ -+ <-� r t'0 2 2• y °i (, \,\ °r � °.r .`.If' �< ,rsco ec -� sc ` ( 1�0 <trW ,fir <`u tr< °s6 c� c'0 5 tr< L t` .h tr � a\ r< sc rt '\a yC. ,S y� Q°` ', 9 r � � 9r O dB r' c.f. t+`, 5 0 t < r c K r p < a G < F r � <� r1J '�° c t �` � o c � ` uy r o ris � \� e J' � a t o I rn e m e nt P tic v�trD�c `° ,r Va. V c r `o ) < 5 r u < o C `� 0� o (3 e 0 �a � �t r u � 5` c 5 a '� rK Q <c o5 .\y < <c \. u ti � to '� c � •r \rr ac .( � �` �`°� \�r Y P \ aJ e'AP0,470a S K. r< 4,;( tc >r o c o -r< K a5`' < c \ d r I [Polley or r..lnrt are those of New`foe it Scate `Q �, \� t` I(j c\' ct' oti tl'`V t < t• a t° -r °Q <O F p t` >L�' .sp "\ '�, o> to �G .W \\' ;u \ \a \r<' t°` ce t° L�� +G 'L t` K` J`S yuQ exce e,s local policies to pock 'no Missing 4,V o9 •1,° wF oe •<e, Se `0 4 u e>o K Cr' <' , <r` J v.. 6 C \� 9 �`• W Q< t° eSs J p os� S r t 'Q �, 4\ K`� r' Jt,0\'i + a S y oQ 't c � v o '. o O Q '�` t` K nuw�Ders are tnosa of State polices not Inch.ded];:' Fa toe <�te P`' P�/'S° s �r vye• Q< LP JQa �,e .�<.5 �d' �\ r,).oe .9u Q„ o Qg e J b e. u st` •tP Q 4., e,°� Q< ,�,y � e0 r r �<1' � J o �a�So ,��o,tr°S '0 P O C c .\ ti CI!' 4 C1` k �/ Q G�°6 v a • Y 7Y IY Di IY I4 LY 12 IY LY is IX LIL r2 Ili DI IY IY EY IY 1Si 13 Ts V Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 Y' Y -sr Y V Y Y Y I3p�[ _ _- 1 C. b-2 a i i A 3.Ae1 A{'1 A-Z.o 1 Aa 3 Pb-3 A-4 8-1 8-2 B•3 8-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 9-8 B-9 Bap ago B-U .F2 Ah2 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-6 B-7 B-8 8-9 3-11 8-IS a-IS 8-14 3-1i 1-I Po ,/ ,> 0 I�•-•I P F �> Action Reference in LWRP—► tl I I r.�s p•93 p•75 p.vs pas p.76 pnb p.7o p.71 p•7e p.7e4 P 79 p-to p-Ho f.yl l fl pd2 p.B2 P•BI p•g3 p.S3 n91►-04 P..BS ..94 P-91.R91 P•96 R9S P•95 r•95 p.95 p•95 P•% p•96 P 96 P 96 P•96 P•97 P•97 est-e p �/ -� d ✓ Ti F Ti F F —r O p P p c) 7p T p, O > 0 P ✓ 0 > > O O P o 1- 0 0 o O j 0 P ST. Tls ,Sept�7-► o L E G S ND '� see Le en at wr rl�ht-� _. V - —. __._— Y.. Y. . V-- p VELO�ME:N'r • • Water-dependent uses preferred AL A $ Location:infrastructure limits _ • _• • • • • _•_ • • • • • • lilliiill • • • I 6 Expedite permit procedures W,LDL/FE protect fr` err` t I Z I _ 7 Sl'ynlflcant" Habitats: est°re • o , 7A "Locally i,nportdnr" ,. • • • • • • v • X 8 Protect from pollutants • • • • • • •• 51- Espand • • ce 9 Recreattondi uses °,eV /OA Improve water 4uality for shell(-70, • A.11 P ajoy stao,s or il..le..eetl..r1 Ft ODD Er ERASION olic lawn at late (/ Minincite by Sitin4 of strucC eras • • • • _ • mt ll afford sett ttlu y or ncldenral benefit to Pei icy AA • E • • 4), - Mu3C comply with policy 12 Don't harm na cur Al ProtecGve features •■• • tej — Mayy have some et AH�e 4 /3 Criteria.for erasion - otect:on sb'ue tares • • . efR ct on policy Actions must not me tease eras ton or • I. V • - • 01 /'/ flooding ar site or elsewhereV • /�A Best Management Practices r •. - /n construction 1 /$ Avoid erosion,etc. in dredging , ��//••�� Prefer "non-structl.ral"measures V 7 - 1. 