Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_10_01 Coastal Zone Management Commission Minutes VILLAGE OF LARCI-IPriONTT TOWN OF i'1AMAROFECK C OASTAL Z ONE MANAGEMENT r .. „, r'+ ,<, +tom= o#� jj / �'!d �_r• ••„couwn arso 0� Ocj0 1 1 Ots�t "fi ro 4y,. 4,3* 4N Larchmont, NY 10538 by Mick Mamaroneck NY 10543 MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Committee, Village Center, Larchmont, October 1, 1985 Members present: Bruce Allen Lawrence Lowy June Allen C. Alan Mason William Eipel Shirley W. Tolley Elinor Fredston Robert E. White Wallace Irwin Jr. Leo Wilson Arthur Katz Also present: Paul H. Kean, Liaision Trustee, Village of Larchmont Lawrence Lerman, Liaison Councilman, Town of Mamaroneck 1. The Committee was called to order at 8:10 p.m. The minutes of the last meeting (July 23) were approved as written. F 2. Land Use restrictions in the Town ("Golf course zoning"). Mr. Irwin called the Committee's attention to his memorandum of September 20 about the LWRP revision process, and specifically to paragraph 4 reporting the views of the Town Council that the "Golf Course and Nearby Areas" zoning change proposed in Section IV-A-1 of the draft LWRP (May 23 revision) is too vulnerable to legal challenge and should be revised. The Drafting Group of the Town Council, appointed for this purpose, had been unable to meet until the night before, Sept. 30. The Chair invited Dr. Lerman to report to the Committee on the result of that meeting. Dr. Lerman said that in the drafting group, of which he is a member, he had ful- filled his function of liaison with this Committee, and had stressed the importance the Committee attaches to the basic purposes for the "golf course" area, among others, as set forth in the draft LWRP--i.e. , flood control and preservation of • open space. Specifically, he stressed the Committee's strong view that the rule requiring a 10 percent reduction in the runoff rate as a condition of any devel- opment in flood-prone areas must; be retained. He read to the Committee (having no copies to distribute) the text of a draft written by Town Attorney Silverberg as a result of the group's discussion. The draft was in the nature of an amendment to the Town site plan review law. (No corresponding change in the LWRP text had been drafted.) The key operative language calls for zero increase in the runoff rate in any development in the Town as a general rule; but on parcels of 5 acres or more the runoff rate would be required to be reduced by 10 percent by means of retention basins, main- tenance of open space, etc. --unless further technical studies show that such reduction will not improve flooding problems downstream. The "unless" clause had been introduced in view of the fact that no full study of the hydrology of the watersheds involved has been made (except in the West Branch of the Sheldrake) . 4 - 2 - In discussion of this matter, Mr. Irwin reported receiving written notes from Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Schoenberger, both generally opposed to any relaxation of the land use provisions of the LWRP. He had also received similar comments in phone calls from Mr. McMichael and Mr. Killilea. The remainder of the discussion centered on Dr. Mason's comment that a large part of the Bonnie Briar golf course lies in a flood plain whose water re- tention capacity, he said, is greater than that of the Larchmont Reservoir. He urged that, in addition to the 10 percent reduction rule, any building whatever in the flood plain be explicitly ruled out by law. Although this principle had not been included in the LWRP formula arrived at by the Committee in 1984, it was considered on its merits as a reinforcement of the 10 percent rule in the Committee discussion that ensued. In further discussion it was recalled that the Committee had discussed in 1984, but had decided against, a general ban on development of the golf courses by creating a "golf course zone"--this having been seen as unlikely to withstand legal challenge. Regarding Dr. Mason's concept, several questions as to its practicality were answered: specifically, that a municipal government has the power to delineate a flood plain and restrict building in it, and that if a developer presents technical studies aiming to obtain exemption from the 10 percent reduction rule pursuant to the "unless" clause described above, the final word on the validity of such studies rests with the Planning Board. Some members questioned whether Dr. Mason's s s proposed ban on building in the flood plain was necessary, suggesting that it might be redundant since the 10-percent rule would as a practical matter virtually rule out any building in the flood plain. But Dr. Mason disputed this and the prevailing view was in agreement with him. A consensus thus developed that an explicit ban on building in the flood plain should be added to the draft produced by the Drafting Group. Action: The Chair suggested, and the Committee agreed, that an ad hoc subcommittee consisting of Co-Chairman Tolley, Mr. Katz, and Dr. Mason, should meet as promptly as possible with the Town Drafting Group to perfect the proposed legislation, with the understanding that an explicit ban on building in the flood plain should be added. The resulting redraft, together with corresponding revisions in the language of Sections IV, V, and IX of the LWRP must then be considered and approved by the Committee, as well as by the Town Board, prior to printing of the entire draft LWRP for the SEQR hearings. 3. Waterfront Zoning question. Mr. Irwin called attention to his memorandum of September 20, distributed to the Committee, and especially to the attach- ment to that memorandum discussing the proposed zoning change along the waterfront and indicating its potential impact on affected properties. He recalled Mayor Cumin's view that the proposed zoning change would be vul- nerable to legal challenge. He also noted that the stated purpose of the proposed change, i.e. , preservation of scenic values, does not apply in the same degree to the properties along Hommocks Road and Premium Point as to those on the Village of Larchmont waterfront, since only in the Village are there "second row" properties whose views would be obstructed by in- creased shorefront density. In discussion, Mr. Allen said he agreed with the Mayor's suggestion that the zoning change should be dropped. However, several others who spoke agreed with a suggestion by Mr. Katz that the provision remain as it is at - 3 - least until the SEQR hearings have been held, at which time affected residents and the public will have an opportunity to state their views on it--no such 8 