HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_06_21 Town Board Minutes
June 21, 2006
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD ON JUNE 21, 2006 AT
8:15 PM IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN, 740 W. BOSTON
POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK
PRESENT:
Supervisor Valerie M. O'Keeffe
Councilwoman Phyllis Wittner
Councilman Ernest C. Odierna
Councilwoman Nancy Seligson
ALSO PRESENT:
Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk
Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator
William Maker, Jr., Town Attorney
Christina Battalia, Deputy Town Clerk
ABSENT Councilman Paul A. Winick
WORK SESSION
Boards & Committees
The Board members discussed vacancies on various boards and committees.
The New Parking Deck (Forest City Residential)
The Board discussed the increased cost to the parking deck and their dissatisfaction in
finding a solution.
Capital Projects
The Administrator said it would be necessary to begin moving forward with some of the
projects – especially the water filtration plant, police vehicles and the bids for Engine 51 for
which the fire department was finalizing the specifications. He suggested a new garbage
truck be put on hold for now. He said the Town Yard roof replacement could be funded
through a bond issue.
Drainage – Gardens Lake
There was a discussion on sediment control and Councilman Odierna’ s invention to
measure the depth of the sediment. Mr. Altieri said to put in a storm water drain retention
facility at Cabot and York the Town would have to borrow funds.
Supervisor O’Keeffe said Orchard Road has become pretty bad – there is standing water
even when there is a light rain and it seems to be getting worse. She suggested a study to
see how it can be fixed adding she thought this was more important than Cabot Road
because it affects more people.
Water Filtration Plant
Mr. Altieri said he would discuss with John Hoch how to fund this project. For instance a
water rate increase, borrowing, or maybe a special tax.
Finance Report
Denis Brucciani, Town Comptroller, gave an overview of the year to date expenditures
noting that Highway is doing a good job containing expenses, overtime is down as is the
police department. A discussion ensued.
June 21, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor O’Keeffe
At 8:30 PM. She then pointed out the location of exits. She said that Councilman Winick
was absent tonight because his son was graduating from Mamaroneck High School.
ADJOURNED HEARING Special Permit Hearing – Forest City Daly
The Adjourned Public Hearing was adjourned to July 5, 2006
THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER OF THE AGENDA.
FIRE CHIEF SPECIAL PARKING AT NORTH CHATSWORTH AVENUE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of
the Town of Mamaroneck on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 8:15 PM or as soon
thereafter as is possible in the Court Room of the Town Center, 740 W. Boston
Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York to consider the adoption of a local law entitled
“Restricted Parking Zone on a Section of North Chatsworth Avenue” Law.
Purpose:
The purpose of this local law is to create a parking space on North Chatsworth
Avenue where only vehicles assigned to the Fire Chiefs of the Town of
Mamaroneck can park so that any chief residing in the area can have ready
access to the chief’s car in times of emergency.
The hearing was unanimously opened on motion of Councilwoman Wittner,
seconded by Councilwoman Seligson.
Supervisor O'Keeffe made note that creating a parking space for the Fire Chief has
been done for 25 years allowing them to get to a fire as soon as possible.
Supervisor O'Keeffe asked if anyone would like to speak for or against this proposed
Local law.
Mr. Berliner of 16 N. Chatsworth, Lisa Young of 16 No. Chatsworth and Barbara
Brown of 21 N. Chatsworth were all in favor. Ms. Brown did ask that he refrain from
turning on the siren until he was well away from the building.
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Odierna, the hearing
was unanimously closed.
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was
RESOLVED, that the Town Board finds that the adoption of the
proposed local law regarding “Restricted Parking Zone on a
Section of North Chatsworth Avenue” is hereby declared to be
a Type II action, with no environmental impact under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, the Local Law
was adopted.
2
June 21, 2006
LocaI Law No. 11 - 2006
This local law shall be known as the “Restricted Parking Zone on a Section of North
Chatsworth Avenue” Law.
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck
Section 1 — Purpose
The purpose of this local law is to create a parking space on North Chatsworth
Avenue where only vehicles assigned to the Fire Chiefs of the Town of Mamaroneck
can park so that any chief residing in the area can have ready access to the chiefs’
car in times of emergency.
Section 2 — Restricted Parking on North Chatsworth Avenue:
There shall be a restricted parking zone on the north side of North Chatsworth
Avenue starting at the point on the north side of North Chatsworth Avenue which is
two-hundred (200) feet west of the intersection of the northerly side of North
Chatsworth Avenue with the westerly side of Myrtle Boulevard. This restricted
parking zone shall extend from that point in a westerly direction along the northerly
side of North Chatsworth Avenue for a distance of twenty-four (24) feet. Only
vehicles assigned to one of the Fire Chiefs of the Town of Mamaroneck shall be
permitted to park in that restricted parking zone.
