Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986_09_30 Coastal Zone Management Commission Minutes ,� lI RECEIVED TOWN OF MAMARONECK AND VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT DEr j COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TWN A. MMINUTES RONECK NM. 190/ A special meeting of the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) was held on September 30, 1986 at the Town Center Court Room, 740 West Boston Post Rd. The meeting commenced at 8:10 P.M. Members present: Robert S. Schoenberger, Chairman Bruce Allen Elinor Fredston Wallace Irwin, Jr. Mary Anne Johnson Lawrence Lowy C. Alan Mason Howard McMichael, Jr. Shirley Tolley Others present: Paul Kean, liaison, Village Board Lawrence Lerman, liaison, Town Council Miriam Curnin, Mayor, Village of Larchmont Nan Forger, Deputy Mayor, Village of Larchmont James Staudt, attorney, Village of Larchmont John Sann, resident, Village of Larchmont Donald Mazin, resident, Village of Larchmont Claudia Ng, recorder Introduction The Chairman explained that the main purpose of this meeting was to consider the three items on referral: (1) the Village of Larchmont R-40 Zoning proposal, (2) the Town Freshwater Wetlands Permit pertaining to the Fenbrook Subdivision, and (3) John Kluge's application for a Flood Plain Permit on Premium Point. He, also, announced that the Village attorney, James Staudt, would arrive at 8:30 P.M. to help clarify the zoning issue. R-40 Zoning Proposal This discussion was prompted by the Village Board request that the Commission review its proposal for a new R-40 zone, especially with regard to setback specifications, and to make a new recommendation for action by the Board during October. During the discussion among Commission members, Mrs. Tolley stated that the setback figures ought to have been modified when the proposed lot sizes were initially reduced from R-50. Mr. Lowy expressed that owners of nonconforming properties would not be substantially burdened by the restrictions of the R-40 zoning legislation. Although owners would have to apply for a variance to make any nonconforming change, it has gener- ally been granted when circumstances warranted. Since there was wide variation in the characteristics of the more than 50 properties in the proposed zone, it was suggested that a study be made of all these properties to determine how different setback formulas would affect them. CZMC minutes - 9/30/86 OAfter there were no further comments from Commission members, Mr. Schoen- berger opened the floor to the audience for comments. Donald Mazin, an attorney and resident in the Village of Larchmont, opposed any increased zoning change as an infringement on the rights of the affected residential property owners to do what they want on their own land, noting that these residents are, also, paying higher taxes for these choice sites. He emphasized that a Zoning Board decision to grant or deny a variance is purely discretionary and that the drawing of arbitrary boundaries would be unfair. He suggested that ordinances be used, instead, if the primary goal was to prevent big development. Lastly, he urged that there be greater study of the potential impacts of such zoning changes on nonconformity, which he felt was a major issue to the property owner. When asked for whom he was representing, he replied that he was speaking for himself and on behalf of his fellow Larchmont property owners. John Sann, another Village of Larchmont resident, addressed the Commission as one of those who would be directly affected by the new zoning. He first inquired about the precise variance procedure for making additions, to which Mr. Staudt replied that any property owner, whether or not his property con- formed in all respects, can build without a variance so long as the addition itself is in conformity with the zoning limitations. Next, Mr. Sann stated that the existing R-40 proposal would render almost every lot in the zone as nonconforming in some way, but would serve to prevent subdivision in only a handful of properties that could possibly do so under the present laws; thus, Q such a measure could damage private interests while doing little to further the stated purposes of the LWRP. However, he indicated that a chnge to R-40 would be acceptable if the present setback limitations were at least retained. Mr. Kean gave his opinion that such a solution would be in keeping with the objectives stated in the LWRP, which aimed at reducing the potential for subdivision and made no mention of setbacks. Mr. Irwin noted that the proposed setback figures were actually figures that had been decided on for the R-50 proposal. The Commission, realizing the need for a thorough analysis of the impacts to affected properties that would result from varying setback changes, in- quired into its procedure. Mayor Curnin told the Commission that they could obtain information from the zoning files. Mr. Sann provided a list of current zoning specifications and existing lot sizes and setbacks of the properties affected by the R-40 proposals. Mrs. Tolley suggested the creation of a sub- committee to handle the issue and obtain the necessary advice from Donald Shuster, a professional planner, as well as others. Mr. Staudt, responding to an inquiry as to what criteria the courts apply to zoning legislation, said that the basic criterion is whether or not the law makes good planning sense. He advised that the Commission's proposal to the Village Board should explain the planning objectives sought, what was wrong with the old policies, and in what way the new policies were