HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_06_03 Town Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN
BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK TO DISCUSS
THE SCOPE OF THE FOREST CITY DALY APPLICATION
HELD ON JUNE 3, 2002 AT 7:30 PM IN THE SENIOR
CENTER, 740 W. BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK,
NEW YORK
PRESENT:
Supervisor Valerie M. O'Keeffe
Councilwoman Phyllis Wittner
Councilwoman Judith A. Myers
Councilman Ernest C. Odierna
Councilwoman Nancy Seligson
ALSO PRESENT:
Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk
Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator
William Maker, Jr., Town Attorney
CALL TO ORDER
The special meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor O'Keeffe at
7:30 PM, who then pointed out the location of exits.
Attached is the Transcript from the Public Stenographer.
Submitted by:
Patricia A. DiCioccio
Town Clerk
F:1 Documents\Minutes 12002minf106-03-02speciaix.doc
June 3, 2002
1
1 TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
2 STATE OF NEW YORK
3 --------------------------------------x
4 JOINT WORK SESSION
5 TOWN BOARD
6 TOWN OF MAMARONECK
7 -------------------------------------x
8 Boston Post Road
9 Mamaroneck, New York
10 June 3, 2002
11 7:30 p.m.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 CARBONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
21 Denise Carbone
22 111 North Central Park Avenue
23 Hartsdale, New York 10530
24 (914) 684-0201
25
2
1
2 APPEARANCES :
3
4 TOWN BOARD
5
6 BOARD MEMBERS
7 VALERIE M. O'KEEFFE, SUPERVISOR
8 ERNEST ODIERNA, COUNCILMAN
9 JUDITH A. MEYERS, COUNCILWOMAN
10 PHYLLIS WITTNER, COUNCILWOMAN
11 NANCY SELIGSON, COUNCILWOMAN
12
13
14 PATRICIA A. DICIOCCIO, TOWN CLERK
15 STEPHEN V. ALTIERI, ADMINISTRATOR
16 WILLIAM MAKER JR. TOWN ATTORNEY
17 FRANK FISH, TOWN PLANNING CONSULTANT
18
19 FOR THE APPLICANT:
20
21 MR. MICHAEL DALY, APPLICANT
22 MR. JOEL H. SACHS, ATTORNEY
23 MR. ANDREW TUNG, ENGINEER
24
25
Proceedings 3
1 SUPERVISOR: Welcome to those of
2 you who just came and glad to see you
3 again. The Town Board of the Town of
4 Mamaroneck already commenced an official
5 meeting and we were just on an intermission
6 so we don't have to have any motions to
7 begin the meeting, we will just continue.
8 The purpose of tonight's board
9 meeting is a special session to discuss the
10 scope of the Draft Environmental Impact
11 Statement which will be prepared by Forest
12 City Daly in connection with it's petition
13 to rezone property on Madison Avenue in the
14 Town of Mamaroneck.
15 The Town Board is lead agency and
16 decided to prepare the scope of the DEIS,
17 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2
June 3, 2002
18 rather than leave its content completely up
19 to the applicants.
20 Under SEQRA regulations, scoping is
21 designed to focus the content of the DEIS
22 and potentially significant adverse impacts
23 and to eliminate or remove undue emphasis
24 from those potential impacts that are
25 irrelevant or nonsignificant.
Proceedings 4
1 As required by the SEQRA
2 regulations, the application has submitted
3 a draft scope to the Town Board and that
4 was received on April 17. Under those same
5 regulations, the Town Board must present
6 the final scope to the applicant no later
7 than June 17 but I think we have a
8 stipulation that we can send it in on the
9 24th.
10 MR. SACHS: Yes. That's correct.
11 The 24th of June.
12 MS. SUPERVISOR: Thank you.
13 Mr. Sachs. In order to prepare the final
14 scope of the DEIS, the Town Board has
15 circulated the draft scope to all involved
16 agencies and has made copies of it
17 available to all interested persons and
18 agencies.
19 The Town Board, the town's
20 environmental department and its outside
21 consultant, Mr. Frank Fish of the firm of
22 Buckhurst Fish and Jacquemart, Inc., and
23 other staff members of the town reviewed
24 the draft scope submitted by the applicant
25 and have made additions to it.
Proceedings 5
1 In addition, various governmental
2 bodies have written to the Town Board
3 regarding the proposed DEIS for this
4 project.
5 Copies of the applicant's draft
6 scope and the revisions made to it and the
7 written submissions made by other
8 governmental bodies are available tonight.
9 Tonight is the opportunity for the
10 public to also participate in developing
11 the scope of the DEIS. Each person in the
12 audience will be allowed to speak. I would
13 like to set some grounds rules. Mr. Andrew
14 Tung is going to give a brief overview of
15 the project and then speakers must address
16 the board. We will not have any cross
17 conversations between the applicants or
18 members of the public between each other.
19 No repetition of questions and no
20 one can speak twice until everyone has had
21 an opportunity to have spoken once. I will
22 try to be as flexible as I can so that
23 everyone gets a chance and is fairly heard.
24 I am going to try to limit each question to
25 three or four minutes. I would like to ask
Proceedings 6
1 Mr. Tung to make his presentation at this
2 time. We have a Michael Daly here also.
3 MR. DALY: I want to say one word.
4 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Michael Daly is
5 a principle of the project, Forest City
6 Daly.
7 MR. DALY: Good evening, members of
8 the various boards and the Town Board of
9 Mamaroneck. We appreciate this evening's
3
June 3, 2002
10 time to address the scoping document. I
11 only want to stress two things as a
12 principal of Forest City Daly Housing, the
13 developer for the property.
14 We are local and we are familiar
15 with the wants and desires to the extent
16 that they have been communicated to us so
17 far. We are looking forward to going
18 through this public process. We think we
19 are good listeners and we are looking to
20 build a high quality residential property
21 here. Something that will beautify the
22 area in terms of the landscaping. Evidence
23 of that is the strength of our company.
24 Financially, we are eighty years old, about
25 four billion dollars. You will have a
Proceedings 7
1 local player here, I will be here at the
2 first hearing and every single hearing as
3 well as the ongoing owner of the property.
4 Secondly, we have retained a
5 terrific team. Divney, Tong, Schwalbe, who
6 is addressing the DEIS issues and SEQRA
7 issues who will be Andy Tong this evening
8 and we have retained the services of Robert
9 Amstern, Architects, which is one of the
10 world's renown architects for fine
11 residential quality design.
12 1 know that many of you are anxious
13 to see some of the designs that were
14 presented publicly before, and we are
15 prepared to address as many meetings as it
16 takes to try and hear your comments and
17 communicate with you on this project.
18 Without further ado, I want to say thank
19 you for attending this evening. We are
20 looking forward to working with everyone
21 and I will turn it over to Andy Tung at
22 this time.
23 MR. TUNG: Thank you and good
24 evening. Thank you Madam Supervisor. My
25 name is Andy Tung and I am a partner in the
Proceedings 8
1 White Plains Planning and Engineering
2 Landscape, Architectural firm of Divney,
3 Tung, Schwalbe here in White Plains, part
4 of the Forest City Daly team for the
5 planning and design of this project.
