Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_07_23 Coastal Zone Management Commission Minutes VILLAGE OF LARCH 1ONT TOWN OF MAMARONECK COASTAL Z ONE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 1. `'�t' ' :. ,.,� E� ¢ - E yr s 30 1985 .MCOAOORAT[O �• ,� SRO 411 1891 • .S'j,` rNY S. CT t Jowly ��14( `� N Y.�. _ MAMARO ERlc aOUMOI r ssSr iL Y,BECK archmont, NY 10538 Mamaroneck, NY 10543 MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Committee, Village Center, Larchmont, July 23 , 1985 Members present: Bruce Allen C. Alan Mason June Allen Howard McMichael Jr. William Eipel Abe Rosenfield Elinor Fredston Robert S. Schoenberger Wallace Irwin Jr. Shirley W. Tolley Mary Anne Johnson Joseph F. Vandernoot Arthur Katz Robert E. White James Killilea Leo Wilson Others present: Paul H. Kean, Liaison Trustee, Village of Larchmont Lawrence Lerman, Liaison Councilman, Town of Mamaroneck 111, Daniel Shuster, Consultant 4.14 1. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. The minutes of the preceding meeting (May 21) were approved without change. • 2. Recent developments. The Committee noted with satisfaction the important milestone passed by the Village of Mamaroneck oh June 21 when its LWRP was officially approved and signed by Secretary of State Gail Shaffer in a ceremony in the Village Hall, bringing the program legally into effect--the first Local Waterfront Revitaliza- tion Program to go into effect in the State of New York. Mr. Shuster was congratulated on his recent appointment as con- sultant to the joint Town of Mamaroneck—Village of Larchmont planning group. 3. Contacts with New Rochelle. Mr. Irwin reported on recent con- tacts with John Heller, head of the Development Department in the City of New Rochelle, and Louise Leaf, planning officer in the same department, concerning the Pryer Manor Marsh and, more broadly, intermunicipal cooperation in coastal zone planning as New Rochelle' s LWRP drafting process moves along. In a meeting with Mr. Heller and Ms. Leaf on May 24, initiated by Town Super- visor Dolores Battalia who was accompanied by Mr. Irwin and Mrs. Phyllis Wittner, the main topic was preservation of the Pryer Manor Marsh through some cooperative arrangement between New Ro- chelle, within whose borders the marsh lies, and the Town. Con- - 2 - tacts on this matter are continuing between Mrs. Battalia and Mr. Heller, and the Committee will be kept informed. 111 It was noted that a number of other matters affecting the coastal zone require discussion and cooperation between Larch- mont-Mamaroneck and New Rochelle. These include development • projects in the New Rochelle portions of the Sheldrake and Pine Brook watersheds; the David' s Island project (see April 29 and May 21 minutes) ; delineation of the Coastal Zone Boundary in the area of the Larchmont Reservoir; and the need to obtain the cooperation of neighboring municipalities, including New Rochelle, in the implementation of several key provisions of the Larchmont-Mamaroneck LWRP. As one means of furthering such discussion and cooperation, it was agreed that the Committee should obtain advance notice of the public meetings to be held by New Rochelle as part of its LWRP process, and should be represented at them. 4. Progress and next steps on the LWRP. Members of the Committee, as well as the Town and Village Boards and Attorneys, had received in advance of the meeting a 4-page memorandum by Mr. Irwin dated July 22 on the current status of the LWRP and next steps toward its completion.* The memo dealt with comments on the May 23 draft just received from Charles McCaffrey in Albany; the boundary question, especially as regards New Rochelle; the "lead agency" and other procedural questions relating to the required SEQR hearings on the LWRP; legislation that must be enacted locally 411� before the LWRP can go into effect; and a preliminary timetable of steps that remain to be taken. In regard to the timetable, Mr. Irwin said he had been too optimistic in his memo, which had been written before studying a paper newly received from Mr. McCaffrey entitled "Procedures for Review and Approval of a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program."* He estimated, and Mr. Shuster agreed, that completion of the 25 procedural steps laid down in that paper, leading to final approval and entry into force of the LWRP, is unlikely before the early months of 1986 at best. It was noted that the revisions called for by Mr. McCaffrey are minor and primarily technical, but they must be made before the draft LWRP can be printed prior to the SEQR hearings. Their limited nature was stressed by Mr. McCaffrey in his covering letter of July 12, which said that the program "is in very good shape, particularly with regard to flooding, erosion, sedimentation, water quality, and habitats which are the most important elements in your program. " The Committee authorized the Co-Chairmen to arrange for com- pletion of the requested revisions as soon as possible, consul- ting as necessary with other Committee members and with Mr. Shuster. Time must be allowed for review of the revisions by the two municipal Boards and the Department of State. The re- vised draft will then be printed and circulated, hopefully by the week after Labor Day, so that the required 60-day local (SEQR) and State-Federal review process can begin in September. *See footnote on page 4 - 3 - 5. SEQR procedure: the Lead Agency problem. The Committee discussed this question at length. The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) provides that one of the "involved agencies" in a project subject to environmental review shall serve as lead agency, con- ducting hearings and issuing findings on the environmental impact of the project. In our case the involved agencies (those having responsibility for carrying out the project) are the two municipal Boards and the Department of State. If the involved agencies cannot agree on which should be lead agency, the State Commissioner of Environmental Conservation must, at their request, appoint the lead agency. The framers of the law evidently did not contemplate, and the law makes no explicit provision for, a case such as ours in which two municipalities are co-equals in the same project and may wish to function jointly as lead agency. In this situation Town Attorney Steve Silverberg has been con- sulting with Village Attorney Jim Staudt and with the legal staff in the Department of State with a view to working out a joint re- commendation by the two Attorneys to both municipal Boards on how to deal with this matter. Various options were discussed by the Committee and different views expressed, but no attempt was made to reach a consensus. Mr. Irwin and Mrs. Tolley, as well as Mr. Kean and Dr. Lerman, are in tou ch with the Attorneys, whose recommendation is expected before the middle of August. 