17 aggainrt flooding a.d erosion !al • II GENERAL _ _ e /b ISafe9uard N.Y. Stare interests i /9R EAT/ON • • �_ •`• • •• •• •• /q Access to water-related recreationill - 20 Access to publicly ovined shore • • • _ — 21 Priority for"water-related'recreation _ • • II • - milt • • II- TO21CAL. ErSCENrc RESOUkcES •2`c ■ , Protect&restore htsrorical resources ere, • Protect, restore 6 take.ea • V • - - --• • • • • • 1. • 25 scenic resources ■ •WATER. RES"OUIGES(Pollution Contrail) ' 30 Poll.,tant discharge standards • • • •• LWRPS & Coadtal pcl.i.es as factor Ir. 3 I review of State water class.licotions eta • • • ,• • Ill _ Use of "eliternative"[serttc] 3z- JaniYary Srsfe ni5 _ • - Elin.in are 6- replace Cucit sytte,n5 r- 32A where feasible • 3 3 "Best Management`/x n:ea "Centroll,9 • .' •-. Srornewat 8-"co ec sewer overflows - _ Eliminate • Ctorn.drain connectYons 33A to sanitary sewers • • 34 Lin.it vessel waste discl.arges • • 3 S Coastal dred9iny stan dards - - ill II - _ 3, C°ntro/ zht �yl p...ani- S.storee of pi/pi/fro/ca...trolca. _ 111 and otner hazes-laud materials • • hafje. 38 Prc.t:a el np ofnw ercBspply t IIIIIIMIIIIIIIIII • liii! • II ■,,, 37O n..trtents, or oases & soils Protect - II. , g4nlifn of Water y.Plal • • • • Solid waits manage.Went: protect _■■ �mu ON • ■■ -■__ 3q hiaterz, Habitats, etc. 39A Control litter and dog waste —�■■ • _.NDD. • ��■■ • III MOM w4TL A� er- �■�• • • V © o r n • • •nu El ono i �tl•'1f Preserve&protect tidal 6 fretbwahr i<<nds 2/`/4 Restore damaged -- r I EA '• .• •• r •• •• •• I ?- 1 t c 4 T c. ? }° I+ 4 11 Iti IS 04 I? 43 41 3a t4 }p 44 i4 ?5 34 19 .0 9 .?.9 31 St •Bs 2lf 14 S4 31 31 ;1 4119 eti 1 1 ANNEX B COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION CONSISTENCY REFERRALS September 1986 - September 1987 CASE LOCATION AGENCY TYPE* DATE OF REPLY gg 1. R-40 Zoning Larchmont shoreline VL-B 10/86 2. Fenbrook Sewer Connection Fenbrook & Kolbert Drive TOM-C 1 10/03/86 I 3. Scheuer Additions & Alterations 875 Fenimore Road TOM-PB 1 12/04/86 1 4. Midland Construction, Inc.-- II Larchmont Professional Center 1375 Boston Post Road TOM-PB 1 12/4/86 & 1/9/87 5. VL Pinebrook Blvd Property Sale Pinebrook Blvd., south of Stratton Rd. VL-B --. 02/25/87 T 6. Armour Subdivision Salem Drive & Boulder Circle TOM-PB Unlisted 01/08/87 1 7. Winged Foot Golf Club Storage Shed Winged Foot Golf Club, near Bruce Rd. TOM-PB 1 01/25/87 8. Coughlin Office Building 178 Myrtle Blvd. TOM-PB Unlisted 2/5 & 8/5/87 9. Rocconi Subdivision 1 Gaillard Place TOM-PB 2 01/28/87 10. Mayer of Westchester, Inc.