views having been obtained thus far. In this connection Mr. Irwin reported a written comment from Mrs. Johnson that present owners often prefer lower density development on land they are disposing of if this part of an overall • program to protect an entire area. Two other points of substance were made during the discussion. First, it was pointed out that density can be increased not only by subdividing lots that are more than double the zoning minimum, but also, in many cases, by assembling parcels from two or more adjacent properties each of which somewhat exceeds the zoning minimum. Thus the possibilities for increased density along the waterfront, and the number of properties potentially involved, are substan- tially greater than was suggested in the Irwin memorandum of September 20. Second, aside from scenic values, important ecological values are at stake in any building project along the Sound shore, especially a project that would increase the density, of development. Mr. Irwin undertook to report to Mayor Curnin the substance of the discussion here recorded, and the view of the Committee that the "waterfront zoning" provision in the present draft LWRP should remain as it is pending the SEQR hearings; and that any views on the subject expressed in those hearings should be taken into account in the final drafting of the LWRP. 4. Intermunicipal contacts. Mr. Irwin reported various developments relating to New Rochelle: --Coastal zone boundary: Having been advised that the Department of If State would require evidence of New Rochelle's consent before agreeing to include the New Rochelle portion of the Larchmont Reservoir Conservancy in our enlarged boundary, Mayor Curnin and Supervisor Battalia had both concluded that the matter should not be pressed. They had written on August 14 to City Manager Kissinger informing him that our proposed boundary revision will be changed to include only lands lying within the Town and Village, and stressing that they consider the location of this portion of our boundary as less important than cooperation among the municipalities that share the Sheldrake and Pine Brook-Premium watersheds. --Land use matters: Supervisor Battalia has learned from New Rochelle Development Commissioner Heller that his proposal for preservation of the Pryer Manor Marsh (July 23 minutes, item 3) is making progress. No further news has been received on the Davids Island project, but contacts will be pursued with the Coast Guard office in New York which is serving as lead agency for the Federal environmental impact study. 5. Other business. Mrs. Fredston called attention to the Long Island Sound conference, to be held Saturday, October 19 from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Connecticut Audubon Center in Fairfield, CT under sponsorship of the Long Island Sound Taskforce. Details are available from Mrs. Fredston, 834-6980. 6. Next meeting. The Committee will meet on Tuesday evening, November 12, at 8 p.m. in the Village Center. 7. Adjournment. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned :111 at 10:15 p.m. Wallace Irwin Jr. 3 VILLAGE OF LARCMONT TOWN OF MAMARONECK ,.._•-- --. C OAS TAL Z ONE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE #1/ 4 '40191111r 4'' \' Tt... 1 r it3 , MCCAPORATco ,' 1891 ,: f 4 N.V.''. a;4cau ea test Larchmont, NY 10538 Mamaroneck, NY 10543 December 23, 1985 z MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the CZM Committee FROM : Co-Chairmen Wallace Irwin Jr. and Shirley W. Tolley 1 ' Although no need for a Committee meeting has arisen since October, your Co-Chairmen have been quite busy coordinating the further revision of the LWRP 3 as approved by the Committee as well as the preparation of the accompanying legis- lation. The draft LWRP and drafts of most of the legislation called for in it will be considered together in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) hearings to be held locally in the near future. This brief interim report is to bring you up to date on where this process stands. At our October 1 meeting, you will recall, the Committee agreed on a new formula to deal with land use and stormTwater runoff rules in any future develop- ment of larger properties in the Town such as the golf courses. Our subcommittee, in meetings with Town representatives, agreed on a modification of this formula which was submitted for your approval by mail on October 21. There being no objection from Committee members, the revised formula was written into the draft LWRP and became the basis of a proposed Town law drafted by the Town Attorney. Since then we have been dealing with various other questions in preparation ';IP for the SEQR hearings. Most importantly, it has been settled that nearly all of the new Town and Village legislation called for in the draft LWRP should be presented in draft form at the SEQR hearings along with the LWRP itself. The Town and Village Attorneys are now working on the necessary legislative drafts. Throughout our discussions with the Town and Village, we have stressed that the draft legislation should be based on, and consistent with, the policies and legislative descriptions in the draft LWRP unless there is an overriding reason for a change; and that if the Town or Village considers a substantive change necessary, the CZM Committee should have the opportunity to comment on it before the texts are approved for printing and submission to the SEQR process. Thus far the only significant change--actually the necessary filling of a gap-- appears in the draft law creating a permanent Coastal Zone Management Commission. Our LWRP draft (Section V-C) said nothing about the manner of selection of the Commission chairman. The bill as drafted fills this gap by calling for appointment of the chairman jointly by the Supervisor and the Mayor. We understand this provision conforms with the prevailing pattern for most other appointed bodies in the Town and Village, and we think it is a reasonable provision. Committee members who wish to study and comment on this or other items of draft legislation will have the opportunity to do so, although most of the drafts remain to be written. Any member wishing to comment should contact one of the Co-Chairmen. We anticipate at present that the SEQR hearings will be held by the two municipal governments in late January or February. Meanwhile the simultaneous inter-agency review will be held in Albany. As soon as a firm date for the hearings has been chosen, a CZM Committee meeting will be called prior to the hearing to review the situation. Best wishes to all for a happy holiday season and success in 1986! cc. CZM mailing list