6. Required legislation. It was noted that the Attorneys have again been reminded of the need to draft the three items of legislation which Mr. McCaffrey has advised us must be enacted by the Town and Village before the LWRP can receive final approval. These are (1) local consistency and management structure; (2) de- signation of Critical Environmental Areas; and (3) erosion and sediment control law. In addition, it was suggested that the important amendments for stormwater control and open space preservation (Section V-A-2-b of the draft LWRP, May 23. text) should be given drafting priority so that the two Boards can have the draft legislation in hand when considering this 'key aspect of the LWRP. Drafts of these legislative items should be provided to the two municipal Boards as soon as possible to facilitate their con- sideration of the draft LWRP. 7. Public information. It was agreed that public information efforts on the revised LWRP should be concentrated in the weeks preceding the SEQR hearings, which may take place as soon as late September or early October. Mr. Irwin reported having spoken on the LWRP to the Larchmont Rotary on July 12. He suggested that Committee members take advantage of opportunities to explain the program to other local groups. It was agreed that the Committee should issue in September a revised and updated version of the "Overview" paper distributed last November and should look into having information about the LWRP included in the Town' s 325th anniversary celebration this fall and also in the reports being produced for the "Westchester 2000" project. Mr. Irwin will follow up these ideas. 8. Next meeting. It was agreed that the Committee will meet at - 4 - the call of the Chair, with a meeting to be scheduled in August only if necessary. A meeting of the Committee of Committees may also be held in August if necessary. 8. Adjournment. There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 9: 50 p.m. Wallace Irwin Jr. . *The papers described are on file with the Town Clerk and the Village Clerk. Copies may be obtained from them or from Mr. Irwin. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 4 MIN/ Nov RE4ErVEQ all 22 1985 a®RCmyS.MLE} Henry G.Williams Commissioner A.Y. P1114""\- June 28 , 1985 DEPARTMENT OF STATE COASTAL PROCRr... Mr. Charles McCaffrey JUL 2 V" r Coastal Management Program Department of State RECEIVED 162 Washington Avenue, 4th floor Albany, New York 12231 RE: Village of Larchmont and Town of Mamaroneck Tasks 1-9 Draft Joint LWRP Dear Mr. McCaffrey: Staff of the Department of Environmental Conservation have completed their quick review of the Tasks 1-9 draft of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program produced jointly by the Village and Town. It is evident that quite a few changes were made and that useful information was added to the original Tasks 1-5 draft in the process of drafting the other four task sections . However, we are concerned that comments that we provided following our review last fall were ignored in the course of the revision process , and these are reiterated below. Unfortunately, the revision also was not done as carefully as necessary, and important references throughout the document are to incorrect page numbers , section or paragraph designations, and map numbers , which makes the references unusable. This recent opportunity to review the revised draft also presented additional aspects on which we have comments and suggestions, and they also are provided below. As indicated above, we are concerned that some of our comments on the earlier draft that were contained in my memorandum of November 14 , 1984 to you are not reflected in the current draft, even though the receipt of that memorandum is acknowledged on page 102 of the draft. These include our comments on wetlands resources , cultural resources , and the need for a positive declaration, as follows . Wetlands Resources: Our original comments requested a more detailed description of the location of tidal wetland areas, preferably using a map at a larger scale than the existing "Map 5" , which is difficult to read and not very useful for delineating the areas . We reiterate our desire to see such a map included. As we also suggested in our previous comments , we feel that the LWRP should provide a clearer representation of the freshwater wetlands resource in the Village and Town. Although • this Department has not yet filed a final freshwater wetlands map covering Westchester County that would show the wetlands protected under ECL Article 24 ( the "Freshwater Wetlands Act" ) , information on the resource in the Village and Town would be available from our regional office in New Paltz . Any smaller wetlands under municipal protection also should be addressed, and all of this information also should be included on a map. Cultural Resources : In spite of our recommendation in our original comments , there is no indication that the State Historic Preservation Officer ( SHPO) has been contacted concerning archaeological and historic sites in the program area or concerning compliance with Federal and State historic preservation laws. This consultation should occur and be reflected in future LWRP revisions . Positive Declaration: It appears that the Village and Town have ignored the SEQR requirement in 6 NYCRR 617 . 