6 What I would like to do this evening
7 is to briefly describe the setting of the
8 site, the proposed project and the nature
9 of the applications that we have made and
10 will be making to the Town of Mamaroneck
11 that form the basis for the Environmental
12 Impact Statement for which the scoping
13 session tonight is being held.
14 1 will begin with the aerial photo
15 to my right. This is a one to one hundred
16 foot scale ariel photo taken in the Spring
17 of 2000.
18 It shows in the center of the site,
19 the property for the Forest City Daly
20 housing proposal. It is 2.94 acres just
21 under 3 acres and on the site sits the gray
22 band across the center, which is 195, the
23 New England Thruway. Two municipal
24 boundaries fall within the photograph;
25 the first, the Village of Larchmont
Proceedings 9
1 basically parallels the Thruway on its
4
June 3, 2002
2 east side. North is generally up to the
3 right corner this way and the second
4 boundary is the City of New Rochelle that
5 falls diagonally on the left side of the
6 photo.
7 The other streets that are adjoining
8 the property. The property being here,
9 are Madison Avenue to the north. I will
10 call this north for the purpose of this
11 description, to the north, Maxwell along
12 the west side. The Thruway along the east
13 side. To the south, the town DPW yard and
14 the Village of Larchmont water tanks here
15 to the south.
16 Other land uses surrounding the site
17 are the Thruway, the Thruway ramps, exit
18 ramps to the west. The service businesses
19 along Fifth Avenue to the west. To the
20 north, is the apartment buildings and
21 businesses along Madison and Myrtle and
22 the apartment buildings along North
23 Chatsworth and Washington Square.
24 This particular site is composed of
25 a number of existing uses and parcels which
Proceedings 10
1 you may well be familiar with. The
2 largest, The New York Sports Club and the
3 two adjacent retail stores; the cleaners
4 and the liquor store, in this corner and
5 the parking lot adjoining that. Adjacent to
6 that is the LaValetta Restaurant an on
7 grade parking adjacent to that, which
8 serves the building across Madison Avenue.
9 The tree service which is in the back of
10 LaValetta in the parking lot and three
11 existing single-family houses tucked away
12 behind the sports club fronting on Maxwell
13 Avenue.
14 In addition, there is a small piece
15 of town land adjoining the thruway and the
16 end of Byram Place. Byram Place currently
17 gives access to the tree service at the
18 back and also to the side of 1 Madison
19 which is a dentist office at the corner.
20 Most of this entire parcel which has
21 been assembled by Forest City Daly is
22 within the B-MUB Zone in the Town of
23 Mamaroneck. That is business-mixed use
24 business. That district, just to clarify a
25 comment that the Supervisor made, the
Proceedings 11
1 proposal is not so much to rezone the
2 property. The property is already B-MUB.
3 It requests certain amendments in the text
4 of the B-MUB of regulations and it does in
5 fact request a small rezoning for this
6 portion of the site which Forest City Daly
7 wishes to purchase from the Town of
8 Mamaroneck, that is at the end of Byram
9 Place, a small triangular lot adjoining the
10 Thruway to rezone those properties, from B,
11 plain business to B-MUB.
12 The background of the B-MUB as I
13 understand it; it was a zone created for
14 this block in 1990 by the Town Board to
15 permit the combination of two previously
16 dispert uses. That idea of combining,
17 business and residential, similar to what
18 occurs in some of the buildings on Myrtle
19 Boulevard. Retail on the ground floor and
5
June 3, 2002
20 apartments up above.
21 In this transitional area, I was not
22 at the meeting but I am presupposing that
23 the thought was to be able to combine those
24 in this site might be a way to reorganize
25 some of the dispert uses in that area and
Proceedings 12
1 make it fit in most closely to the
2 residential and commercial uses to the
3 north.
4 The proposed project and I am just
5 going to go into this briefly as a setting
6 for the scoping session, if we take this
7 site area and enlarge it and this is in he
8 hand out, not in color, the last page of
9 the hand out you received this evening. The
10 basic site plan for the proposal.
11 You have Madison Avenue on the right
12 side. Maxwell Avenue is a town street, but
13 it basically leads you into the town's DPW
14 yard to the south as well as it gave access
15 to three residential houses along this
16 frontage of the site.
17 Madison Avenue, Maxwell and Byram
18 Place and the portion of Byram Place that
19 would be--is proposed to be incorporated
20 in the project. The proposed plan which
21 incorporates those uses that I described,
22 calls for the preservation of the existing
23 New York Sports Club and two retail stores
24 in its current location in its current
25 building. Those will remain in place and
Proceedings 13
1 become part of, integrated with this
2 project architecturally and from a
3 circulation and parking point of view.
4 In place of the other uses; it is
5 proposed a one hundred eight-five unit
6 apartment building for rent. That is
7 composed of as was described of one bedroom
8 and two bedroom units. It is 90, one
9 bedrooms, 90, two bedrooms and at the
10 moment 5, three bedroom units. It is
11 roughly half and half, ones and twos.
12 The arrangement of this building is
13 preliminary in nature and will be discussed
14 in much greater detail in the Environmental
15 Impact Statement. After a series of
16 informal meetings with both the Town Board
17 and some neighboring residential groups,
18 this plan has, in fact, changed and at the
19 moment it shows the proposed building being
20 set back from Madison Avenue at the same
21 line as the front of The New York
22 Sports Club.
23 The New York Sports Club currently
24 has an on grade parking lot in front of it
25 and it is set back some ninety feet from
Proceedings 14
1 Madison Avenue. That line would continue to
2 be the case here. The front door to the
3 apartment building would be at the end of
4 Byram Place. You will come down Myrtle or
5 Madison, enter Byram Place as to you do
6 today, come to the front of the apartment
7 building and be able to enter the below
8 building structured parking below the
9 residential building; either on this side
10 or also on Maxwell Avenue.
11 In the front of the building along
6
June 3, 2002
12 Madison, it is proposed that the parking
13 for the health club and two retail spaces
14 be enlarged and reorganized for better
15 circulation flow. There is also proposed
16 an open plaza in front of that building and
17 as I mentioned before about the
18 architecture, the proposal is to integrate
19 and put a new facade on the sports club
20 building so that it would be integrated
21 with the new apartment building.
22 In looking at that plan, we looked
23 very closely at the buildings up the hill
24 and noted of the apartment buildings that
25 are up there, some are more perhaps
Proceedings 15
1 architecturally distinctive than others and
2 we were asked by the Town Board to take
3 from the best of what we saw and try not to
4 copy that but to bring the architectural
5 character to this building that would
6 compliment the area and be attractive to
7 both residents and passersby.
8 And what we had proposed or
9 presented to the Town Board during a work
10 session and this view is taken from Myrtle
11 looking down towards the site from Myrtle.
12 This is the corner of the clock tower
13 building here, on my right. This is the
14 dentist, 1 Maxwell, and this building would
15 be behind that.
