Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_03_12 Coastal Zone Management Commission Minutes VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT TOWN OF MAMYIARONECK • COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - Og 'Sig .� II '� =-' ,= a - 0 _ ;ram`., O. - -,. - 1891 CI 7C N.-1-......----'' r�8aeeaes i6c- iLarchmont, NY 10538 Mamaroneck, NY 10543 t MINUTES MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Coi•uaittee , '`'�� 14 18 nog Village Center, Larchmont, March 12 , 1985 ro°wni s•kV,, MAA4ARpiP'R N.Y, Ey ' Members Present: Bruce Allen Lawrence Lowy June Allen C. Alan Mason -;_i_ i; , „r- : - Elinor Fredston Abe Rosenfield '.aallace Irwin Jr. Robert S. Schoenberger Mary Anne Johnson Shirley W. Tolley Arthur Katz Joseph F. Vandernoot Cthers Present: Paul H. Kean, Liaison Trustee, Village of Larchmont Daniel Shuster, Consultant • - 1. The meeting was called to order at 8: 10 p.m. , Mr. Irwin in the III chair. The minutes of the February 19 meeting were approved - without change . 2 . Berrinaer property_ - Dr. Mason briefed the \Committee on the Town Planning Board pro- ceedings, which he has followed closely as CAC Chairman,. on the application for a building permit on the Berringer property lying- between the two inland gold courses. This is one of the properties dealt with in Policy 14 and Section IV, Land Use, in the draft II,lRP. Dr. Mason said the Planning Board has received conflicting technical views from different sources as to whether or not, and to what extent, the development as proposed would adversely affect the environment , especially storm water runoff, in the Sheldrake watershed. He noted that eight days remained during which comments by interested parties on the issue could be addressed to the Planning - Board. The Committee' s consensus was that the Committee should communicate to the Planning Board in writing, without delay, to emphasize its con_- --- cern over this question, citing relevant provisions of the draft LWRP , but without stating any view on the technical views already before the Board. Mrs . Tolley, as Co-Chairman for the Town, undertook to write to the Planning Board on behalf of the Committee. 3. Contact with Town and Village Attorneys The Committee was briefed on a meeting held March 1, pursuant to • discussion at the February 19 Committee meeting, with Village Attorney James Staudt and Town Attorney Stephen Silverberg. Present for the Committee at the meeting were Mr. Irwin, Mrs. Tolley, Mrs. Price , ir. Kean, and Mr. Shuster. The two attorneys had been given copies of - 2 - . the February 16 draft LIRP and of related papers , including some draft legislation_ by Mr. Shuster. The Committee members present undertook to supply them also with a "short list" of essential legislation taken from the "new legislation" list in Section V-A-2 of the draft L:IRP , with a view to obtaining their help in drawing up the necessary draft laws. For their part, the two attorneys agreed: (1) to rive written comments on legal aspects of the February 16 draft LWRP ; (not yet received) ; (2) to advise the Committee whether the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) , which is Section IX of the Draft LWRF, can be merely "generic ," as now drafted by I<ir. Shuster, or should deal specifically with the various provisions of the Prop-ran . (3) to advise as to whether the Lead Agency arrangement for the required hearings on the DEIS , which are ex- pected to be held during the spring, should take the form of a single joint Town-Village lead agency or of two separate lead agencies. For preliminary replies on questions (2) and (3) , see below. 4. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DiIS1 Mr. Kean reported a discussion with Mr. Staudt, following the above meeting, in which the latter had stated his view that the DEIS can remain "generic , " but that within this pattern it ought to be as specific as possible. 5. Implementing Legislation In Committee discussion of the preceding matter, it was pointed out that the LWRP cannot go into effect until the zoning changes and other legislative actions it proposes have been enacted by the two municipal governments . There was general agreement that both governments, before holding public hearings on the DEIS , will want at a minimum to see drafts of the zoning legislation which the LWRP calls for to implement its land use provisions. Accordin .ly,, the Committee agreed that Mrs. Tolley would ask Mr. Silverberg as a matter of urgency to draft those Town zoning amendments called for in Section V-A-2 of the draft LWRP , and that Mr. Irwin would make the same request of Mr. Staudt with respect to Village zoning amendments. In addition, Mr. Shuster would propose without delay the "short list" discussed at the March 1 meeting with the two Attorneys, so that the listed legislation can be drafted in time for consideration by the two municipal governments at the same time as the next revision of the LWRP, probably about the beginning of May. 6 . Lead Agency_Question Mr. Kean further reported Mr. Staudt' s view, based on his dis- cussions with Labany, that there are risks in the joint lead agency approach. Few joint lead agencies have been created in Lew York State for DEIS purposes , and in no case have their conclusions been tested in court; whether they would survive court challenge is not certain. In discussion, there was general agreement that the alternative - 2 - the February 16 draft LrJRP and of related papers , including some draft legislation by Mr. Shuster. The Committee members present undertook to supply them also with a "short list" of essential legislationtaken from tho Section in Sec ion V-A-2 of the draft L: their help in drawing '^ . f'�Qilltwo attorneys Up the necessa� YI/�-'�` the y agreed: (1) to aspects of the Febr 7S,`f-T tceived) ; -S'�` • e Draft Environmental Impa, ) Section IX of the Draf- r 1 ," as now drafted by T<h SkPA-4-^-it'S �ifically with the "aq ( 3) to ad � -ency arrangement for t IS , which are ex- pecte , should take the form lead agency or of twc For preliminary replies on questions (2) and (3) , see below. 4. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS1 Mr. Kean reported a discussion with Mr. Staudt, following the above meeting, in which the latter had stated his view that the DEIS can remain "generic , " but that within this pattern it ought to be as specific as possible. 5. Implementing Legislation In Committee discussion of the preceding matter, it was pointed out that the L':JRP cannot go into effect until the zoning changes and other legislative actions it proposes have been enacted by the two municipal governments . There was general agreement that both governments, before holding public hearings on the DEIS , will want at a minimum to see drafts of the zoning legislation which the L;JRP calls for to implement its land use provisions. Accordingly, the Committee agreed that Mrs. Tolley would ask Er. Silverberg as a matter of urgency to draft those Town zoning amendments called for in Section V-A-2 of the draft LWRP , and that Mr. Irwin would make the same request of Mr. Staudt with respect to Village zoning amendments. In addition, Iir. Shuster would propose without delay the "short list" discussed at the March 1 meeting with the two Attorneys, so that the listed legislation can be drafted in time for consideration by the two municipal governments at the same time as the next revision of the L4JRP, probably about the beginning of May. 6 . Lead Ar-ency_Question Mr. Kean further reported Mr. Staudt' s view, based on his dis- cussions with Labany, that there are risks in the joint lead agency approach. Few joint lead agencies have been created in Lew York State for DEIS purposes , and in no case have their conclusions been tested in court; whether they would survive court challenge is not certain. In discussion, there was general agreement that the alternative 3 of having one municipality serve as lead agency for both would not be practical. Two alternatives remain: to take the joint agency ® approach despite its legal uncertainties, or to have each municipal- ity serve as lead agency with respect to those aspects of the Program falling within its jurisdiction. The latter solution would entail some overlap where both municipalities are involved in the same project, but Mr. Shuster did not believe this would be an insoluble problem. Ir_ view of the urgent need to file lead-agency declarations under established EIS procedure , Mrs. Tolley and Mr. Kean undertook to pursue the question urgently with their respective municipal govern- ments with a view to timely agreement and action. 7. L;aRP Revision: Procedure_and Timetable Mr. Irwin reported on progress to date in receiving comments on the February 16 draft. Comments had been sought, and some already received, from the engineering as well as legal professionals in both Village and Town, and from Cliff Emanuelson, CAC environmental con- sultant. As soon as all or nearly all the key comments and proposed revisions are received, an annotated working draft can be used as the basis for final Committee revision. For this purpose he suggested that the Committee of Committees (CC) should hold one or two drafting. sessions, it being understood that any Committee member is welcome to join with the CC in this work. (The CC consists of Mrs. Fredston, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Lowy, Dr. Mason, Mr. McMichael , and the two Co- Chairmen) . Regarding the timetable, Mr. Shuster quoted Charles McCaffrey, our Albany contact , as saying that the deadline for submitting complete draft LWRPs in time to qualify for State grant money (e. g. , for feasi- bility studies) is May 31. After discussing practical limits on the speed of progress , the following meeting schedule was agreed on: Committee of Committees drafting sessions: Tuesday, April 2, and Wednesday, April 3, both meetings to convene at 7: 45 p.m. in the Village Center, Larchmont. CZMC: Monday, April 29 at 8 p.m. in the Village Center. Mr. Shuster offered to have the revision, when approved by the Committee , typed in a clean draft for presentation to the municipal governments as soon as possible, probably by the beginning of May. 8. Fish and Wildlife Habitats The chair asked Mrs. Johnson to brief the Committee on the de- velopment of her thinking concerning habitats. This was partly re- flected in the February 16 draft ( see part 4 of Inventory and Policies 7 and 7A) . She had also produced a list of bird and other species found in the three habitat complexes shown in the draft. On further reflection, Mrs. Johnson said, she felt that the actual wildlife habitats in this area are more extensive than the three habitat complexes described in the draft. She indicated on a map the extent to which birds and other species depend on other open space in the area as well as on Sound waters offshore . Accordingly, she had sketched a wider habitat pattern to include the two inland golf courses, the Sound shore waters , and other places. In discussion, questions were raised as to whether this wider de- finition would stand a chance of approval in Albany. It was agreed - 4 - that further guidance is needed from Albany on criteria for defining""significant" (Policy 7) or "locally important" (Policy 7A) fish and wildlife habitats, and as to the costs and benefits of a relatively wide or narrow definition. Mrs. Johnson agreed to telephone Mr. McCaffrey in search of further guidance on this matter. 9. Next Meetings. The Committee agreed to the meetinA- schedule set forth in item 7 above. 10. Adjournment. There being no further business , the Committee adjourned at 9: 55 p.m. `:jallace Irwin Jr. Kt a 121 g. 1,1p : tivic , ku, %11,t,V._ Co - Ata.._ . , � tc nA p,,„ CAA- S.44 fn. S yam•( , i.S �.� w`ac f 1 e f D ^ h fi. H��.�t7•r. _ I.VCc f f-Ai Zvx� .o Lw•�,,7` ;S Gta s S{ cS 14 5.,)4T- �71 st 14 1 )4, AAA_I'"f.s t4f . d gLi 04A. 0 Gam. wA. k t if a 4 cfryC_ f ,Lo J 04_ i‘k tOILVIA.OLY-1. IAJIA.(frt.‘. 7 0-4-4.4 ovvtA , h•s th.;. G-A r 4 et k 0-1 SAIAAA44 S b y1A,AA.LG. —' It14,Vir 4 (rr-n 4:c.;.p.a,( cr vt.cei-Am.t ova s crvr- (biti ot, atA.A. k ;s °'!'folsu et.I-41.,A .� L ua , L4X- Kt.f /C4.4.4n,J i6 retA's re u-S..S fa .a-G-C144,- — sh ;LI ox.sue,. ;t- 1 s a k , bb-e-k-a-) cc ,