10 (c ) of filing a "Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS" . This should be done as soon as possible. Our additional comments on the current revised and amended draft continue in brief below. Section I . Waterfront Revitalization Boundary As expressed in review comments from our regional staff , with which I concur, " ( t)he proposal to expand the coastal zone boundary to include all areas within the Town and Village municipal boundaries appears reasonable and would serve as a management tool to ensure that all activities within this area are consistent with the LWRP. The proposed intermunicipal arrangement is to be commended for its cooperative effort . " One anomaly concerning the proposed revision' s additional . ' ` coastal area, however , is that the LWRP generally ignores the northeast corner of the Town beyond the Winged Foot Golf Club, even to the extent of leaving a portion of it off of most of the maps in the LWRP. This area should be better addressed , throughout the document as appropriate, or else the reasons for its exclusion should be clearly set out and referred to in other parts of the LWRP as needed. Section II . Inventory and Analysis Premium Point Beach: A brief discussion on page 24 of the LWRP indicates the importance of Premium Point Beach as a natural protective barrier . As such, we will recommend to the Federal 3 t�!` Department of the Interior that it be considered for protection under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. (Note: This Federal legislation should probably be reflected in the list in Section VI . ) Sewage Problems: The LWRP devotes substantial discussion throughout to the serious sewage problems experienced in both the Village and the Town. The many illegal connections will be difficult to correct, but it is encouraging to see that both municipalities will be pursuing compliance. Unfortunately, the "Infiltration/Inflow" correction project is below the funding line on the statewide priority ranking system and so would not -H. :— receive Federal funding in the foreseeable future. This would mean that the financing for repairing the municipal system may r., have to be provided entirely at the local level. Regarding the upgrading of the Mamaroneck Publicly Owned Treatment Works in the Village of Mamaroneck referenced on pages 31-32 , the regulations published on June 3 concerning the percent of removal required may indeed permit less than the currently- defined "full" secondary treatment. A meeting has been scheduled with Westchester County for July 3 to discuss the effect of the regulations on this project. Section III . Local and State Policies Policy 7 : The LWRP proposes three habitat complexes for "significant habitat" designation that have not previously been nominated for evaluation. Therefore, their statewide or county- wide level of significance , based on their quality and relative size, etc. , is uncertain at this point; the Hommocks Complex, for example, is probably too small. The next step for the municipalities to take in pursuing the designations should be to contact Mr. (Bryan Swift of our Significant Habitat Unit. His address is: Wildlife Resources Center, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Delmar , New York 12054 , and his telephone number is 518-439-0197 . Mr. Swift would be happy to discuss the proposals . Whether or not the three complexes would qualify as "significant habitats" , however, we strongly support the approach of designating them as "locally important habitats" under Policy • 7A and as "critical areas of environmental concern" under each local "State Environmental Quality Review Law" . Please note that the local CEA designations should follow the notification provision of the State regulations ( 6 -NYCRR 617 . 4 (k) ) . Policy 8 : The local initiatives to support this policy, as described in the LWRP, are commendable. 4 Policy 9 : We are concerned that the LWRP policy explanation tC ` . ,;•+�. as written may be in conflict with the goals of this State tit c- ;.... Policy. As indicated by DEC ' s Regional Fisheries Unit, it is vc, `l , I , understandable that hunting wou- d-be precluded in densely ' r , .� inhabited areas , but the reason for not permitting shore-based fishing on public property is not at all clear. In this regard, ' , it also is unclear how this prohibition would allow for the -; fishing "potential" described on page 9 of the LWRP. If the 4,:,-.. ..,.';t.,.' issue is habitat "fragility" , the non-consumptive uses mentioned can be at least as disruptive of wildlife as fishing would be. If, on the other hand, the municipalities fear that the fishery resource is limited significantly, our regional office is not aware of such a limitation. Further clarification and information on these points should be provided in the LWRP. The information from Section V.B. 8 . on page 88 also should be included in expanded form in the policy explanation. Policy 16 : The reason given for determining this policy to ' be "not applicable" is confusing, given that the same term ( "erosion protection structures" ) is used in applicable Policies 13 and 14 , where the explanations indicate that structures to �` Ik.t provide "long-term protection" either exist already or are 4 .-- planned. Instead, the applicability of Policy 16 should be e,. addressed more directly in terms of the focus and intent of that Sa,0 • policy by discussing the issue of public benefit versus public s. cost for the structures. If public funds would not be used, that:_.-- .� ; .. ,, should be stated. ,,',, ,".,f ft Policy 23 : Beyond the problem of insufficient information discussed earlier in our comments , the map referenced on page 55-- ai, in this policy explanation is not included. Policy 34 : If this has not already been done , it might be �.,< .? useful for the municipalities to consider instituting an T Pt "` information program at the marinas regarding the illegality of , dumping sewage and waste and where such material can be dumped 1. safely. Also, the policy explanation makes reference to 1.i "applicable. . . local laws" , and these should be indicated in Section V. - `' r t .