Section 3 — Sign(s) to be Erected and Painting to be done:
An appropriate sign or signs shall be erected on the north side of North Chatsworth
Avenue indicating the area where parking is limited to vehicles assigned to one of
the Fire Chiefs of the Town of Mamaroneck. If deemed appropriate by the
Superintendent of Highways, the restricted parking zone may also be painted to
indicate the area of restricted parking.
Section — 4 severability:
Should any provision of this Local Law be declared invalid or unconstitutional by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration of unconstitutionality or
invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this Local Law, which may be
implemented without the invalid or unconstitutional provisions.
Section — Effective Date:
5
This Local Law shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
FIRST AMENDMENT – ILLUMINATED SIGNS MORATORIUM
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board
of the Town of Mamaroneck on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 8:15 PM in the
Town Center Court Room, of the Town Center, 740 W. Boston Post Road,
Mamaroneck, New York to consider the adoption of a local law entitled “First
Amendment to the Moratorium on Illuminated Signs.”
PURPOSE
The Town Board is concerned about the potential proliferation of brightly
illuminated signs within the Town’s business and industrial districts. By
Local Law No. 6-2006, it enacted a moratorium on the erection of new
illuminated signs to afford the Town Board an opportunity to examine ways
to control the erection of such signs. That moratorium expires on June 30,
2006. Since the moratorium went into effect, the Board has been studying
ways in which such lighting can be controlled without creating an undue
economic burden upon the Town’s commercial enterprises. The Board
needs additional time to complete its examination. Hence, a short
extension moratorium on the erection of illuminated signs is warranted.
3
June 21, 2006
The hearing was unanimously opened on motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by
Councilwoman Seligson.
Mr. Maker stated that Donald Meeker was consulting on a study which is not yet completed
therefore this extension is required.
Supervisor O'Keeffe thanked Mr. Meeker and Councilman Winick for their work on this.
Councilman Odierna stated he was not convinced of the pertinence of this matter.
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, the
hearing was unanimously closed.
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was
RESOLVED, that the Town Board finds that the adoption of the
proposed local law regarding “First Amendment to the
Moratorium on Illuminated Signs ” is hereby declared to be a
Type II action, with no environmental impact under the New
York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, the Local Law
was adopted.
Local Law No. 12 - 2006
This local law shall be known as the “First Amendment to the Moratorium
on Illuminated Signs” Law.
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck
Section 1 – Purpose:
The Town Board is concerned about the potential proliferation of brightly
illuminated signs within the Town’s business and industrial districts. By
Local Law No. 6-2006, it enacted a moratorium on the erection of new
illuminated signs to afford the Town Board an opportunity to examine ways
to control the erection of such signs. That moratorium expires on June 30,
2006. Since the moratorium went into effect, the Board has been studying
ways in which such lighting can be controlled without creating an undue
economic burden upon the Town’s commercial enterprises. The Board
needs additional time to complete its examination. Hence, a short
extension moratorium on the erection of illuminated signs is warranted.
Section 2 --- Amendment to a current section of the Code of the Town of
Mamaroneck:
Section 175-12 G. of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck hereby is
amended by deleting the words “June 30, 2006” therefrom and substituting
the words “August 31, 2006” in their place.
Section 3 – Severability:
Should any provision of this Local Law be declared invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration
of unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of
this Local Law, which may be implemented without the invalid or
unconstitutional provisions.
Section 4 – Effective Date:
4
June 21, 2006
This Local Law shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of
State.
PUBLIC HEARING - BONDING RESOLUTION – WATER DISTRICT NO. 1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck,
Westchester County, New York, will meet at the Town Hall, in Mamaroneck, New
York, on June 21, 2006, at 8:15 o’clock P.M., Prevailing Time, for the purpose of
conducting a public hearing upon a certain map, plan and report, including an
estimate of cost, in relation to the proposed increase and improvement of the
facilities of the Consolidated Water District, in said Town, consisting of the water
distribution system improvements at Normandy Drive and at Eton Road, as well as
engineering costs relating to the new Water Treatment Plant, including original
furnishings, equipment, machinery, apparatus, appurtenances and incidental
improvements and expenses in connection therewith, at a maximum estimated cost
of $570,946.
Said capital project has been determined to be an Unlisted Action pursuant to the
regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the
implementation of which as proposed, the Town Board has determined will not result
in any significant environmental effects.