16 The apartment building is six
17 stories of residential units above one
18 level of parking, at the at grade level
19 plus another level of parking underground,
20 below grade. That building would be set
21 back from the street. Here it shows some
22 of the architectural character and feeling
23 of some of the buildings on North
24 Chatsworth. It will be its own, as Mike
25 mentioned the architect is Robert Amstern,
Proceedings 16
1 he will certainly design-- not a copy of
2 the building but will take from the
3 character and the quality of the
4 architecture that is present in some of
5 those buildings.
6 The second rendering that was taken
7 this is from Myrtle looking down towards
8 the building. This is taken from a
9 slightly different vantage point, from
10 Washington Square, looking down towards the
11 building, if you look straight down
12 Washington Square, you will line up with
13 the front door of New York Sports Club,
14 this building in the front here is the
15 existing one story New York Sports Club,
16 this is the two retail spaces, the cleaners
17 and the liquor store and the idea here is
18 to landscape the parking area in front of
19 the buildings and treatment of the one
20 story building in a manner complimentary to
21 the apartment building beyond.
22 That is an overview of the proposal,
23 the context of the site and the rezoning
24 that has been requested.
25 MS. SUPERVISOR: I am going to ask
Proceedings 17
1 Mr. Maker, our attorney to go over the
2 scoping document. Thank you Mr. Tong.
3 MR. MAKER: I hate following someone
7
June 3, 2002
4 with such a wonderful voice. The SEQRA
5 rules don't require the agency to conduct a
6 scoping session. However, the Town Board
7 as the lead agency thought it would be
8 appropriate to do so for a variety of
9 reasons.
10 One, is not to leave the preparation
11 of the Environmental Impact Statement
12 solely to the applicant. Secondly, to get
13 the participation of as many people in the
14 community that sit on various boards, in
15 the neighboring communities as possible, as
16 to what the scope should include.
17 The idea of the scoping session as
18 the Supervisor said is to try to accentuate
19 those areas where there is a sense there
20 might be adverse impacts and take the ones
21 that are less significant and de-emphasize
22 them so that we are all focusing on that
23 which is the most important.
24 Under the rules of SEQRA, the
25 applicant did prepare a draft scope. It is
Proceedings 18
1 contained in this packet that is headed
2 with the words, "Notification of Lead
3 Agency" which I believe is on the table at
4 the rear of the room. It contains a lot of
5 ancillary information that predates the
6 scope.
7 In the middle of that handout there
8 is something entitled "Scope of the Draft
9 Environmental Impact Statement Forest City
10 Daly, Mixed Use Development".
11 The scope of a DEIS is a lot like a
12 table of contents in a book. It is not the
13 chapters or the text; it is a table of
14 contents. What is it that the lead agency
15 wishes the applicant to examine in the
16 DEIS. So that once the Draft Environmental
17 Impact Statement is accepted for review by
18 the Town Board as lead agency there can be
19 an intelligent dialog as to its contents
20 and as to its pros and cons.
21 When this document was received, the
22 Town took some initial review steps. Frank
23 Fish of Buckhurst, Fish & Jacquemart who is
24 sitting next to Frank Altieri and the Town
25 Clerk Patricia DiCioccio, together with
Proceedings 19
1 Elizabeth Paul who is sitting next to Pat.
2 Town Board members Ron Carpaneto the
3 building inspector, Steve Altieri and
4 myself prepared what is in essence an
5 addendum to the draft scope. Additional
6 things that the Town Board, we feel the
7 Town Board ought to consider.
8 In addition, because that scope was
9 mailed out to neighboring communities,
10 there are responses from the Village of
11 Larchmont, The City of New Rochelle. The
12 County of Westchester Planning Department,
13 New York State Thruway Authority and I
14 believe that is all that has been received
15 to date.
16 The idea tonight is to entertain
17 commentary of anyone who would like to
18 speak according to the rules set forth by
19 the Supervisor as to what items that are
20 not already included in this table of
21 contents and embellished by what the town
8
June 3, 2002
22 has already done as added to by the
23 comments from the neighboring communities
24 and the governmental bodies. What else can
25 be put in to sort of frame the DEIS into
Proceedings 20
1 what the town would like to see the
2 applicant prepare.
3 MS. SUPERVISOR: These are the
4 rules. When you make your comments with
5 respect to what you think should be added
6 to the scoping document, would you tell us
7 your name and address and then address the
8 board. Is there any comments from the
9 audience?
10 JUDY GALLANT: 1290 Avenue of the
11 Americas, New York, New York I would
12 suggest that the section, Roman 3A under
13 items 1 D and 2E, the LWRP be added.
14 "Conformance and/or consistency with other
15 land use plans or studies" The town's
16 consistency law requires that the planning
17 board address that issue and it would be
18 helpful to add that.
19 MS. SUPERVISOR: Anybody else? Miss
20 Bradon.
21 MS. LORI BRANDON: 6 Orcini Drive.
22 I have would two comments. One is relative
23 to page 7 in the intersections, I would
24 like to add a couple of intersections to be
25 studied. Murray and Maple Hill, the
Proceedings 21
1 three-way stop. Edgewood and North
2 Chatsworth. Palmer and Larchmont Avenue.
3 Also as it relates to the extra
4 traffic that will be contributed in the
5 village in particularly the commercial
6 areas, within the Village of Larchmont. I
7 would like to ask that a mitigation be
8 considered, a shuttle bus that would
9 service the site and run from the site
10 including servicing the other apartments in
11 the area. So that we can minimize the
12 traffic going from that area in the town
13 and the village and then all of the way to
14 Boston Post Road.
15 It would be like a loop that runs
16 all day. Of course there is a cost for
17 that, whether it is free as part of the
18 project or whether there is a small charge.
19 It should be looked at as an alternative to
20 having all of the cars that are now going
21 to be parked at the site, all going into
22 these locations.
23 MS. SUPERVISOR: Have you given any
24 thought as to who would finance this;
25 whether it would be the government or the
Proceedings 22
1 developer or the Village of Larchmont?
2 MS. BRANDON: I think it would be
3 certainly our preference to have the
4 developer fund it as part of what they are
5 asking us to do to add more people beyond
6 what we have in a crowded situation
7 already.
8 MAUREEN NORTON: 101 North
9 Chatsworth Avenue. How many parking space
10 are there going to be in this space for the
11 cars? How many are you proposing?
12 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Tung?
13 MR. TUNG: I didn't give a number. I
9
June 3, 2002
14 neglected to report that. There is
15 approximately 3 hundred parking spaces for
16 the residents and to replace the on grade
17 parking that serves the office across the
18 street, another 75 for the commercial uses
19 within the building; the existing health
20 club and retail stores.
21 MS. SUPERVISOR: Is there a
22 particular formula that you used to arrive
23 at those numbers?
24 MR. TUNG: The numbers come from the
25 B-MUB district. It has its own ratios for
Proceedings 23
1 residential parking based upon one, two
2 and three bedroom configurations. There is
3 a different ratio for a one bedroom
4 configuration as opposed to a two-bedroom
5 configuration.
6 MS. SUPERVISOR: Miss Brown.
7 MS. BARBARA BROWN: 21 North
8 Chatsworth. Mr. Tung, can you go back to
9 the front and show us where is the service
10 and delivery? Where that would be,
11 including where the garbage pickup would
12 be.