= Policy 36 : DEC has proposed petroleum bulk storage ,,,s regulations ( 6 NYCRR Parts 610 , 612 , 613 , and 614 ) that might be applicable in the future to problems of oil and gasoline spillage and leakage indicated in the LWRP. These problems have been observed by our Regional Fisheries Unit, particularly along the Sheldrake. %. Policy 44 : Contrary to the information provided in the explanation, Map 5 does not indicate freshwater wetlands or the Town conservation areas . As expressed earlier in our comments , it also does not show tidal wetlands adequately. 5 Policy 44A: Once again the LWRP is presenting commendable local initiatives . Section IV. Proposed Uses and Projects The projects proposed in this section are well thought-out 1 _( and sensitively present ways of dealing with the problems presented in other parts of the LWRP. Important additional !\ ,' ' aspects and components of the projects that should be included in this section are found in the discussions in the Section IX preliminary Draft EIS, such as those under "Impact" and "Mitigation" in the discussion of "Water Resources" . Similar information having a bearing on how the projects will be carried w'.� J out or on what aspects of the projects could affect important resources should be included throughout Section IV. Section V. Techniques for Local Implementation Freshwater Wetlands Laws: In the absence of information to the contrary, the laws described on page 82 in this section are assumed to be those that were adopted and sent to DEC in 1976 . A quick review of both of them indicates that they are essentially identical to each other but very different from the State Freshwater Wetlands Act (ECL Article 24 ) , including in their definition of "wetlands" and their "controlled areas" . For example, "wetlands" down to 1/4 acre in size are protected. However , Policies 7 and 44 speak of only one freshwater wetland complex in the coastal area, with Policy 44 indicating that the municipalities " . . .will also consider designating additional freshwater wetlands meriting protection. " No map is provided, and there is no further information offered to explain where those other potentially protectable wetlands are and why they are not protected already, if they are larger than 1/4 acre. Both laws were declared to have been effective immediately, so they are not dependent upon DEC ' s filing of a final map under Article 24 and presumably have been implemented ever since 1976 . However , because they are so different from the State law and regulations, it is unlikely that in their present form they could incorporate DEC ' s Article 24 jurisdiction once that final map is filed. In addition, there are DEC regulations that are not i i reflected in the local laws , including regulations governing how local governments can assume that Article 24 authority. If the a 02 ," Village and Town wish to pursue incorporating Article 24 2 •\ jurisdiction into their local laws , they should contact Ms . y + t� Patricia Riexinger in DEC ' s Division of Fish and Wildlife here at �_� ° k 50 Wolf Road (telephone: 518-457-5691 ) for additional `., information. One final observation about the two laws is that although they were not reviewed in any depth during this LWRP review, one aspect of each of them was identified that may need 6 clarification. They each appear to rely on ECL Article 71 , rather than on their own local police powers , for their enforcement and handling of violations . However, because they do not receive their authority from Article 24 , it may be unlikely that the Attorney General would enforce these local laws. Therefore, the r p ovisionsfor -SoCar"enforcement should be evaluated. This , and the other questions raised concerning these laws, should be resolved and addressed, as appropriate, in the LWRP. Flood Damage Prevention Laws: The last sentence in the Village paragraph is somewhat incorrect and should be modified. All structures in the community are entitled to Federal flood insurance , but new structures in mapped, special flood hazard areas , zone A & V, must be built in accordance with floodplain regulations. Otherwise, they are ineligible for flood insurance or, if they are granted a variance, pay rates commensurate with the risk if they are below identified 100-year flood elevations . Under the Town paragraph, there are only two floodways shown on the Federal floodplain map, not "seven" as cited in the text. This should be corrected. The Town may also wish to reference the Federal floodplain maps of 1979 and mention that the regulations apply only to construction and development activities within special flood hazard areas . Again, flood insurance is available to all residents , but it is required for Federally- backed mortgages in the 100-year floodplain. The LWRP Policies Matrix: The matrix on pages 97-99 is an excellent idea and should be very helpful in the future use of the LWRP. Small points : Policy 33A is not included, and the reference to "passion" under Policy 33 is rather unexpected. Section VI . Federal and State Programs Part A: The DEC actions and programs that should be consistent with the LWRP are not necessarily listed under the appropriate DEC division, and there are other mistakes and typographical errors . Further information on the distribution of these responsibilities is available as needed from DEC' s Regional Permit Administrator, Ralph Manna, in the Region 3 office in New Paltz . Part B: The section on pages 100 . 18 and 100 . 19 should be modified to acknowledge clearly that the actions and projects under the LWRP, itself , could require various permits and approvals , such as those listed under item a. ( 2 ) . A Section 401 Water Quality Certification probably also would be needed. 