The following resolution was offered by Councilman Odierna who moved its
adoption, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner to-wit:
BOND RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 21, 2006.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $570,946 SERIAL BONDS OF THE
TOWN OF MAMARONECK, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK, TO PAY THE
COST OF THE INCREASE AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE FACILITIES OF THE
CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT IN SAID TOWN.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck, Westchester County, New
York, has duly caused to be prepared a map, plan and report including an estimate of
cost, pursuant to Section 202-b of the Town Law, relating to the increase and
improvement of the facilities of the Consolidated Water District in the Town of
Mamaroneck, Westchester County, New York, being the water distribution system
improvements at Normandy Drive and at Eton Road, as well as engineering costs
relating to the new Water Treatment Plant, including original furnishings, equipment,
machinery, apparatus, appurtenances, and incidental improvements and expenses in
connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said capital project has been determined to be an Unlisted Action
pursuant to the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
the implementation of which as proposed, the Town Board has determined will not
result in any significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, at a meeting of said Town Board duly called and held on June 7, 2006, an
order was duly adopted by it and entered in the minutes specifying that said Town
Board would meet to consider the increase and improvement of the facilities of the
Consolidated Water District in said Town at a maximum estimated cost of $570,946
and to hear all persons interested in the subject thereof concerning the same at the
Town Hall Mamaroneck, New York, in said Town, on June 21, 2006 at 8:15 o'clock
P.M., Prevailing Time; and
WHEREAS, said order duly certified by the Town Clerk was duly published and
posted as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held at the time and place set forth in said
notice, at which all persons desiring to be heard were duly heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITORDERED, by the Town Board of the Town of
Mamaroneck, Westchester County, New York, as follows:
5
June 21, 2006
Section 1. Upon the evidence given at the aforesaid public hearing, it is hereby found
and determined that it is in the public interest to make the improvement, to increase
and improve the facilities of Consolidated Water District in the Town of Mamaroneck,
Westchester County, New York, being the water distribution system improvements at
Normandy Drive and at Eton Road, as well as engineering costs relating to the new
Water Treatment Plant, including original furnishings, equipment, machinery,
apparatus, appurtenances, and incidental improvements and expenses in connection
therewith; at a maximum estimated cost of $570,946.
Section 2. This order shall take effect immediately.
The question of the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote on
roll call, which resulted as follows:
Councilman Winick VOTING Absent
Councilwoman Seligson VOTING Aye
Councilman Odierna VOTING Aye
Councilwoman Wittner VOTING Aye
Supervisor O’Keeffe VOTING Aye
The order was thereupon declared duly adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING – Amendment to BMUB Zone – Forest City Residential
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of
the Town of Mamaroneck on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 8:15 PM or as soon
thereafter as is possible in the Court Room of the Town Center, 740 W. Boston
Post Road, Mamaroneck, New York to consider a amendment to the zoning
ordinance proposed in the petition of FCD Mamaroneck LLC.
Purpose – This amendment would amend the provisions of the Business-Mixed
Use Business District and related provision of the Mamaroneck Code with
respect to the height of structures within the Business-Mixed Use Business
District.
The hearing was unanimously opened on motion of Councilwoman Seligson, seconded by
Councilwoman Wittner.
Supervisor O'Keeffe read the following statement:
This evening the Town Board will consider a second amendment to the BMUB
Zone in connection with the application of Forest City. If approved the zoning
amendment would permit Forest City to construct a building with a total height of
87 feet. Under the current BMUB zoning the maximum height permitted is 75 feet.
By raising the height of the building to 87 feet Forest City would add one story to
the building making it 8 stories tall instead of 7 and four additional residential
units thereby increasing the total number of units to 139.
In view of comments and inquiries regarding the recent zoning petition filed by
Forest City it would be appropriate to step back for a moment and review the
history of this application, the implications to the Town, and the review process
conducted by the Town Board, Town staff, Town consultants and our boards and
committees.
Originally contacted in 2001 by Forest City (FC) a proposal was made to construct
a residential development on Madison Avenue next to the Town’s public works
yard. Representatives of Forest City Residential held public meetings for the
community to describe their proposal. In addition meetings were held by the
Town to advise residents how an application of this type would be reviewed.
In March of 2002 the Town Board initiated a formal environmental review of the FC
proposal pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Law
(SEQR) by indicating its intention to serve as the lead agency during the review
process. There being no objection the Town Board undertook the role of lead
6
June 21, 2006
agency in May of 2002. It held a joint meeting with the Planning Board, Board of
Architectural review and FC to discuss the areas of particular environmental
concern that needed to be analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement
to be prepared in connection with the development proposal. Involved agencies
and interested parties received copies of the proposed DEIS scope that was
prepared prior to the joint meeting and a public hearing on the scope of the DEIS
was held on June 3, 2002. Upon receiving comments on the scoping document
revisions were made and the scoping document was adopted on June 20, 2002.
To be considered in the EIS was a proposal to construct 186 residential rental
apartments in a seven story structure on 2.94 acres. Within the building would be
8 affordable workforce apartments. The building was to have six stories of
residential apartments and one above ground story of parking. Parking would
also be constructed.
Underground and an existing surface lot would be expanded. In total there would
be 392 parking spaces; 267 for residential purposes, 68 on site retail spaces and
57 spates for use by the Clock Tower Office building on Madison Avenue. The
residential parking ratio for the proposed building was 1.43 spaces for each
residential unit. The original DEIS submitted by FC was rejected by the Town
Board as being inadequate. A revised DEIS was accepted on November 19, 2003.