13 MS. SUPERVISOR: That question maybe
14 too specific. Mr. Maker, let us just ask
15 counsel.
16 MR. MAKER: The purpose of tonight
17 is to think of topics to be studied, not
18 to ask the applicant to go into detail of
19 its proposal. Obviously, one of the items
20 of the DEIS will be rubbish removal, etc.
21 Since Mr. Tung is already there and I
22 would enjoy hearing him myself.
23 MS. BROWN: I want to be sure it is
24 included.
25 MR. TUNG: Service to the building
Proceedings 24
1 is proposed on the Maxwell Avenue side
2 where, in fact there is existing service
3 for the health club and retail stores here.
4 In addition to one entrance to the lower
5 level parking, there would be a service
6 area at the rear end of the building
7 adjacent to the DPW yard.
8 MS. SUPERVISOR: Have you taken
9 into consideration that Maxwell Avenue is
10 the only means of egress and ingress to the
11 town yard. That would be part of the
12 calculations.
13 MS. SUPERVISOR: Ms. Reader.
14 MS. READER: Marilyn Reader, Chairman
15 of the Town Planning Board and resident at
16 94 North Chatsworth Avenue. In
17 anticipation that there would be additional
18 students going to our school system, I am
19 making an assumption that it will be to
20 Murray Avenue as the elementary school and
21 then the junior high school, the Hommocks
22 School.
23 I think the traffic impact should
24 be studied even further than what is listed
25 here in the three other corners that have
Proceedings 25
1 been discussed. I had also suggested
2 Murray Avenue but it should go to
3 Chatsworth as far as Forrest Avenue and
4 Rocking Stone to Forrest Avenue and Murray
5 Avenue to the intersection of Weaver Street
10
June 3, 2002
6 where they merge and particularly to
7 right by the Murray Avenue School.
8 1 think in anticipating that you
9 will have kids going to the high school,
10 Palmer Avenue should be studied going
11 towards the high school along Palmer to
12 Richbell Avenue. I think Chatsworth
13 Avenue should be studied at least to the
14 Post Road intersection where the high
15 school is and perhaps even as far north
16 going as far as the entrance of the junior
17 high school, the Hommocks School. Those
18 are the areas that I would like to see
19 studied.
20 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Budding.
21 MR. BUDDING: Frank Budding, Coastal
22 Zoning Management.
23 MS. SUPERVISOR: What is your
24 address?
25 MR. BUDDING: Page 5, Natural
Proceedings 26
1 Resource under B, I would want to know
2 whether it is useful to have some insight
3 in the current level of pollution of the
4 existing sewer company. I don't think that
5 is being covered under environmental
6 conditions, phase one and I have that
7 question to ask.
8 MS. WITTNER: I think it is under
9 A-2.
10 MR. BUDDING: It gives us a
11 description. But I don't see a description
12 of the types of sewer. I am looking at of
13 levels of existing pollution. At the
14 moment there is a tree company there maybe
15 oil residue.
16 MS. SUPERVISOR: Thank you. Mr.
17 Russo.
18 MR. RUSSO: T.J Russo, 57 Valley
19 Road. I would like to see the discussion
20 that expands on the traffic and takes a
21 closer look at projected number of students
22 that the developer perceives coming into
23 the community. What kind of impact is that
24 going to have on the high school and Murray
25 Avenue School and the Hommocks School also.
Proceedings 27
1 MS. SUPERVISOR: Thank you. Ms
2 Brandon.
3 MS. BRANDON: I have a second
4 question. I don't how this fits in the
5 scope but to the extent that it is probably
6 to your own best interest, it am curious to
7 see supporting evidence to say that the
8 rents that you propose to have will be
9 meeting market demands given that the site
10 is so close to the dumping facility and
11 highway and water tanks. I would like to
12 have some comparables to support the rents.
13 MS. SUPERVISOR: Ms Seligson, the
14 Councilwoman has a comment to make.
15 MS. SELIGSON: Councilwoman Nancy
16 Seligson. 7 Douglas Lane, Larchmont. 1
17 have an overall comment about the
18 generality of the scope at this time. That
19 there is not specific measures or
20 technologies or methodologies that are
21 included in the scope at this time for
22 measuring the different perimeters; such as
23 air quality and noise pollution.
11
June 3, 2002
24 And I just wanted to bring up the
25 issue and discuss it when the time is
Proceedings 28
1 appropriate as to whether there should be
2 some more specific parameters that are
3 included in the scoping document.
4 Specifically on page six, under
5 "Natural Resource, letter D, under air
6 quality, is says qualitative discussion of
7 existing air quality in the vicinity of the
8 site."
9 1 wanted to discuss whether it was
10 important or might be helpful to have a
11 qualitative discussion as well as to the
12 air quality of the site and what those
13 changes might be from the development.
14 The same can be said for many of the areas
15 in the scope and I would like to suggest
16 that we look into overlaying that kind of
17 concept onto it. It would be helpful to
18 us.
19 MS. SUPERVISOR: You mean a specific
20 test and specific standard and specific
21 testing?
22 MS. SELIGSON: Yes, in noise we have
23 had some experience in noise. On page 9,
24 under Cultural Resources, under C, we have
25 noise and it says existing noise levels and
Proceedings 29
1 major noise sources. And I can imagine a
2 response that can be very broad or vague
3 that might not entirely satisfy us. 1
4 wondered if we wanted to get more specific
5 and state particular testing or where or
6 how it would be done.
7 1 want to note that there are
8 technologies and methodologies out there to
9 deal with a lot of these things and I am
10 questioning whether they need to be stated
11 in a more specific fashion here.
12 MS. SUPERVISOR: Frank Fish.
13 MR. FISH: I think an example of
14 what Nancy is saying, if you look under
15 Traffic on page 7. On the top of 7, (4)
16 the applicant specifies that they will do
17 the intersection capacity analysis, listed
18 above in accordance with the Highway
19 Capacity Manual(HCM) 2000.
20 We are all used to that, providing
21 they know how to do it and they know out to
22 review it. I think what Nancy is raising is
23 there are methodologies, on noise.
24 For instances, there is HUD
25 methodologies on a DPA scale. We can put
Proceedings 30
1 some of those in here if you desire. There
2 is a question that I raised earlier, 1
3 think noise particularly if that is an
4 issue for the board, we should specify it
5 quantitatively. On air quality, the
6 question for the board I think is; we can
7 specify it, we can quantify it.
8 Ultimately, on air quality will that have
9 any real impact on this particular
10 proposal. If we feel it won't, I am
11 finding that to be the case with a lot of
12 the developments in Westchester. The air
13 quality, we may quantify it, but when it
14 comes down to it, I don't know whether
15 there will be any real impact.
12
June 3, 2002
16 MS. SUPERVISOR: From our
17 previously experience with our
18 developments, proposed developments, it
19 seems we can--we came to the conclusion
20 that traffic was, there is cause and effect
21 between the quality of the air and the
22 amount of traffic and the amount of
23 automobile or trucks as opposed to ambient
24 or just dirty air.