7 Section IX. Preliminary Draft EIS The preliminary Draft EIS appears to do a good job of addressing the issues and potential impacts presented by an LWRP that is clearly focused on producing beneficial environmental impacts. Both the Draft EIS and the LWRP also present the very important information that impacts of actions in the coastal area that are not sufficiently addressed, or cannot be sufficiently addressed within the scope of the LWRP and its generic EIS, will have to be evaluated in future project-specific SEQR determinations (and EIS' s, where necessary) by the respective lead agency. A discordant note encountered in reviewing the preliminary Draft EIS, however , is that in many places in the "Description of the Proposed Action" , the age numbers)provided obviously refer to the earlier draft of the LWRP The preparers of the LWRP should make certain that the Draft EIS is revised to reflect any new issues and potential impacts that are raised by the LWRP revisions . Also, items that are missing from the preliminary draft include a cover sheet and an indication in the "Summary" of controversial issues , if there are any. Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft LWRP. I hope that our comments and suggestions will be useful. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours , Barbara Haines Environmental Review Coordinator BH/mk • RECEIVED k ` 1985 ULft 2L y ® DOROTHY S.MILLER ` t � TOWN CLERK �.- MAMARONECK N.Y. STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE ALBANY. N.Y. 12231 GA,L S.SHAFFER SECRETARY OF STATE - - July 12, 1985 Wallace Irwin Co-Chairperson Coastal Zone Management Committee 1 Summit Avenue Larchmont, NY 10538 Dear Wally: Enclosed are the DOS and DEC comments on the preliminary draft of the Larchmont/Mamaroneck Waterfront Revitalization Program. I have also enclosed a description of the process for moving from this point to an approved LWRP. 0 My comments are of two kinds. One is a general comment which need not be addressed now but can be accommodated in the final LWRP. I will work with you and the committee in doing that final editing. The other more limited and specific comments can, for the most part, be accommodated in the Draft LWRP. With regard to the DEC comments please call me after you have reviewed them. We can then discuss the manner and extent of the response to these comments. In general the Larchmont/Mamaroneck program is in very good shape, particularly with regard to flooding, erosion, sedimentation, water quality, and habitats which are the most important elements of your program. Sincerely, Charles T. McCaffrey Coastal Resources Specialist CTM:at Enclosure. DOS Comments on Preliminary Draft of Larchmont/Mamaroneck LWRP General Comment While the general level of detail and specifically contained in the policies is high and clearly conveys the village and town intentions, the policy explanations need to be edited to more clearly distinguish between policy explanation and policy implementation and to enable the program to serve as a complete substitute for the State Coastal Management Program. The purpose of the policy explanation is to define what a governmental agency (Federal, State, or local) must consider in reaching a decision to undertake, fund, or permit any activity in coastal areas. Its purpose is not to state how or what the local government will do to implement the policy - that is set forth in part five. In setting forth what a governmental agency must consider (the guidelines, standards, locations of applicability of policy, etc.) any guidelines from the explanation of policies found in the State Coastal Management Program should be re- flected in the policy explanation of the local program unless they are not relevant to local circumstances or they are dealt with by similiar or more specific local guidelines. This is necessary because once a local program is approved by the SOS, only the local program applies, the State CMP is effectively replaced by that LWRP. Specific Comments 1. Boundary - New Rochelle will have to concur to the incorporation of land within its corporate limits. - Have not found any evidence yet that town boundary extends into Sound. Assume that it doesn't. DOS will continue to investigate. - the Larchmont/Mamaroneck LWRP will apply to town actions in the village of Mamaroneck. 2. Inventory and Analysis - p. 30, harbor security. What role does the county play in re- gulating and policing the harbor? - p. 36, historic resources. Are any buildings on the National or State register or been designated by either local government? Recognition by DAR not a basis for official protection. - 2 - 3. Policies Policy 7. Include in explanation a statement that any activities which would cause the impacts cited and adversely affect the preservation or restora- tion of the habitats would be inconsistent with the policy. Policy 10A. If water quality is improved so as to allow shellfishing how would access be gained. Dis- cuss here or under policy 19. Policy 11. This policy applies to floodways, coastal high hazard areas and erosion hazard areas designated pursuant to Art. 34 of the Environmental Con- servation Law. It is unlikely any areas will be designated in Larchmont or Mamaroneck as erosion hazard areas. Indicate if any areas have been identified as coastal high hazard areas under the Flood Insurance Program. If yes, show these and floodways on a map in the inventory and reference in policy explanation. Policy 17. The meaning of last sentence of the explanation is not clear. Policy 23. List only sites or buildings designated, or likely to be designated, by a governmental agency as of the submission of the Final LWRP. Policy 31. To what classification should Premium Marsh be raised. Policy 32 Please explain the difference between "will be en- and 32A. couraged" in 32 and "will be required" in 32A. These seem to refer to the same situation. Policy 34. The village and town have the option of establishing certain vessel regulations within 1500 feet of shore. Policy 37. Will not the proposed Erosion and Sediment Control Law require best management practices as described in 14A? Policy 39A. This policy statement is too vague and is more a means of implementing Policies 39 and 37 than it is a separate policy. 