-- Volvo Service Center 2001 Boston Post Road VL-PC -- 03/13/87 11. Strauss/Meagher Additions 32 Deane Place TOM-ZBA 1 03/06/87 12. Cohenca Single-family Home Fenbrook Drive TOM-PB 1 05/08/87 13. Donatelli Deck & Additions 23 Bonnie Briar Lane TOM-PB 1 03/25/87 14. DeMatis Deck 54 Deane Place TOM-BI 1 03/25/87 i 15. Robertson Additions 38 Deane Place TOM-ZBA 1 04/29/87 16. Pokoik/Shelton Services Pool 1 Ocean Avenue VL-ZBA -- verbal communication 17. M.L.S., Inc., Tent 2417 Boston Post Road TOM-PB Unlisted 05/27/87 r 18. (a) Gardens Lake Dredging Project Lakeside Drive TOM-C 1 08/26/87 ; (b) Dredge Material Disposal Hommocks Athletic Field " " f 19. Maloney Drain Pipe Evergreen Lane TOM-PB 1 08/04/87 20. Winged Foot Estates East Subdivision 1160 Old White Plains Road TOM-PB 1 08/03/87 21. Army Corps of Engineers Flume West branch of Sheldrake River-- Rockland Ave. to Briarcliff Rd. (approx) TOM-C 1 in progress + 22. Collins Bros., Inc., Warehouse North Ave. extension, near railroad VL-PC -- 08/26/87 ffi 1 23. County Sewer Project Along Brookside Drive to Lakeside Drive TOM-PB 1 in progress " 24. Cambridge Court Subdivision Cambridge Court and Nassau Road VL-PC -- 09/23/87 KEY: VL - Village of Larchmont B - Board of Trustees PB/PC - Planning Board/Commission BI - Building Inspector TOM - Town of Mamaroneck C - Council ZBA - Zoning Board of Appeals *TYPE - refers to type of action as classified in the local Environmental Quality Review law. i r , v_....„ ,.....,. .,,,,,.} , „.., . ..•... . .„.. .,. • , i . / ,„ ANNEX B • IVI:'''' ' I. :. I ''. • ' i ..- 1 • , ..„ r'. :•-• ( ). .i i Numbers correspond to . \., •‘' .)1 ...... ,--. .."'..- \rt'' . I• .. ., )r: .- -• : - i i 1 .. • the preceding list. ) ,..., •1 .2..4,00./- : :P .• ,... ...._. ..•. .,.,\, ** • '..• • . :, .., ..• ;..,,ow.,,....00, ..., ., J • 1 •\ , , i,o•%L.... '' Sa,,,,, • •,,1 - 'qe...1..z . ..,...,... .--' , ........ •• . .. 4 5,4 ! ( •‘'S f ..'4..:..,...... ‘4'‘,. \t. .\40'.\,H; '---' 'li ..... . _.. . . • . t cr .1 : • • , . • 1 - -- . ' .• .- • - ,...1 :.-.....6, • \;::: -•-,.../ , •••• .. • . •••• - -" ; ,) -j ' *e ..,, `-') N'... ' i ••-. S':. . ' - ...'.... . oo n_...)„,,, ,- : .. ,-., .....,-.: .)_,i. \• .•r V ‘‘ -'-'' '. '••,..., Ocii. A90 '1 % '•. 1 ' e.‘ j, .; ...1 . . u I : '.'s• . ... '•:.•."-..• ••....' ....--% ".ti.13 p,...::4,. 6 l*; -.'":. \:•:' -; =' • 1 \V- • .; - ..• . /.1 1 - ii. ',.''' •:: ',..0 k's. iir 0,) . ) .., ). ., ... J , .. \)/ , SN,...) will'...' / • . " )1/4"j.....-4'1• •. • (-) tV).° fr./. ://'.1, *"..r ..7:r• r . 11 .• .0.4...$ ,: /. r,,,,,,,,,, 0, *. 0 WN s.'1••••%:-.... •... Op /4' ''' • . ' . a f''''-'-';'.:•::: " .- .;.-..., ',1 09° 4 fj.0 , : ,....',.--,', .. ,'''' \•• „A'.„'. : r O.A'''c4iii: _-,,,..e. , , ii„. \!•.1."--,',. NeCK ,.„„. .1'.**•., '''•,., ..5.... F..-:•'.;::..6 4,....- •. ,.'•.".'[..'..i...,i1. ,PI); •' '-'::.:•' -. :-.;-','...."...'2/,--.4 r, \q 1 2 :' ••'.' . . - ,.. ..','.