25 Can we put it under traffic. Can we
Proceedings 31
1 put it under the traffic part of it, air
2 quality.
3 MR. FISH: Air quality many times is
4 tied very closely to traffic. The air
5 quality.
6 MR. ERNIE ODIERNA: 45 High Ridge
7 Road, Larchmont. We had added a couple of
8 noise items in our additions but it didn't
9 completely capture what I was concerned
10 about. When we put sound barriers up, we
11 found that the sound had kind of moved. It
12 kind of bounced off one barrier and went up
13 over to areas that weren't impacted by
14 noise in any way before.
15 So I am concerned about the Village
16 of Larchmont. I don't want us to build a
17 great building that looks beautiful and
18 wonderful in the Town of Mamaroneck but
19 makes a sound magnet that beams down on
20 Larchmont.
21 1 would like someone to measure what
22 they think is going to be the impact on
23 the other side of the Thruway from this
24 building. And what they can do about it.
25 What mitigation there is. It might be a
Proceedings 32
1 surface or a shape or something that we
2 don't know about how to fix it. It could be
3 a very good learning experience for us as
4 to the process.
5 MS. WITTNER: I can imagine noise
6 from construction.
7 MR. ODIERNA: No, I am talking about
8 the highway noise.
9 MS. SUPERVISOR: They have a way of
10 measuring the decibels. The height of it;
11 how far it goes.
12 MR. FISH: You are raising it on
13 what has happened on the Thruway, I think.
14 You build a noise barrier on one side and
15 the repercussions come back to the other
16 side.
17 MR. ODIERNA: I am envisioning a big
18 handball court with the noise, you bang it
19 off the wall and it shoots over to the
20 water.
21 MS. SUPERVISOR: There is a lot of
22 space between the proposed building and
23 the Village of Larchmont when you have the
24 intervening Thruway. That is my anecdotal
25 thing from my sound barrier experience.
Proceedings 33
1 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Budding.
2 MR. BUDDING: It may also be an issue
3 of noise pollution for the future residents
4 of the building.
5 MR. ODIERNA: Yes, we have that in
6 there.
7 CHRISTOPHER BORDAY: 2 Lafayette
13
June 3, 2002
8 Road. I was at a presentation that was
9 made previously on this. And I guess there
10 were some studies with regard to the
11 typical ratio of cars per resident in an
12 apartment building of this type. I want to
13 know if that is a study of the Northeast or
14 a study specific to this area.
15 A lot of people that I know are
16 somewhat concerned that the study indicates
17 an average of 1.8 cars per household may
18 not, in fact, apply around here because
19 most people may have two or three cars per
20 apartment. Is there really going to be
21 enough parking planned relatively to what
22 will work in the area and meeting the
23 parking standards.
24 MR. FISH: I think the town's
25 zoning requirements is what they follow.
Proceedings 34
1 As I understand their proposals, they are
2 going to meet those requirements. In
3 addition, Ernie pointed out the comments
4 that the town has made also asking the
5 DEIS to address what is perceived as a
6 parking shortage in the neighborhood. 1
7 don't know how the applicant will address
8 that.
9 We do have some other examples, of,
10 1 think I would like the applicant study
11 comparables. But for example the Avalon
12 Development on Mamaroneck Avenue is a high
13 end rental development. There the issue is
14 one lesson learned for the village is that
15 you need to make sure they want the parking
16 in the building to be included in the rent.
17 Not as Avalon did. Avalon charged
18 separately for the rent so that everyone
19 parked in the street thus exacerbating the
20 parking problem in that area. There are
21 several issues on the parking and the board
22 should put those in.
23 MS. SUPERVISOR: Is it appropriate
24 Mr. Maker to ask the question. If the
25 parking requirements under the present
Proceedings 35
1 zoning which are twelve years old are
2 sufficient for the state of affairs in the
3 year 2002, where more and more college kids
4 are returning home to the nest with
5 vehicles. Are there more cars per unit
6 than there were reasonably satisfied in
7 1990, that is the question. Can I ask that
8 as part of tonight's proceeding? Is that
9 off the table?
10 MR. MAKER: No. The issue here is,
11 one of the issues is always going to be off
12 street parking and how the applicant will
13 deal with it. It may turn out that the
14 study will indicate to the Town Board that
15 the current off street parking requirements
16 in the code ought to be tightened up.
17 And just because the applicant is
18 asking for a zoning amendment that doesn't
19 talk about the off street parking
20 requirement, it doesn't mean that as part
21 of the process, the Town Board couldn't
22 consider changing the off street parking
23 requirement and require more off street
24 parking throughout the town for various
25 types of developments. If that study
14
June 3, 2002
Proceedings 36
1 indicates to you that ought to be done,
2 based upon the year 2002 traffic habits of
3 local residents. I think that is perfectly
4 appropriate.
5 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Odierna.
6 MR. ODIERNA: Would it be
7 appropriate or how would it be appropriate
8 to discuss alternative parking
9 arrangements. If we consider other space
10 besides right where the building is but
11 nearby. How would that fit into the
12 scoping or would it be mitigation or
13 general parking impact.
14 MR. FISH: We have mentioned to them,
15 you have a study now on Washington Square
16 that recommends additional parking in the
17 area. We are asking them to look at how
18 they can contribute to some of those
19 solutions. The study mentions several
20 different types of solutions including a
21 parking deck.
22 MR. ODIERNA: Do we need to
23 specifically ask for that as a mitigation
24 option?
25 MR. MAKER: It is in there.
Proceedings 37
1 MS. WITTER: We can't see whether
2 everything that we had originally is
3 incorporated in this document. Eventually
4 it will all be put together but I don't
5 think it is in there. There is nothing
6 about affordable housing; is there?
7 MR. ODIERNA: Yes, there is on page
8 10 item. G 1 in our supplement that says
9 include new item, affordable housing. In
10 our supplemental document. The items that
11 we have asked them to add.
12 MR. FISH: In answer to your
13 question under page 8, letter C on what you
14 have added, we can be more specific about
15 the Washington Square Study and the parking
16 deck. We have it on page 8.
17 MR. ODIERNA: Yes, it is hard to
18 across reference one documents with the
19 other.
20 MR. FISH: This will become one
21 document.
22 MS. SUPERVISOR: Yes, Mr. Budding.
23 MR. BUDDING: Does the parking
24 facility make provisions for visitors as
25 well? That should be a question that will
Proceedings 38
1 be addressed.
2 MS. SUPERVISOR: That question will
3 be answered in the DEIS.
4 EVA GRAHAM: 17 North Chatsworth.
5 What kind of shadow will be cast on the
6 lighting of the surrounding buildings?
7 MS. SUPERVISOR: That is one of the
8 questions that will be answered. What
9 kind of a shadow will be cast by the
10 surrounding buildings.
11 MR. MAKER: It talks about Winter
12 solace when the sun is lowest to the sky
13 and that connects it to a report of what
14 the shadow effect will be at noon. And
15 then sometime before noon, and then
16 sometime around 3 p.m. when the sun is the
17 lowest in the sky and it casts the longest
15
June 3, 2002
18 shadow. We anticipated that.