4. Land Use and Projects - 2. Post Road Locations - It is not clear what this discussion amounts to. - 3 - 5. Implementation The local SEQR laws of both the town and village state that the planning board/commission shall make the determination as to whether an EIS shall be prepared. Section 8-111 (6) of the Environmental Conservation Law requires that the lead agency make that determination. Atie • if RECEIVED • L alORO 22 1985 New York State Department of State DOROTHYS.M! LE�i Coastal Management Program TOWN CLERK MAMARONECK N.Y. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A �:;.\ LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM A Local Waterfront Revitalization Program is an official document with provisions that are binding on numerous local, State, and Federal agencies for a broad range of activities. Therefore, it is necessary and appropriate to have a thorough process of local, State, and Federal review prior to local adoption and DOS approval. A LWRP is reviewed formally under three separate processes required by (1) the State Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (WRCRA) , (2) the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) , and (3) the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) . DOS is primarily responsible for the review of the LWRP under the State WRCRA and the Federal CZMA. The municipality, as designated lead agency, is primarily responsible for the SEQRA review process. While these are separate review processes, the procedures described below provide for coordinating the three processes as closely as possible. In addition, the municipality should coordinate these procedures with required procedures for adoption of any implementing local laws identified in the LWRP. A LWRP is formally approved by the Secretary of State under the 0 provisions of the WRCRA. In approving a LWRP, the Secretary must find that the LWRP: (1) complies with the requirements of the WRCRA, (2) is consistent with the State Coastal Policies, and (3) does not conflict with any applicable State or Federal policies. For Federal purposes, a LWRP is usually considered a "Routine Program Implementation" (RPI) of the State Coastal Management Program, as provided by the CZMA implementing regulations. As a PPI, the approval of the LWRP is not subject to environment review under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) , since these requirements were satisfied by the State program. In extremely rare instances, a LWRP might constitute an amendment to the State program of sufficient magnitude to require environment review under NEPA and some alteration of the normal LWRP review and approval procedures. Unless otherwise informed by DOS, the municipality should assume that its LWRP will be treated as a RPI. The review and approval procedures are described below according to five major phases in the preparation and approval of a LWRP: 1. Preparation of the Draft LWRP and Draft EIS 2. Review of the Draft LWRP and Draft EIS 3. Preparation of the the Final EIS 4. Preparation and Submission of the "Final" LWRP S. Approval (or Disapproval) of the LWRP r J PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALT7.ATION PROGRAM Who Does What When • Preparation of the Draft LWRP and Draft EIS (DLWRP-EIS) 1. Municipality Submits initial drafts of Tasks 1-5 products According to grant to DOS for comment. agreement schedule. 2. DOS Provides comments on above products. DOS will advise munici- pality of date comments will be provided. 3. Municipality Initiates SEQR process by sending letter to DOS Upon completion of requesting agreement on designation of the local Tasks 1-5 products. legislative body as lead agency. Only DOS needs to be notified and no EAF is required. 4. DOS Responds in writing, concurring with designation Within 30 days of of local legisalture as lead agency. receipt of letter. 5. Municipality Issues a Positive Declaration of Significance Within 15 days of lead and Notice of Intent to Prepare a DEIS, in agency designation. accordance with SEQR regulations. 6. Municipality Submits revised Tasks 1-5 products and Tasks According to grant Tasks 6-9 products (preliminary draft LWRP-EIS) agreement schedule. 7. DOS Provides comments on above products. DOS will advise munici- DOS may request that one copy of the DLWRP-DEIS palit-y of date comments be submitted before the municipality has the will be provided. DLWRP-DEIS printed to ensure that comments have been adequately accommodated. 8. Municipality Prepares "final" DLWRP-EIS documents, accommodating DOS and any local or other comments. 9. Local Legislature Passes resolution authorizing submission of the DLWRP to the Secretary of State for review under the WRCRA. 10. Municipality Submits 50 copies of DLWRP-EIS, including resol- According to grant ution and transmittal letter of chief elected agreement schedule. official. PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM -- continued Who Does What When Review of the Draft LWRP and Draft EIS (DLWRP-EIS) 11. Secretary of State Notifies municipality by letter of acceptance of Within 10 days of (SOS) the DLWRP-EIS for review and of the date on which receiving the 50 copies municipality is to issue 'MU Notice of Completion of the DLWRP-EIS. of DEIS, so that the SEQR, State and Federal re- views can proceed according to same timetable. 12. Municipality Issues Notice of Completion of DEIS and Notice of On date specified in of Hearing, in accordance with SEQR regulations. above letter. The DEIS review period must be set for a minimum of 60 days (to coincide with the required review period for a LWRP under DOS regulation) . A public hearing is optional under SEQR, but is strongly recommended by DOS. 13. DOS Initiates the 60-day WRCRA review of the LWRP and On same date as above. the Federal Routine Program Implementation process. Copies of the DLWRP-EIS are distributed to all potentially affected State and Federal agencies, the county government, adjacent coastal munici- palities, and regional planning board (if any) . Notice of RPI is published in State Register and Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) . 