-- , i, i''''' ., .. .. • .. 1...,,,...C.)•,, .- -,--'. r: .. .i / .f, 1, . ..„ • , ..„5 s%fl- •. • , 0,._:,.., . ... / „.,,.- 4:- ( .... ..,,....,... ,,I.,.:: ...) /../..i:„.:. .z..,, f : ...... .... ..,;...,..i, ..... ...„4.56, • , ,,__..... ".61, .,..,„,...:..:), . ,.,,,),::: fl-,*.- „:7,170., .. ...• ••,.-,-:n-• ) A-5 ,',.4; .> ; r! •• .• • „L ,. \ •-_.‘,:„! •..0, e\-, -,••••....,_ L. I ... no . • / ...-- , . . '• it ,, • ,•..., , • dr .4, ?'•--,,,:. n. • _d.. -I --'-:' - 2,1'.V.,...• /4.:P4 : -'---% ... /2 ay /...;-- :". ,,,, 1. ,...• 1,,, , ;,,,,...• - .-: :.. „-.... ....-3,'_ „,,,,,,, - ., - \;••°'• X•--. ,,,•''. ...*: ,,,,,-' .. .7.4. ' ' ' ' -q*.- ...- .t, • • • -,', ..„," ,,,•;,-- ....." • '.• A..n• •---1 .1 K.i G,... II t:o., n,..,,,.,7 s.„ E.1 :,,' '.' :. .-`....• ,.,„. ,'"... ...,,,,,,,,,,,f,,'' .., \ .,'',.; • , - oro :,, ,,,,._•,,, I' L 0; li,,,.:...%, '' '0-....f.': r----• / .%;‘,.., ,..„,..,,,-:":- 1,74_,-,..., -„,, .,....„,- ..„,,, ,o•.°.., k••,,, : //4";7 .,°: t lii -•1 ..1„...r.•',,,,,. 21.,.., ,?.•.:st .:':'• ' .......::',01 ..,'' 'f'si, 1 Z.?"..'"*L''',%.-* 10 ,n••' _ ...::!.:1500,.::.':.:.:7-: -9- . :s: ':A.''''.s., .•:••• .' \'.. . it / ' .,..•‘ • 'e /. ,./P ,./, .,s'../.8.7 7.. ., .,. : .. .....: I:: . . ..„,,,,,,,,, •t„:, pi:: ..474'.!...,*,,..;;;.....i.: . i;,_,... ,..0.e. ,„ , ,, , , . , ,,,.,- , .,:-. ...- 1--c , p• ..," '. --•-• : .':-- •'` i''' .4'.1. .'lf.:•.v,., ,. I : ' ,1' \O 0, .': "_ .0 If : . ,,,P.' .., ..,`\". • .///4/ -' °:/.: r'''.>""\'. 't-1:--'''''' 1 ' -*;* ,.• Pr.; .• .' - t ••.. :;/--- .. ..,, ,t.... 44 - C-. ..:\S.e. „.:.'f.!7 '', .0 '`' •"-:`, , i);%1 ''' ii- ' • /, '1°,,o, /•-• ••° '‘.;--' ,''..- 11. '. •-,r-..4, . /zo 4., ,,,, '0%,:•.:. ,,V 1 .,.:...,"..., ,.. '',,..2.'"-a,o5;•$'4.•'4,,?"1 "" -r *-°--- 7,-,-..3 ,,,..P...t.,. „...' . . hy .c.."- <- 7 7,-.;Jo t•...>••.;., -•'( '' 0.1•0%."--c.::"?,:ig..4.,-g..'I.-,1,.., --.- - -...- ) ii =?"9-..;„....i.'------,...?,•:f F. i' --.... -1.---,. -- A\ .1i• r+•• :.>';''',.. ..e•••••,..„..'' .1:17 '.."(:*'::" ....'''''''I k ' ' '/7 . ‘*"‘'... \' • It''' ''''''..''').:';‘" li.t.".---.''':'N.4:11\ ., 11 ift ' . .if:.;%...:""•k' t•••::.:/f7 ''.. 4' ' • - . '<--'Th.,-:--- s'' ,\j,._ :,• ' °. • ' .:‘,`;%; V'• A ig..,. ---• , . 0., . . . ) ,fi` / - • --:;-.,,,,, \772- Iv•;\4...,.\,,Y, .,..„f,-,,-. ..-,. (-, •:E .i•., c.:---, if) t, i te•-: ( ",•i--v!. A . ,,,- • , •- ‘-`:.'s--v-- - ,116-#. ."•1 - .. ,.: 00, . :....„0 .---I, '::%''' ;\'' :)'''' ';'1°.‘7"; II' 511.-l'4 . ../,, . e/I •••>"\ 0.,.... 1 ' .;0.P , 24 - ...Y, ' .'t•JF:.,. ' I 1 i :,••`'.., .'....-•.''. i ',..;; iii ,' , ".'1. \\ i ' -/4., . ,a4,:.,..,11! : .ii..../,-.„t, ‘,.. \----.6' ....: ,3', .k.,... •Li..0°':.',‘ ' " .4 ‘-'4,: :PEI i.... I/ iii''' ; •2\-.". A ,. I I I ii,14:" t, a.,,,, 1 , • ,, g. „.e'• ..'` '''' I..