19 MS. SUPERVISOR: Chris.
20 CHRIS BORDAY: Lafayette Road.
21 1 have a question on the construction
22 issues. Is there any intention on the part
23 of the developer to constrict the
24 construction process to working hours
25 Monday through Friday or will they be on
Proceedings 39
1 the project Saturday and Sunday.
2 MS. SUPERVISOR: We do have the
3 specific rules on the construction
4 schedule. We are asking for the
5 construction schedule.
6 MS. WITTNER: Isn't it in the
7 building code?
8 MR. CARPANETO: Yes, Monday to Friday
9 8 to 8 and 9 to 5 Saturday and Sunday.
10 You can work on Sunday.
11 MS. SUPERVISOR: If you were going
12 to build a little addition on the back of
13 your house that is the same hours which you
14 could build. We don't have a separate law
15 for big projects.
16 MS. SUPERVISOR: Is the point of
17 that question having to do with noise? Is
18 that the purpose of your question as to
19 what are the hours of construction?
20 MR. BORDAY: Yes, it is an obvious
21 concern. I think it is somewhat of a
22 larger and lengthy project than a typical
23 home addition.
24 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Budding.
25 MR. BUDDING: The light of the
Proceedings 40
1 building. That is a promotion for light
2 pollution.
3 MS. SUPERVISOR: The landscape on
4 the lighting. So that the lighting does
5 not disturb other people in the
6 neighborhood. And the wild life
7 MS. SUPERVISOR: Open space for
8 migrating birds. So as not to confuse the
9 birds. Generally, the policy is not to have
10 it radiating into the night sky.
11 MS. SUPERVISOR: Miss McAndrews.
12 MS. MCANDREWS: Ann McAndrews, 4
13 Lyons Place in the Village of Larchmont. 1
14 am concerned with the increased burden on
15 the sanitation system with 4 hundred plus
16 additional apartments being added to the
17 same system in the City of New Rochelle.
18 Has that been addressed, how the present
19 sanitation system is going to take on the
20 extra capacity on the sanitary and the
21 sewer system.
22 Also the anticipated requirements of
23 phase two of the storm water regulations
24 that have been considered on a project
25 this large, covering a large amount of land
Proceedings 41
1 with an impervious structure.
2 MS. MAKER: Westchester County of
3 Department of Planning in its submission to
4 the environmental officer of the town has
5 talked about the storm water permits and
6 the recent changes in the rules that will
7 be coming into effect so yes, that will be
8 studied.
9 MS. SELIGSON: Yes, that is one and
16
June 3, 2002
10 there is also the flow, the increased flow
11 in sanitary sewage. That is addressed in
12 the scoping documents. On page 8,
13 Anticipated Impact, it is under utilities
14 2B Sanitary Flow Analysis.
15 MS. MCANDREWS: You are talking
16 specifically about--we have a very large
17 project going into the system now in New
18 Rochelle. And I am concerned about that.
19 1 don't know if it is going to be able to
20 be handled by the New Rochelle sewage
21 system which we share.
22 1 am asking if that is going to be
23 taken into account in any kind of analysis
24 that will put a strain on the system.
25 MS. SELIGSON: This sanitary flow
Proceedings 42
1 analysis should determine the increase in
2 flow and where it is going and how it is
3 going to be handled.
4 A concern of mine is the sewage
5 treatment plant in New Rochelle is under
6 moratorium for any additional county trunk
7 lines. You still can hook up branch lines.
8 MS. MCANDREWS: You have at least 4
9 hundred apartments in New Rochelle. The
10 Avalon, and they are going to build an
11 additional one across the street.
12 MS. SUPERVISOR: Anyone else?
13 MS. WITTNER: In the scoping
14 document, is it necessary to enumerate in
15 the scoping document outside permits that
16 are needed?
17 MR. FISH: Any permit they need, it
18 has to be listed and it is normally listed
19 in chapter one.
20 MS. SELIGSON: Under utilities,
21 Number 1, existing conditions A, 2 is the
22 available capacity of public water supply
23 and connection policies, which is drinking
24 water. The same thing is under B,
25 Available capacity for public sewer system
Proceedings 43
1 and connection policies. They will
2 definitely have to study that.
3 MS. SUPERVISOR: And specifically
4 look into the fact that they take note of
5 the fact there is some changes going into
6 the New Rochelle sewage treatment plant to
7 wit the Avalon and will this project
8 adversely effect the operation of that
9 plant or can it be hitched up; is that what
10 you are asking?
11 MS. SELIGSON: I think that would be
12 good to add on to page eleven. We have
13 Roman Numeral 6, we have Growth Inducement
14 there and then under that there is
15 population A, 1, Increase in resident
16 population leading to additional growth
17 nearby. Within that, I think we should add
18 that, the planned development and increase
19 in growth.
20 MR. MAY AISEN: Maybe we can specify
21 adjacent community. So that nearby does
22 not just apply to the Town of Mamaroneck.
23 MR. FISH: That could be called
24 accumulative impact.
25 MS. SUPERVISOR: Yes, sir, state
Proceedings 44
1 your name.
17
June 3, 2002
2 MR. BERNARD KAPLAN: 27 Pryor Manor
3 Road in the Town of Mamaroneck. I was
4 wondering when they are acquiring that
5 triangular piece in the front from the
6 town; does that necessarily have to be
7 rezoned? They don't seemed to be using it.
8 MS. SUPERVISOR: I will refer to
9 Mr. Maker.
10 MR. MAKER: I believe it does in
11 order to become all part of one parcel. So
12 that all of the computations will be based
13 upon one parcel. And it would defer any
14 argument that you are not allowed to
15 incorporate this triangular area because it
16 is not zoned the same way. That is why it
17 is included here.
18 Al MASON: What is the anticipated
19 lot coverage? Al Mason 482 Weaver Street,
20 Planning Board. That raises the question
21 that has been rolling in the back of my
22 mind. What is the percentage of lot
23 coverage that we are talking about for that
24 entire package and how big a change in the
25 zoning is this going to require?
Proceedings 45
1 MR. FISH: They are going to have to
2 answer all of that in the project
3 description. We have asked for that.
4 MR. MASON: Give us a hint.
5 MR. FISH: I will have to refer to
6 the applicant on that.
7 MR. MAKER: I think this is your
8 answer. In the petition, the current
9 statute reads, "Total horizontal cross
10 section of buildings over thirty feet in
11 height shall not exceed fifteen percent of
12 the total site area". They are asking or
13 thirty-five percent.
14 MR. MASON: There is a little caveat
15 in there, the height of the building. How
16 about the rest of it.
17 MR. MAKER: Total horizontal cross
18 section of buildings over thirty feet in
19 height.
20 MR. MASON: How about buildings
21 under thirty feet?
22 MR. MAKER: It is not covered by the
23 ordinance, unless it is in some other
24 section that my eye is not reaching at that
25 point.
Proceedings 46
1 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. McMichael.