The DEIS also presented a preferred alternative proposal to construct 162
residential rental units on 2.18 acres. A reduction of the lot size came about as a
result of the decision by FC to not include the t-parking lot on Madison Avenue in
the proposal. This lot would now remain under the ownership of the Clock Town
Building for parking for their tenants.
The preferred alternative proposal included a total of 162 apartments, 8 of which
would be set aside as affordable workforce housing. There would be a total of 284
parking spaces 271 of which would be set aside for residential use and 13 visitor
spaces. In this proposal the residential parking ratio increased from 1.43 spaces
per unit to 1.75 spaces per unit. The new parking ratio compared favorably with
the Carlton House Apartments on North Chatsworth Avenue where there are 244
parking spaces for 142 housing units (1.72 spaces per unit).
Also as part of the preferred alternative proposal FC proposed to fund the
construction of a parking deck over Town parking lot # 3. In 2003 the estimated
cost of constructing a parking deck for 45 to 50 cars was $1.1 to $1.3million.
Under the plan FC would make annual payments to the Town which in
combination with revenues generated from parking permits sold would defray the
debt cost to be incurred by the Town for construction of the deck. It would be the
Town’s responsibility to construct the deck and issue the bonds for financing the
construction.
As required by the scoping document, the DEIS studied the various impacts of the
proposed development including such things as traffic, parking, drainage and
impacts upon local schools and municipal services. It was also at this time that
the Town Board determined that if a development of this type were to be
constructed there must be benefit to the community. Public benefits identified
were:
1. Improve a fairly deteriorated part of the Town of Mamaroneck.
2. Provide housing at affordable levels.
3. Improve the parking situation in the Washington Square neighborhood.
Keeping these objectives in mind the Town Board and various involved agencies
reviewed the DEIS. On January 20, 2004 and February 12, 2004 the Town Board
held public hearings on the Forest City DEIS. It also accepted written comments
on the DEIS. Having received various comments on the document a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared to answer the comments
made by the public and involved agencies. On January 5, 2005 nearly three years
after initiating the environmental review process the FEIS was accepted by the
Town Board.
2. Upon completion of the environmental review process the Town Board issued
their findings on the proposal March 2, 2005. In their findings the Town Board
determined that the total number of apartment units should be reduced from 162 to
159 apartments. Also the number of affordable workforce apartments should be
increased from 8 to 9. By reducing the number of apartment units and maintaining
7
June 21, 2006
the same number of parking spaces the ratio of parking spaces to apartments was
improved. Included in the findings statement was a requirement for FC to
contribute to the construction of a parking deck over lot #3 based upon the
aforementioned formula. Upon completion of the SEQR process the Town Board
amended the BMUB zone in May of 2005.
Before it could obtain a building permit Forest City had to apply for and receive a
special permit from the Town Board. Forest City filed a special permit application
on October 13, 2005. That application announced that the residential component
would be condominiums, not rental apartments. Under New York State Law, local
zoning regulations cannot govern the type of ownership for residential units.
Local zoning regulations can only regulate such things as the number of units,
height, set back, floor area ratios and parking requirements.
Although approved for 159 units Forest City’s condominium proposal reduced the
total number of residential units to 135, a reduction of 15%. As provided in the
approved zoning the building would be 7 stories; 6 for residential purposes and 1
story of parking. There would be 259 parking spaces for residential use. Included
were 13 visitor spaces and 246 spaces for the residential units. These numbers
equate to a ratio of 1.82 spaces per residential unit.
The updated condominium proposal continued to include nine affordable
workforce units that would remain, in perpetuity, as rental apartments.
Requirements for Forest City to contribute to the construction of a parking deck
also remained part of the development proposal.
All of this brings us to the new zoning petition filed by Forest City on May 12, 2006
to increase the height of the building from 75ft to 87ft. Why has this most recent
zoning petition been filed by Forest City Residential and what does it mean to the
community? Since 2002 when formal deliberations over this project began, the
cost of construction of the parking deck has increased dramatically. In 2002 the
estimated cost of construction for the parking deck was $1.1 to 1.3 million. The
same parking deck in 2006 is estimated to cost over $2.7 million. This estimate
was verified to be accurate with a margin of error of 10% to 15% by an
independent construction management firm retained by the Town to estimate the
cost of constructing the deck. Forest City Residential has indicated to the Town
that in order to earn a reasonable profit from the construction of the building, four
additional units are required if the construction of the parking deck remains part
of the plan.
What is very important here is that the original findings of the Town Board
contemplated an arrangement whereby Forest City Residential would contribute
to the cost of constructing the parking deck on Myrtle Boulevard in exchange for
the Town deeding a small piece of land on Byron Place. The land would be used
by Forest City as visitor parking. The Town would have been required to arrange
for the financing of the deck and oversight of its construction. Under the current
proposal Forest City will assume full responsibility for construction of the deck
including financing. For the Town this is now a turnkey arrangement with Forest
City turning over the deck to the Town upon completion of construction.