---'- 1/4- 4' \ • S t -71 'St' ' ' ''''s'Y 101:;:Ar!.;',, t ,''''; y-.., .., , , • • ,,, •...•• •- : ..,,,, ..,,, .. , . ....• ,.. .. .. . ......, :-... c""••• .•::`,..., ',..4." --.' , , ,(„)..„,... •,,,,,-,.,:---„,,,,,,,. „r.,,,..::::;:;., ,,,,....'-'--„..,....„,,,;-::.. .-:;•....„.•1••••.,-.,..,,.•••,. _.... _._ ••-. ,•\ !.,.,,,,. ,,,,,,,,... ,,, •,,.. ‘ .. ..„.,... ..... ) ..., \ ..,., t• , , . • .V. ,.. ,„ ..„0,-- ....- ,, . . ....„., ...., N ). „. • - -..\:c ..... ,... - .: --- • .7, .„ -:. ••••,1-9.,\ • ,,.,.. -,•: - ,. • •. ...,...- ;.::-- ...., ..." ..,- /,' • --- .... .-- \ .-( .. :?. , •-• .. •• %. - - 4,...........„ , -- , --p,-; _ ofT!:.,o:r' -.;•....,:..'.'.,.,.;''.';.,', re l' .1 : .- •,, •,... , .. ...., ,.,. . , -, .... . - _•••,..-- ,,„,„ ..„_____: .,...;;2'''',Y•,:,,,...,` • ...,.! p__%!...,,,,,.-. .^ ; 's o\,..e:!...."". ,,/''''''. '-'' -- ..., %, -' s'-'."..• ,15-.-:' <'.''.. . 1 ,,:'.,,, .; - ' - 1..,, , 3...., P•'' * '..:-;.•••''4:A.7.I •• '• , ''' . •-....1t1'-' ' 114 •=:•'- .04' '•., •••.‘„...`;',,,';;.-1:!:.‘:. : • :, 'L-.)ii-,•-•',,: .....* -,,, ' 4 ...,•-. , : t t .,;,;;..s• .... . „. . ,,„ ti._...-4.0 ....•. A ,. --..- -• i , , •:......,...,..., ....---.....:• e., , - -,.,. ...,.,• ..,........,.1.i. • , • •••••,... •,,:, ,,,..,, -- •-•-• . - - -• • ,,-.. ..•••:- .....- , , s,..0., „......„ ., ,,,,....„,..-- ,.-,,...• ‘,.., _ , 7,... „ .,, . , . -,.,..,•,..:...-„,-.- 3. , •, 4 ' . ._0 , , - • i, - ,I, ,:$,:7 • '. -,--4- *-, ' *••••111•01 • •..... .,, .”.;I::-‘...1\Z.:%• Z i .• „ '.•: ...I ., .'”.12........ .• ".• . • e,.771s'' •'..;',-' f‘*.. tf V' ••' ' .'::,%-,..;",.::::. 4 , .0*,"sq, . 011TON -1 . '110 _.:::6:•.--::', . **''' ,1•,, tl -"‘‘.s.L7'a:2;•:•• ,-1. . >k '''' e, 'V.':.;47-.•';:.0 e,..•••••.r...A ...' .••' .,)'... i :;,...? - , ,> ....0 . „..„,.,.. .. z , ...,::•-•-..%•,,,, , 1. -. :- .. ••,•.'. .,. e .... ...7•••4`'•'' ,...-` ' - '•,, "7;7,-- '''''s •' •. •••• • .P 11):'''''' •. Ite# . % ...sr,'" ...•..;,•.4,,..,.!..'..-.:s.' • ' • . . •c.,‘ ...01 ' 0 i• •., A";:,.'.'.:;. ..%.*.lrli !,.. ..‘• ' • , .,, .. ..,„'.,..:.,..t. \ ..,... „..,-.. . , . ,o 11//k i ::.' *s ......4‘...; .N," ,..., • ...;. „. . ,0„.,•.„eci, 0.,,.., s f '••4 G E ,...•!'• ; . t,;,...*, fi' ',•??,•',;,i• lik ii; ...* ..... Ard:i .„4.• ......'‘,".4" • ,,,o, 'o, %,'" '•... _ e , . '' re `0 ' ,-, ,,,,p0 ,,,...„„0' •4., . , ... „ V., .., ,......... ...„„, ,..„, • 4„r .0 1\s•. ....., til ' .' '. 0 tt")•; *"'% oN, co( - :•-,fr • %# , p 0 - .." t •, ,... • ...,,,,,, . . ,___ _____ .0, .7.1 :44e., ,...,4 ..., e ...\ Pi.,... ....,;:..• 49 •••„„ilutilttsx # .. 1 ,MMiliir • •'.' ." .‘ • I . ,,o• ••.,';'• -',•,, . . %(, ..,... 1.. ••• '.9;: P' - . lir. .., ''‘... '''''S C,C.• -•;z ..Zi,-;:.;').;;:. .',..• 1, ,.. , •I 1.,....* ' , I . . ., . ':::1::201:::..1.,.,,:r: .; . ‘,. : .0., . ,.. , :p...,.,,,,. ..... .