2 MR. MCMICHAEL: Howard McMichael, 17
3 Soundview. On page seven we added a few
4 intersection to be looked at and I think is
5 an assumption that because it is so near
6 the thruway, a lot of residents will go
7 that way.
8 The Weaver Street corridor is the
9 other way and a lot of people are not going
10 to necessarily go to work in the city. So
11 1 would say half the people will more
12 probably go up there towards Edgewood and
13 the cut through streets that go to Weaver
14 Street. That has became a bottle neck
15 that occurs. That whole section has to be
16 looked at, including Pinebrook Boulevard,
17 cutting through Edgewood to get to Weaver.
18 Also Myrtle and Maple Hill, Colonial
19 to get to Weaver; all of those cut through
18
June 3, 2002
20 streets.
21 MR. MASON: People who are going to
22 the Hutchinson will go up Pinebrook
23 Boulevard.
24 MS. SUPERVISOR: Or 5th Avenue. And
25 then up Pinebrook. Did the City of New
Proceedings 47
1 Rochelle send us anything specific with
2 respect to Pinebrook Boulevard traffic?
3 MS. WITTNER: No, they have asked for
4 Potter Avenue and Fifth Avenue and Palmer
5 and Potter.
6 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Winick.
7 MR. PAUL WINICK: Paul Winick, Zoning
8 Arden Road. I have a question with
9 reference to Paragraph number 8 on page
10 eleven of the building document. It has an
11 interesting title but I don't know what it
12 pertains to, it says, "Irretrievable and
13 Irreversible Commitment of Resources."
14 What is meant by that? I don't know if 1
15 have any comments on it.
16 MR. FISH: A long time ago in the
17 early 80's when the state law was written,
18 the attorney who wrote it-- actually it was
19 not an attorney, it was a landscape
20 architect who wrote in something called
21 irreversible and irretrievable commitment
22 of resource. It is actually in the state
23 law so that every EIS has repeated that.
24 When we write it in the EIS we don't
25 give it its own chapter, it usually comes
Proceedings 48
1 out as a canned paragraph from the
2 computer. That is the way EIS, throughout
3 the state are handling this section. 1
4 don't know if it is specific case law, 1
5 will refer to the attorneys, in this
6 particular item. It is not and never has
7 been in my experience a major part of the
8 EIS but it is required.
9 MR. MAKER: The open space will no
10 longer be there. The current open space
11 will be irreversible and irretrievable in
12 the context of this application. I think
13 that is part of what it is all about.
14 MR. WINICK: One could see
15 irretrievable and permanently committed
16 resources are police and fire departments
17 for the building with one hundred and
18 eighty units in it and you have a certain
19 amount of police time that is going to be
20 committed to it. Fire department will have
21 to increase their equipment and it may not
22 be what it was intended for but it
23 certainly fits for that kind of thing as
24 well as open space.
25 MS. GALLANT: Attorney for the Zoning
Proceedings 49
1 Board. That information would be included
2 in other parts of the DEIS. That would be
3 the stress on the community resources,
4 human resources. That is included in other
5 chapters of the DEIS.
6 MS. ELIZABETH PAUL: Coastal Zone
7 Management, that paragraph would apply to a
8 lot of project that are like areas that
9 would involve deforestation or a mine or
10 something doing some big disturbances. It
11 does not really apply to developments where
19
June 3, 2002
12 properties have been developed already, a
13 redevelopment property.
14 SYRETTE DYM: My name is Syrette Dym,
15 Chair of the Larchmont Village Planning
16 Commission. I think most of this is fairly
17 comprehensive certainly with the additions
18 that have been added tonight. Just to
19 point out two things. Not necessarily our
20 concern but things that I have noticed.
21 1 think you would probably end up
22 putting it in here anyway, under the
23 project description there is no indication
24 of the required zone change that is the
25 part of the proposed action. Under the
Proceedings 50
1 affordable housing, I am sure you would
2 cover it.
3 But you talk about demand, there is
4 nothing about supply. I think you should
5 identify the affordable housing supply in
6 the town and how this relates to the
7 Westchester County fair share requirement.
8 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Rosenbaum
9 MARC ROSENBAUM: Town Planning Board,
10 88 Briarcliff Road. It appears on page 1
11 under clarification of action it is put
12 down unlisted. That was prior to the
13 determination that it was a type one, what
14 was the rezoning that it was unlisted?
15 MR. FISH: The applicant classified
16 this as unlisted. The usual difference
17 being now hotly debated in the Village of
18 Mamaroneck between an unlisted action and a
19 type one action, the type one action is one
20 that is deemed to normally, or more likely
21 to require an EIS.
22 As a practical matter that is the
23 main distinction between unlisted and type
24 one. Despite the fact they have classified
25 this as an unlisted action, the Town Board
Proceedings 51
1 is requiring the EIS.
2 The other distinction is if this
3 were unlisted, you can do what is called a
4 condition of negative debt. They have made
5 a positive declaration. Whether it is
6 unlisted or type one, I am not sure. It is
7 being treated as type one.
8 MR. MAKER: It is a type one action
9 on the positive declaration. That is a
10 clerical error by the applicant. Frank
11 correctly points out the dichotomy between
12 the type one and unlisted, always is used
13 to determine whether an EIS has to be
14 prepared at all.
15 MR. ROSENBAUM: On the list of type
16 one, is the facility more than 1 hundred
17 thousand square foot of gross floor area?
18 Does anyone know what the gross floor area
19 is?
20 MS. SUPERVISOR: Joel Sachs.
21 MR. SACHS: Attorney for the
22 applicant, Keane and Bean, 1 North
23 Broadway. White Plains. That criteria
24 relates to a non-residential project.
25 MR. FISH: Bill has pointed out, we
Proceedings 52
1 will treat it as a type one action.
2 MR. ROSENBAUM: What was the thought
3 process of the applicant?
20
June 3, 2002
4 MR. SACHS: I think the thought
5 process is under part 617 SEQRA
6 regulations, you look at the thresholds for
7 what constitutes a type one action. If
8 something doesn't fall within the
9 enumerated thresholds, it is not considered
10 a type one action, instead it is an
11 unlisted action. In this case, it is really
12 irrelevant because we committed from day
13 one to do an Environmental Impact
14 Statement.
15 We didn't have to be directed by
16 the Town to do it. We are coming into the
17 Town and we are prepared to do the
18 Environmental Impact Statement.
19 TERRY HARTEN: Ten Frost Place,
20 Larchmont. Can you just direct me, I am
21 sure it is here, where does it show the
22 specific parking impact on the Village of
23 Larchmont and what might be done to
24 mitigate those.
25 MS. SUPERVISOR: We have gotten the
Proceedings 53
1 response from the village. It was not
2 specific, on page 7 and 8. It discusses
3 areas; it is not specific. Can we make it
4 more specific what would you suggest, to
5 make it more specific?
6 MS. HARTEN: Specific impacts on
7 availability of parking space in the
8 Village of Larchmont. Palmer Avenue and
9 Boston Post Road.
10 MR. ALTIERI: In the comments from
11 the Village of Larchmont, the Mayor has
12 asked that traffic congestion and
13 associated issues for the village be
14 considered in the DEIS. It was not
15 specific.