better. The fast approaching expiration of the 90-day moratorium on building applications in the proposed zone due to the pending zoning change was 1600 -2- CZMC minutes - 9/30/86 © brought to the Commission's attention and indicated a need for rapid action. Mr. Schoenberger, then, summarized the discussion on the R-40 zoning proposal, reiterating that the objective of changing the zoning ordinance, as stated in the LWRP, was to prevent the furtherance of subdivisions. He suggested that: (1) R-40 was chosen because R-50 would have created too many nonconforming lots, (2) the decision for setback limits should be addressed with the advice of Daniel Shuster and the Village engineer, and (3) if only a few properties were in need of special attention, there might be a special way to handle them. Mr. Lowy accepted the appointment as a committee of one to (1) consult with the Village engineer and planner Daniel Shuster and (2) bring a recommendation to the next meeting. Mayor Curnin expressed her thanks to the Commission and asked that its new recommendations be made available to the Village Board by Friday, October 17, for action at the Board's meeting on October 20. Other Business A discussion about legalities and jurisdictions of the CZMC arose. Mr. Staudt made it clear that he was not responsible for providing legal advice to the CZMC. However, he would discuss the matter with the Village Board. Mr. Irwin suggested that the Commission correspond with the State government to discover what powers and authorities are granted to administrators of the LWRP. Mrs. Tolley has already initiated an inquiry in this regard. 11) Fenbrook Subdivision: Freshwater Wetland Permit Application The Commission, active under the Town "Local Consistency" law, reviewed this proposal to lay a sewer pipe across the stream in the new Fenbrook Sub- division. Dr. Mason spoke in favor of the project because it would make it possible to eliminate the present sewege pump station that has had frequent failures, but he stipulated that the longest PVC pipes be used with the joints situated as far as possible from the streambed. Mr. Schoenberger called attention to a memo from Cliff Emanuelson, Town conservation consultant, also favoring this project, but recommending that photographs be taken of the site before construction and important plants salvaged for replanting so that the site could be restored as close to its original state as possible. The Commission considered this referral in the light of the LWRP, espe- cially policy #44 on protection of wetlands, and unanimously agreed that the proposed action is consistent with the policies and purposes of the LWRP. Dr. Mason volunteered to draft a letter of the Commission's approval and recommendations, and he agreed to take the preliminary photographs of the site. The letter will be sent to Stephen Altieri for distribution to the Town Planning Board. C -3- • CZMC minutes - 9/30/86 ® Kluge's Flood Plain Permit Application Mrs. Tolley recalled that during July she had replied, at Mr. Irwin's request, to a memorandum to Mr. Irwin, dated July 12, from Lee Hoffman, attorney counsel to the Town Planning Board, requesting an opinion on an application by Mr. Kluge to build on Premium Point in a location that is subject to federal flood plain regulations. In her reply, Mrs. Tolley indi- cated that the proposal appeared to be a Type I action under the Town SEQR law and to be inconsistent with policy #11 of the LWRP, regarding siting of structures to minimize flooding and erosion. She made sure to emphasize, however, that it was only her own personal opinion and not necessarily reflec- tive of the CZMC. Mr. Schoenberger commended Mrs. Tolley for having taken the initiative to respond to this inquiry. Dr. Mason remarked that he understood that the intention in this case was to build one edifice in the place of two. This proposal would, in effect, decrease the nonconformity of the property and, therefore, would be beneficial. After a brief discussion, the Commission decided that since the referral predated the establishment of the Commission, it should not take a position on this issue. Organizational Matters Mr. Schoenberger distributed copies of the revised liaison assignment list (attached) . He also distributed copies of Mr. Irwin`s draft memorandum for the local planning and zoning boards regarding "Cooperation to Implement the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) ," which will be discussed at the next meeting. State Funding Applications Mr. Schoenberger raised the question of applications for state LWRP imple- mentation grants. He called attention to the application form received from Albany, copies of which had been distributed, requiring completion by October 24. The Commission considered this question in reference to the list of pro- jects proposed in Section IV-B (page 87 ff) of the LWRP. After some discussion, which included a need to get matching funds from local sources for certain projects, it was agreed upon that the most appropriate project for the first application would be the Premium Feasibility Study. Mrs. Fredston, Mrs. Tolley and Mrs . Johnson undertook to draft an application for consideration by the Commission at its next meeting. Next Meeting Another special meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, October 14, 1986 at 8:00 P.M. to be held at the Town Center in order to review Mr. Lowy's recommendations regarding the R-40 zoning issue, to work out the application for state funding, and to establish a budget. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 P.M. -4-