„, ,,, .. cw, ....s.: .. • . ' .00 S' . o•• .a..t!4... -I 1 . *# I •• ..' t ... . , / •., t.'.E.f.--,.3ti . •, v .1. .. ....• sc••••y • • ,., • .•„. • - - As •• ,.e., , 1110.. "...A*/ :•• i -.•t ......0,..---.. • .,•r•• • , z ,i0. 1100. - • :....•--' ' .2 4' '• • ' i 1 . - - .o. 1, • .0.• t o . , A ..... v. .r f.i,....• t • ,r ''' ......' .. ..r. , .'-'-. - ." \t' .: „ , , •• I. •!---7- , - 11 t t •',... ,: • ‘ ,,,, .0. •,% 1 '4. i'... 1..---.- .F.-.'1 Z-T. "^"2.'i 'c ..., . "• is; .- ....• ,.„ ,., ....._ .., ... . , ....... Ave: ''• A's ‘-'1.1% . ' t O ' :1 • i 1.•.'or - A t • . a ..•!_,I -: ..... ,„., . .Ins < die k,;,••1 ..- %ma ..,,, . 1 , ''511 `' ..' '',..7..at 1 10,. • ..,iii..... .,„.., ,,...,:x. V.,1 I ono,11111101111110 ,,,,,... , i. . ., ......, .. ,. ... 7 <,........, .: ..,, .•,:, ...,„. •ILLM , • ,i'z' 11001,111 'i .11111111.111"C 1 . 11 S• . - .• , ...,.... ill 7 .... •, 4,s„.. .. .*.et. • ,. ....: ••••• , 1 .v. A:;*0 ' N,Nt. '' • `A.'' III 11 ... , ,.., ,, '. I I r-P - \% . . :11111Illimit :.. ,.., . • .. , r or 5 •. ... . . , /) • !WI. j. 1 101. 1 II b.' • . •Iv. ,.. ...I. V• •••• ... 1111101...111111111•41) • "107:X.° ' ••. .• • :: IT11,0 01' • •,• .•' I ••• ..,smiling& . .. r •• C C % .. ''''IMMO '' 11174111. IS . .... .• . , c. . '7:••911• 1.....'4',.', ••••••• . * i ''.. ...... .... ,,• IN "... a 0,- yie 1 - ISLAND I 114 -,..-7i..i•o:a- 0.• 6/ a n N 6 --,.fr,•T.• 0* . . . :••:;'••...i-• i %, mmomms COASTAL AREA BOUNDARY 111.16001 1..• ,,,k MINIM" BOUNDARY OF LOCAL WATERFRONT (0, .4... .„ i'•"" P.„,, REVITALIZATION AREA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION • LOCATIONS OF CONSISTENCY REFERRALS SEPTEMBER 1986 - 1987 ANNEX C COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS Term NAME Resident Expires Occupation of Sept. ROBERT S. SCHOENBERGER (Chairman) M 1988/90* Business Consultant BRUCE ALLEN L 1990 Research Biologist--Radiation ELINOR FREDSTON L 1988 Consultant, Mamaroneck High School WALLACE IRWIN, JR. L 1988 Writer MARY ANNE JOHNSON L 1989 Environmentalist ARTHUR KATZ M 1987 Attorney LAWRENCE LOWY L 1989 Mechanical Engineer C. ALAN MASON M 1988 Dentist/Attorney HOWARD McMICHAEL, JR. M 1988 Yacht Sales & Service SHIRLEY TOLLEY M 1989 Attorney PHYLLIS WITTNER M 1988 Consultant • T-Town Unincorporated Area; L-Village of Larchmont; M-Village of Mamaroneck *Chairman until 1988, member until 1990. Annex D The LWRP: Chronological Highlights 1972-- Congress enacts a national Coastal Zone Management Act to protect the nations threatened coastal resources. 