If approved, the additional height of the building would allow for the addition of
four more residential units increasing the total to 139 units, still well below the
number of units found to be acceptable in the SEQR Findings. The project would
continue to have 246 parking spaces for residential use resulting in a parking
ratio of 1.77 spaces per unit; more than the zoning ordinance requires and still
higher than the parking ratio for the Carlton House Apartments. In fact, Forest
City’s proposal calls for one parking space for each bedroom in the
condominium. Finally nine of the residential units will continue to be dedicated
as rental workforce affordable housing.
Joel Sachs, Attorney for Forest City, asked if this would be a new application for
special permit or just a continuation of the original.
Mr. Maker replied saying it’s a new application.
Andrew Tung, representing Forest City, said the costs for the parking deck had surpassed
the original estimate, to offset the additional costs they proposed adding one floor with
four additional units. He showed the site plan stating it was virtually the same except for
the addition of one story.
8
June 21, 2006
Donald Tedesco, 16 No. Chatsworth Avenue, commended the Board for the fabulous
2006 U.S. Open. He said he loves to walk and is always seeing his neighbors struggle
crossing the street on North Chatsworth and Myrtle, it’s a nightmare. To improve the
quality of life we need to be aware of safety in that area. These units will make it more
dangerous and onerous, he asked the Board to reject it.
Esther Albert, 14 No. Chatsworth said she does not understand how you estimate 1.8
cars per unit – how do you split a space. She asked for a definition of what is
affordable.
Mr. Tung explained if you have 1.8 as the ratio it simply means if there are 10
apartments there would be ten spaces. As to the work force housing, Westchester
County’s formula is a limit to 80% of the median income which is published every year.
This year its defined for a family of four the median is $90,000 – so 80% of that would
be $72,000.
Ms. Albert asked how that could possibly help families and there should then be more
two bedrooms rather than one bedroom apartments.
Resident, 14 No. Chatsworth, She read the following statement:
Forest City was given a good amount of leeway in this deal, if the costs have now
gone up, that should not be the Town’s problem. They should be able to pass this
on to their tenants or they should scrap this project and go somewhere else. It is
unconscionable to give them a second zoning amendment.
The two dominant motivators in the financial world are fear and greed. Which
motive is at work in FCD’s decision to switch from constructing a rental building
to a condo. And which motive is compelling them to ask the Town Board for a
second change to the Building Code in order that they may build an additional
story?
And in making this request for a second building code change to build an eighth
story, FCD also makes an ultimatum – that it will only build the parking garage
with approval for an eighth story. (And that garage will only have 43 spaces than
the originally planned 57 spaces. We should be mindful that the parking
provision by FCD for the unit owners are inadequate.
By switching from a rental building to a condo FCD ensures a much faster return
on their investment. And in asking for permission to build an additional story
they would be collecting additional funds If their request were to be granted.
Whichever motivation is at work, FCD is demonstrating that they are unreliable as
business partners with the Town. They were given a very good deal for them by
the Town when it voted, with much controversy among the Townspeople, to allow
this. The change to the Town Building Code which enabled this project to
proceed also gave them the right to become part of the Murray Avenue School
District. If costs have gone up – which they probably have – We should not have
to foot FCS’s bills by paying in increased traffic, increased congestion, more
height then previously envisioned. Prices for apartments have gone up so FCD
should be able to pass on these costs. The cost of the garage would be a very
small part of their profits.
FCD, you are business man and perhaps it is time for you to review the viability of
this project. If you cannot make it work financially, as originally proposed, then
perhaps it is time to consider scrapping the project altogether. Why not take it
elsewhere , where traffic and parking are not such overwhelming concerns.
Peg Cozzi read the following:
June 21, 2006
Good evening everyone and thank you for this opportunity to address the
Council.
The members of the Chatsworth Neighborhood Association (CNA) unanimously
opposed any zoning changes for the Forest City Daly (FCD) development on the
parcels at Madison, Byron and Maxwell Avenues from its inception. We now ask
the Town Council to deny the request to add an eighth story (12 feet) to the
building.
9
June 21, 2006
This project as originally proposed was an eight story, rental building. After public
hearings the Council decided this was too massive and brought too many
problems to our neighborhood. FCD reduced it to seven floors and ultimately
fewer units. The Council worked very hard to get them to provide a deck for lot #3
which they now say they cannot afford to construct unless they get approval for
eight stories. While costs of construction have escalated since they first
presented their proposal so have real estate values in our neighborhood. Profit is
assured.
Last year we were forced to accept a project that does nothing to enhance our
neighborhood. And now the latest blow is to create a more massive structure with
8 floors on 2.18 acres. As a comparison, Carlton House at 35 N. Chatsworth has 6
floors with 142 units on 4.6 acres with grass and landscaping while FCD shows
almost full coverage of their acreage with minimal landscaping.