16 MS. HARTEN: Specific availability or
17 impact on street parking in Village of
18 Larchmont and the lots and then under
19 parking mitigation other, you can say if
20 there are any impacts on the village
21 portions. What can one do to address those.
22 MS. SUPERVISOR: When you say the
23 Village of Larchmont, you are talking
24 about--
25 MS. HARTEN: The shopping area.
Proceedings 54
1 MS. SUPERVISOR: You are not talking
2 about Pryor Manor Road?
3 MS. HARTEN: I would doubt the
4 Premium Point people have issues. I don't
5 know.
6 MS. SUPERVISOR: Mr. Budding.
7 MR. BUDDING: I don't see any impact
8 of the residential development on public
9 facilities like parks and playgrounds.
10 MS. SUPERVISOR: Is that in there?
11 MS. SELIGSON: There is one line for
12 recreation.
13 MS. SUPERVISOR: Playgrounds and
14 recreation is in there. That would
15 presumably cover public recreation in the
16 town.
17 MR. FISH: Page ten, F 2 D (6)
18 Recreation.
19 MS. SUPERVISOR: Lori Brandon.
20 MS. BRANDON: 6 Orcini Drive. We
21 should at least know what kinds of
21
June 3, 2002
22 expectation we have for pets as it relates
23 to dog walking in an area that doesn't have
24 a lot of grassy areas.
25 Also, I didn't see anything about
Proceedings 55
1 pedestrians, the impact on pedestrians and
2 the extra pedestrians, it may not be
3 addressed.
4 MS. SUPERVISOR: Anything else? If
5 something is really important, it is going
6 to jump out at you now. You do have time to
7 write in before June 17, 2002. Write into
8 Mr. Altieri who is the chief environmental
9 officer.
10 MR. RUSSO: Just for clarification,
11 can I have the schedule. What happens on
12 June 17?
13 MS. SUPERVISOR: On June 17, the
14 Town wants to receive all comments with
15 respect to scoping documents so we will
16 have sufficient time to collate and put
17 into some rational form all of the concerns
18 so that they can be turned over to the
19 attorney for the applicant on the
20 twenty-four of June.
21 MR. RUSSO: At that time, that is
22 when they begin to put together the Draft
23 Environmental Impact Statement? After the
24 draft is completed, is there a review
25 period?
Proceedings 56
1 MR. MAKER: When the draft is
2 completed, they will submit it to the Town
3 Board who is the lead agency. The Town
4 Board has forty-five days in which to
5 determine the adequacy of the DEIS based
6 upon the scope as it is morphing into its
7 final form.
8 Once the Town Board, if the Town
9 Board thinks that two issues are properly
10 addressed, it will then accept the DEIS.
11 And then of course accept is an unfortunate
12 word that SEQRA regulations use. Accept
13 conjures up the notation that everything is
14 right and approved. All that means is
15 that it is acceptable as to the form. Then
16 the Town Board will conduct a public
17 hearing. And they may continue to accept
18 written commentary on it and oral
19 presentations on it and finally, close the
20 hearings.
21 Ten days later, the people can
22 continue to write in comments and then it
23 will continue.
24 MR. RUSSO: This is by no means the
25 final meeting?
Proceedings 57
1 MS. SUPERVISOR: This is the
2 beginning.
3 MR. FISH: On the agenda you received
4 when you came in it is on page 2. It lays
5 out the process for you. We are at the
6 beginning of it.
7 MR. ROSENBAUM: I wanted to clarify
8 something on page 7, they discuss impacts
9 on traffic and transportation. There is a
10 description of the commuter trains and bus
11 service in the area on number two. I don't
12 see anything with respect to the
13 anticipated impact on the trains and on
22
June 3, 2002
14 public transportation. How crowded the
15 trains may be. I want to make sure that
16 that was covered.
17 MS. JUDY MYERS: That brings up
18 another question, does the MTA have any say
19 over any of this?
20 MR. FISH: As per SEQRA rules they are
21 not an involved agency. I can't think of
22 any authority they would have in this, no.
23 We could notify them.
24 MS. PAUL: We sent them a notice.
25 MR. FISH: We have considered them,
Proceedings 58
1 an interest. They have no direct decision.
2 1 am sure however dealing with them they
3 would have love to hear of additional
4 passengers.
5 MS. MYERS: It also occurs to me we
6 could be facing two developments, two
7 buildings sites at the same time with the
8 change to the Metro North Station.
9 MS. SUPERVISOR: They are going to
10 put in the new Metro North Station but most
11 of that will be fabricated off site. Then
12 they will come in and put it together on
13 site. Then it could be put together. They
14 are talking about 2003 being finished in
15 the fall of 2003.
16 MS. MYERS: 2004. Finish Larchmont
17 train station, the renovation of that.
18 MR. MASON: Will it be in the same
19 location?
20 MS. SUPERVISOR: They are moving the
21 cross, overpass towards the New York City
22 side by twenty feet or so and they are
23 going to redo the waiting room, ticket
24 room, more or less in the same spot. Then,
25 they are going to put a shed down towards
Proceedings 59
1 the west end, New York side. That will be
2 heated, so people can stand in there and
3 wait for the train and an elevator for the
4 overpass. The overpass will also serve as a
5 waiting room and you will see Mamaroneck
6 and when you see the train coming, run down
7 the stairs or take the elevator.
8 MR. ODIERNA: It might be a good
9 jitney stop, or a tram bus.
10 MS. SUPERVISOR: Ms. McAndrews.
11 MS. MCANDREWS: I know that some of
12 the preliminary plans about the railway
13 station say they may actually loss a number
14 of parking space available.
15 MS. SUPERVISOR: On the upper deck
16 they will lose some spaces and on the deck
17 on the Larchmont side they will lose some
18 spaces.
19 MS. MCANDREWS: If you add that on
20 to the loss during the construction period,
21 if that can be somehow integrated in the
22 thinking of mitigation during that period.
23 Maybe they can come up with an option
24 during the construction period and possible
25 mitigation.
Proceedings 60
1 MS. WITTNER: Like car pooling to
2 railroad station.
3 MS. MCANDREWS: I share Judy's
4 concerns. It could be a tough mess. We
5 have to think to mitigation; both of those
23
June 3, 2002
6 things are happening at once.
7 MS. SUPERVISOR: I think that the
8 brains have stopped turning here. I want
9 to thank you for all your interest in this
10 project and the welfare of our town.
11 You have until the 17 of June to
12 submitted in writing to the Town Hall, care
13 of Mr. Stephen Altieri, the administrator,
14 any questions or any comments that you have
15 on the present document or anything that
16 you think should be included that has not
17 been mentioned so far.
18 MS. SUPERVISOR: May I have a motion
19 to adjourn?
20 MS. WITTNER: I make the motion.
21 MS. MYERS: Second.
22 (Time noted 9:35)
23
24
25
Proceedings 61
1 CERTIFICATION
2
3
4
5 Certified to be a true and accurate
6 transcript of the aforesaid proceeding.
7
8
9
10 ---------------------
11 DENISE M. CARBONE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24