14. Municipality Holds public hearing, in accordance with SEQR For 60 day SEQR review regulations. period, hearing must be held between 15th and 50th day. Preparation of the Final EIS 15. Municipality Meet to discuss how comments received from above At close of review and DOS reviews arc to be accommodated. (Note: Comments period. orginating from SEQR review will be sent to the municipality; comments orginating from the WRCRA and RPI processes will be sent to DOS. All of the comments received, however, will be addressed • in the FEIS.) 16. Municipality Prepares FEIS and files Notice of Completion, in Within 45 days of close accordance with SEQR regulations. (Note: the FEIS of review period, unless consists of the DLWRP-EIS with a written summary extended for good cause. of the comments received and the responses to those comments attached.) • • • 7 6-t.w. a ( VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT TO'IN OF MAMARONECK Ft L& COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE . . _- th W -4 C"t sr - WI -PC • N.Y. 411 22 0 10113VX t66F'• u c E� Mamaroneck. NY 10543 �larchmont, NY 10538 ,�oao July 22, 1985 MEMORANDUM TO: Supervisor Battalia and Town Council Members Mayor Curnin and Village Trustees Coastal Zone Management Committee Members Attorneys Silverberg and Staudt FROM: Wallace Irwin Jr. SUBJECT: Draft LWRP: Current status and next steps This memo will bring you up to date on late developments con- cerning the draft LWRP, which has entered a new active phase with the receipt of Albany' s comments on our May 23 draft. A meeting E of the CZMC has been set for Tuesday evening, July 23 to review these developments and to consider next steps leading toward final approval of the Program (see Item 5 at end of this memo) . Five topics are discussed in this memo: (1) the status of the draft LWRP; (2) our Coastal Zone Boundary, especially as this in- volves New Rochelle; (3) procedure and timetable for SEQR hearings on the LWRP draft; (4) legislation to be enacted by the two muni- cipal governments as a prerequisite for State approval of the LWRP; and (5) remaining steps and/or questions to be decided. 1. Status of the draft LWRP. The written comments of the Departments of State and Environmental Conservation on our May 23 draft were received in the mail last Thursday. On Friday I discussed them at length on the phone with our Department of State (DOS) contact, Charles McCaffrey. His instructions,as I construe them both from the written comments and our telephone discussion, call for revisions in two stages: (1) We are asked to make, or in some cases to consider, a number of technical or clarifying changes before printing the draft LWRP and holding SEQR hearings on it. It should be possible to get the necessary changes made and the printing done in plenty of time for distribution of copies in advance of the SEQR hearings (see item 3 below) . (2) As part of the final round of revisions following the SEQR hearings and State and Federal agency review, DOS is asking us --and Charles McCaffrey will help us do this--to transplant some of the material in the "explanations of policy" here and there in Section III, material which he regards as essentially "implementa- tion" language rather than policy language, from Section III to - 2 - Section V; also, to include in Section III some of the language in the State' s own "explanations of policy" (the "blue book, " section 110 II-6) which we omitted but which he considers relevant to our local situation. This is necessary, he points out, because when our LWRP is adopted it automatically becomes the substitute for State coastal policy in our area and must therefore include all aspects of the State' s established coastal policies that are locally relevant. This phase of the revision process will probably take a day or two but I don' t see why it should create any serious problems for us. The Committee will of course consult with the municipal attorneys and/or the two Boards on any difficult questions that may arise in this connection, but I don' t expect any. In any case, the final document embodying the resulting changes will go before both Boards for their adoption. 2. The Coastal Zone Boundary. The Department of State comments that "New Rochelle will have to concur" in our inclusion of the New Rochelle portion of the Larchmont Reservoir Conservancy in our Coastal Zone Boundary proposal. My best information is that New Rochelle is unlikely to concur, and that DOS is unlikely to urge them to do so. Until this question is cleared up I gather there will be no written reply to the Battalia-Curnin letter of May 23 to the Secre- tary of State formally requesting approval of our boundary pro- posal. However, the Department of State has no problem with the other aspects of our inland boundary proposal, which except for the Reservoir follows the Town boundary line omitting the Village of Mamaroneck. As to the seaward boundary, which DOS requires be established and mapped in the LWRP, Charles McCaffrey himself has been researching it but Albany' s archives apparently don' t answer the question, so he plans to check with the County author- ' ities in White Plains. The practical effect of the seaward boundary on matters dealt with in the LWRP is not clear to me, but McCaffrey thinks it might affect Town and/or County police powers beyond the high water mark, a matter which might bear at least slightly on recreation and anti-pollution efforts offshore. The Reservoir aspect of our boundary proposal may not really be a serious matter. Our purpose in proposing to include the entire Reservoir property was to further assure the authority of the Village and Town to use the Reservoir in implementing our Coastal policies on flooding, erosion and siltation in the Sheldrake watershed, as well as on wildlife protection and promotion of recreation and historical and scenic values. It is certainly to be hoped--whatever happens on the boundary question--that New