The negative impacts of a complex of I39 units, which could house as many as 400
people with the potential for 200 cars overwhelms an area which is already
burdened and decreases the quality of life for all residents.
Traffic congestion, air and noise pollution are already a burden on the
neighborhood. There is an increase in asthma and respiratory distress and
diseases in all increasingly urbanized environments.
Street parking problems are inadequately addressed. There is no guarantee that
new residents will use the parking provided in the complex. 45 or so extra spaces
on a decked lot#3 hardly addresses the neighborhood need which well exceeds
100 spaces.
There will be an increased load on a drainage system which is already
overburdened in the immediate area as well as downstream. Almost all permeable
land will be covered by this building. Drainage is addressed in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) only by suggesting that the current situation will not
become worse. The “green roof” is an excellent concept but at only 40-50%
coverage does not compensate for the loss of permeable land.
There is insufficient provision for affordable housing. Nine units represent 6.5%.
A rule of thumb in our current social awareness in Westchester County is for 10-
12% which would be 14-16 units.
The burden on municipal services caused by a population increase of
approximately 400 people will offset gains in tax collection. Allocations for fire,
police, emergency, sanitation, sewers, water and schools are all likely to increase.
107, two bedroom units could result in 107 or more students in our schools.
Whatever tax benefit the Town will realize will be funneled into the increased costs
for municipal services. Schools may need expansion.
The conversion of the project to condos will decrease the value of existing co-op
and condo apartment stock in the area until all initial sales in any new condo are
final.
The most important question yet to be answered is whether our fire department
has the equipment to deal adequately with emergencies in an eight story building.
The CNA concludes that a project of this scale will greatly diminish the quality of
life for approximately 1200 people who currently reside here with a dubious benefit
to the Town as a whole.
Our Town Council is elected to represent the best interests of all of us, not of a
corporate entity that is asking to exploit the advantages our community offers in
order to reap millions in profit without corresponding benefits to us besides an
increase in the tax rolls. Money isn’t everything. Quality of life is why we moved
here and it will surely be diminished by this project.
Thank you for your attention and thoughtful consideration.
Elizabeth Radow, 14 No. Chatsworth, stated water quality is important as is traffic.
How much should we be accepting the blockage of sunlight, traffic and the parking
situation on Myrtle Boulevard parking lot. She said she has a nine year old and its
dangerous, she always has to hold his hand. The waterworks will have to take care of
the infrastructure. As to the affordable housing, there is a question of the number of
10
June 21, 2006
people per unit. Older adults are moving out, families are moving in. What is the size
of the parking spaces.
Mr. Altieri said there would be a traffic signal installed where a pedestrian can push a
button and all signals will go red.
Mr. Tung said there will be one parking space for every apartment and a tenant can
buy a second.
Councilwoman Seligson said the property was not owned by the Town. Whom ever
owns it can do this or other things can be put on this property that the Town would
have no control over. This looked like a better solution for this area.
Supervisor O’Keeffe said we don’t know the number of children for sure but the
statisticians have gotten it right in other projects. As to fire, we care a lot about safety
and assure you none of us will vote for this until we know it’s safe.
Mr. Tung said New York State has a threshold Code where they must put pressurized
stairways which we are going to do.
The Supervisor said we will cross every T and we assure you structures in our
community will be safe. She said there are guidelines for work force housing we will
follow, we will be getting the parking deck, if we were not to get that we could push for
more affordable units.
Councilman Odierna said this will give resident empty nesters a place to go.
As for the water quality, Councilwoman Seligson said no one cares more about Long
Island Sound than her. She was past president of the Save the Sound group. This
project will not hurt the Sound, it will create more permeable ground so its an
improvement. Sanitary sewers are not controlled by the Town, the County determines
how many entities can hook up. They will review this and approve that.
Roger Hotte said he was a long time resident of 14 No. Chatsworth which has 75 units and
no parking spaces. 16 No. Chatsworth has 92 units with 106 parking spaces. A parking
deck was recommended with an additional 70 spaces with no cost to the Town, why didn’t
they keep their promise.
The Supervisor answered that we had never came to an exact number in the agreement, it
was a ballpark figure. Forest City never promised to pay for the entire thing.
Mr. Hotte said that wasn’t made clear. The first time he heard about the condo change was
in the paper. What did the Town get. Condos are where they get their money.
Councilman Odierna and the Supervisor said with the condo project there is actually 20
less units.
Lisa Young, 14 No. Chatsworth said the current parking is not like New York City. What is
the number of people on the waiting list (59). The agreement on the deck was to increase
parking in the lot. The traffic lights are not safe, a pedestrian light will only further back-up
traffic on Myrtle, in an area where traffic is always heavy.
Mr. Altieri said the phase to activate it could lengthen the cycle, but the new technology
counts cars and mediates the flow through the intersection so the wait time is reduced.