1981 --New York State enacts Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act, applying the 1972 Federal law to State coastal areas from Lake Erie to Long Island. The act gives coastal municipalities the option of writing Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs), further decentralizing State coastal policy to the local level. August 1982--The New York State Department of State issues 44 State coastal policies regarding development, protection and enjoyment of coastal resources, and provides guidelines for embodying these policies in local programs (LWRPs). Soon afterward, Village of Larchmont and Town of Mamaroneck obtain LWRP planning grants. Sharing problems of flood control and wetland and wildlife protection, they decide to draft a single bi-municipal LWRP. 1983-86--A 23-member planning committee representing the Village and Town, and advised by Shuster Associates, planning consultants, prepares successive drafts of the bi-municipal LWRP. The work is done in close consultation with the Town and Village Boards, municipal and State officials, and concerned citizens. Final text includes 31 "applicable" State coastal policies, plus 5 policies added locally. Policies deal with flooding and erosion from upstream, pollution from sewage and other sources, protection and enhancement of ecological, recreational, scenic and historical resources. Implementing measures called for include new legislation and physical and administrative projects. Program also extends State coastal boundary in this area to include entire Village of Larchmont and unincorporated area of the Town. June 30. 1986--Town and Village Boards, meeting simultaneously, adopt the Town/Village LWRP. They also enact implementing 1 legislation recommended by the planners-- • creating an l 1-member Coastal Zone Management Commission, appointed by Town and Village, to coordinate the Program; • establishing procedures to assure local consistency of development projects and other actions in the coastal area with LWRP policies; • strengthening flood control by setting new limits on stormwater runoff from new developments; and • designating three fish and wildlife habitat complexes (Pine Brook-Premium, East Creek-Hommocks, and Reservoir- Sheldrake-Leatherstocking) as Critical Environmental Areas entitled to special protection. (The first two, since they straddle Town-Village boundaries, require parallel designations by both Boards.) Town also strengthens its Freshwater Wetlands law, applying it to the entire Reservoir-Sheldrake-Leatherstocking Complex (520 acres). Sept. 24. 1986--The Coastal Zone Management Commission holds its first meeting. Regular meetings are held thereafter on the fourth Tuesday evening of each month at 8 p.m. in the Town Center, 740 West Boston Post Road. (In the ensuing year 5 special meetings are also held to expedite handling of "consistency referrals.") Oct. 28, 1986--Secretary of State Gail Shaffer visits Mamaroneck and Larchmont and signs the LWRP, making it official New York State coastal policy in the bi-municipal coastal area. It is the first bi- municipal LWRP in New York State. 2