Rochelle, which is currently drafting its own LWRP, will find ways to provide in that document for control of flooding, siltation, and other forms of pollution in the Sheldrake and Pine Brook watersheds, both of which enter and strongly affect our coastal zone. This point will receive appropriate stress in our continuing contacts with the LWRP planners in New Rochelle. But as for the Reservoir Conservancy itself, even if the New Rochelle portion of it is not in our coastal boundary (nor, for that matter, in New Rochelle' s) , there are many signs that New Rochelle intends to cooperate with and support the uses of the Reservoir contemplated by the Village, the Town, and the Friends of the Reservoir and written into our LWRP. - 3 - 3. SEQR Hearings on the LWRP. A Draft Environmental Impact State- ment (DEIS) is included in the LWRP as Section IX. Hearings on it-- • and, in effect, on the LWRP itself--must be help pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) law. Both the procedure and the timetable for these hearings remain to be decided. As to procedure, it seems that legal precedents are scarce re- garding the way to handle hearings on a plan produced by two muni- cipalities acting jointly. The main question is whether both muni- cipalities can serve in some way as joint lead agencies, or whether the law requires a single lead agency. Town Attorney Steve Silver- berg has had one discussion with Kevin Crawford, the staff lawyer in DOS whom Secretary Shaffer has assigned to this matter. Preli- minary impressions are that the joint agency approach would be vulnerable to legal challenge and that a single lead agency is therefore advisable. But who should serve in that capacity? Shirley Talley and I met with Attorney Silverberg on Friday, July 12, to discuss this and other LWRP matters. We agreed that Steve will pursue his contact with Mr. Crawford, and will confer with Village Attorney Jim Staudt, with a view to their jointly recommending to the two Boards and the Committee a procedure re- garding the lead agency, and the manner of conducting the SEQR hearings, that will be legally sound and appropriate to our local situation. As to the timetable for the hearings, all of us at the July discussion felt it would be ideal if the Town Board and the Village Board could both hold their hearings as soon after Labor 111 Day as is consistent with the requirements concerning advance notice, etc. This would probably place the hearings close to the last week in September or the beginning of October. Adherence to this timetable, of course, depends on resolution of the lead agency question discussed above. 4. Accompanying legislation. Some months ago, it will be recalled, Charles McCaffrey informed us through Dan Shuster that final appro- val of the LWRP in Albany will depend, among other things, on enactment by the two municipal governments of three items of legis- lation chosen from our legislative agenda in Section V-A-2 of the draft LWRP. The three items are: (a) A law requiring "local consistency" (all agencies of the two local governments to act consistently with the LWRP) and creating the management structure, including a Coastal Zone Management Commission, described in Section V-C of the draft LWRP. (b) A law designating the Premium and Hommocks areas and the Reservoir-Sheldrake area as "Critical Enviromental Areas" (CEAs) entitled to protection under thge SEQR law. (c) An erosion and sediment control law based on the "Best Management Practices" guidelines issued by Westchester County. • In addition to these three items, adoption of the LWRP will entail a commitment to enact in due course the remaining items in our Section V-B legislative list, including the important zoning changes and a historic preservation law. These remaining - 4 - items have not been listed as prerequisites to State approval of the LWRP. However, to meet Albany' s comment on Policy 23 (historic preservation) it may be advisable to add our proposed historic preservation law to the priority list, making a total of four items. The drafting of these three or four priority local laws ought to be completed, to meet our LWRP timetable, during August. This will leave time for the drafts to be studied by the two municipal governments, and by the Committee, prior to public hearings and adoption, so that any necessary changes can be made at that stage. I assume that the normal public hearing procedure will apply, and that hearings will be held separately from the hearings on the LWRP itself. It would seem logical for hearings and enactment of these legislative items to follow soon after the SEQR hearings so that the public will already be familiar with the LWRP context of the legislation. If this sequence is followed, the legislation could be adopted late in October or early in November, clearing the way for final approval of the LWRP by Secretary of State Shaffer before the end of 1985. 5. Remaining steps to be taken. Based on the foregoing, the main steps that remain to be taken are shown below with tentative dead- lines suggested for each. Most items relate to completion of the LWRP itself, but two items, marked L below, relate to accompanying legislation. This list will be considered and refined by the Committee at its July 23 meeting. (1) Decision on lead agency and SEQR procedure: recommendations by municipal Attorneys Aug. 1 (2) Minor revisions in draft LWRP to meet Albany comments Aug. 1 (3) Printing and distribution of the draft LWRP, thus revised Aug. 20 L (4) Drafting of 3 or 4 items of local legislation which are prerequisites to final LWRP approval Aug. 27 (5) Lead agency declaration and other required steps culminating in SEQR hearings Sept. 9 to Oct. 2 (6) Solution of coastal zone boundary question involving New Rochelle Oct. 1 (7) Final revision of LWRP following SEQR hearings and agency review Oct. 15 L (8) Enactment by both municipal Boards of "prerequisite" legislation Oct. 30 (9) Adoption of the LWRP by both Boards, clearing the way for approval by Secretary of State Oct. 30 cc. Charles T. McCaffrey, Jr. , DOS