Carl Tortorella, 35 No. Chatsworth said he stopped by the Building Department about the
Carlton House. There are 246 spaces at the Carlton House, it breaks down to 1.82 spaces
per unit. If the Fire Department looks at this they will know if the fire ladder will reach. Will
there be a sprinkler system. Mr. Tung said yes to sprinklers.
Steven Spencer, 35 No. Chatsworth said he was concerned about the shortage of parking
spaces allocated. There are only 13 spaces for visitors – Carlton House has 29 and its not
enough. So where will they go – on the street. If there is an allocation of one car per
apartment what happens to the second car.
Mr. Tung noted it was one car per bedroom.
Mr. Spencer said yes but they are only getting one free, the second they will have to
purchase. In addition, Carlton House wanted eight stories but it was knocked down to six
it was deemed a a quality of life issue. He went to the Planning Board meeting it seems
11
June 21, 2006
it’s a fate accompli.
Supervisor O’Keeffe said no. It’s not done until the Town Board votes on it.
Councilwoman Wittner said she had asked the Clerk’s office to search the number of
meetings and notices on this matter and there were 41 meetings where Forest City was
discussed and noticed.
Patty O’Brien, 2 Washington Square said Carlton House was a huge benefit, those units
sold immediately. Young couples can’t buy here, condos are a benefit – density could be
a problem. Traffic is dangerous and needs to be addressed, trucks barrel through there
constantly.
Terri Schwartzman said all the important issues have been raised except for disabled
people. Affordable housing should be for Town employees, teachers, fire and police. We
also have young people not married who could use one bedroom.
Joel Windman said the Town approved the project in November and they now need one
more story to pay for the deck. I wrote a while back about resident stickers for people who
have to be able to park. We are frustrated, only solution is to move out.
Supervisor O’Keeffe said there was a discussion about building a deck built above 16 No.
Chatsworth. Originally the clock tower was a garage and was owned by 14 and 16 No.
Chatsworth. At some point it ceased to be a garage, then they all parked at 16 No.
Chatsworth which then turned into a co-op and 14 No. Chatsworth parkers got kicked out.
She suggested Mr. Windman approach 16 No. Chatsworth about a deck there.
Mr. Windham said what they have on Garth Road in Scarsdale works well.
John Irving, 14 No. Chatsworth heard a lot of ideas that are all stillborn. We would do
anything for parking spaces. His child had looked for a space for 1 ½ hours last night.
Jack Coughlin, 35 Byron Lane said traffic has increased tremendously. No one discussed
the height of the deck – how high will it be. They showed him on the map that it was only
one level above the current lot. He added it should be attractive.
The Supervisor said she absolutely agrees.
Claire Meadow, 35 No. Chatsworth said she works in the Westchester area, and watched
the Avalon and Trump buildings going up. They have changed the mood of the
community. She was concerned that is was originally a rental property, now changing to a
more profitable structure. They will jump on these apartments and our school will be
overwhelmed. There is a major problem with fire, and the school. Now the deck cost is
now an issue. There is a grave concern about traffic. She objects to selling these
changes.
Joe Shakeri, 176 No. Chatsworth, wanted to know how it would affect him and his
employees, there are less and less spaces for clients in his beauty salon.
Michael Flake, 14 No. Chatsworth said the amendment to zoning was done in November.
There would have to be a public benefit to allow them to go above that height, there
doesn’t seem to be any positives to this.
Supervisor O’Keeffe said there is a benefit to have a fully financed and built parking deck.
Vavasour, No. Chatsworth asked how long the construction will take and where will they
park during it. And where will the workers park.
Mr. Tung replied the construction should take approximately 18 months, they would stage
the sequence and parking would be on-site. They will lease a lot on Fifth Avenue also for
equipment and no worker would be allowed to park on the street.
Mr. Coughlin said he was concerned with how people will be able to access deck because
of traffic and congestion. There then followed a discussion on the egress and ingress of
the proposed deck.
The Board called for a five minute break, then reconvened.
Mr. Hotte asked if the Town had ever considered a triple deck.
12
June 21, 2006
The Supervisor said some people want no deck, afraid if we were to put in a big deck like
Scarsdale we would hit rock and it will cost much more.
The Attorney asked that a recommendation and/or three page letter from June 20 be put
into the record (no copy). And he said the Board would have to adopt the supplemental
findings statement. There was some discussion on the procedure from this point, the
deck, the deck fascia with the Administrator saying there was a requirement to go back to
the BAR regarding the façade of the design.
On motion of Councilwoman Seligson, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, the public
hearing was closed.
n motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Odierna, the
O
following was adopted:
FCD MAMARONECK, LIC MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT
TOWN OF MAMARONECK, NY
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS STATEMENT BY THE TOWN BOARD
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck received an
application from Forest City Daly (“the applicant”) to develop a 186-unit
rental apartment building in a B-MU B zoned area with frontage on
Madison Avenue, Byron Place, and Maxwell Avenue, which will include
parking and a commercial component, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board received a zoning petition from the applicant
to amend the B-MU B zoning text and map in support of the development
application, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board declared itself to be the Lead Agency for
purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), a
draft Environmental Impact Statement was received, reviewed, and a
public hearing was held on the Draft EIS on January 20 and February 12,
2004, and a preliminary Final EIS was submitted to the Town Board, which
was reviewed and revised by the applicant, and accepted by the Town
Board, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board considered all the material set forth in the
Final EIS which presented a reduced number of dwelling units, to 162
units from 186 units, and which the applicant termed the Preferred
Alternative Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board considered the 162-unit Preferred Alternative
Plan and found that the proposed apartment count should be reduced
further to no more than 159 apartments, in order to provide 1) an improved
proportion of workforce units (a minimum of nine), and 2) an improved
ratio of parking spaces to apartments, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board determined that the applicant should be
responsible for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the
1-95 ramps and Madison Avenue, should one be warranted and subject to
the NYS Thruway Authority, and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2005, the Town Board issued a Findings
Statement in which it determined that the amendments proposed in the
zoning petition were warranted because of the public benefits that will be
created, these being 1) the creation of in-perpetuity workforce housing, 2)
a commitment by the applicant to fund a municipal parking deck that will
help to alleviate a longstanding parking shortage in the Washington
Square area, and 3) the general physical and visual upgrading of the area.
WHEREAS, by Local Law No. 9-2005 enacted on May 5, 2005, the Town
Board amended the requirements of the B-MUB zoning district in a
manner consistent with the Findings that it made on March 2, 2005, and
WHEREAS, in its application for the special permit that is required in
13
June 21, 2006
connection with the applicant’s project, the applicant further reduced the
number of units within its proposed building to 135 units and proposed
that these units be Condominiums, and
WHEREAS, in subsequent discussions with town officials, the applicant
expressed a willingness to convert its commitment to provide funding for
the construction of a municipal parking deck to an obligation to construct
the deck itself as consideration for the sale of town-owned land along
Byron Place which the applicant would use as parking for visitors to its
building, and
WHEREAS, there have been considerable increases in the cost of
materials, such as steel and concrete, so that the estimated cost of
constructing the deck has risen dramatically over the last two years, and
WHEREAS, in order for the applicant to be able to afford either to fund the
construction of the municipal parking deck or to build the deck itself, the
applicant needs to increase the proposed building’s cubic feet, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has verified that the estimated cost of
constructing the parking deck today is double (and perhaps more) than
what the estimated cost of construction was two years ago, and
WHEREAS, the applicant consequently submitted a petition on May 12,
2006 which proposed a further amendment to the B-MU B zoning district
that would allow an increase in the number of residential stories from six
to seven, and an increase in the permitted height of the building from a
maximum of 75 feet to a maximum of 87 feet, and
WHEREAS, the addition of one story and twelve feet is necessary to
create larger apartments in order for the applicant to generate the revenue
needed to construct a parking deck that will help to alleviate the existing
parking shortage in the immediate area, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has represented to the Town Board that if such
an amendment to the B-MUB district were enacted, the applicant would
amend its application for a special permit to increase the number of units
from 135 (of which 41 were to be one-bedroom units and 94 were to be
two-bedrooms units) to 139 units (including a minimum of 9 workforce
housing units), of which 32 are proposed to be one-bedroom units and
107 are proposed to be two-bedroom units and to increase the number of
parking spaces to conform to the Planning Board’s requested standard of
one parking space per bedroom (thus providing 246 spaces within the
garage for use by the residents plus thirteen spaces on Byron Place for
use by visitors) and would commit to building and paying for the parking
deck (both soft and hard costs), at its sole cost and expense, and
WHEREAS, the impacts potentially generated by the addition of one story
and the three additional apartment units remain fewer than the impacts
studied in the DEIS, the FEIS, and summarized in the March 2, 2005
Findings as the DEIS analyzed 186 dwelling units, the FEIS analyzed 162
dwelling units, and the Findings statement approved a maximum of 159
dwelling units, and
WHEREAS, the impacts potentially generated by the addition of one story
to the proposed structure have been adequately analyzed in the
applicant’s May 12, 2006 EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) and June
16, 2006 letter regarding updated architectural floor plans and shadow
studies and have been shown to be limited to slight visual impacts, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has determined that the amendments
presented in the proposed zoning petition to further amend the BMUB
zoning district are warranted because of the public benefits that will be
created, these being 1) the creation of in-perpetuity workforce apartments,
2) the construction by the applicant of a municipal parking deck that will
14
June 21, 2006
correct a long-standing parking shortage in the Washington Square area,
and 3) the general physical and visual upgrading of the area.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, in its capacity
as Lead Agency, hereby supplements its March 2, 2005 Findings pursuant
to 6 NYCRR 617.11(d) as follows:
1.0 REAFFIRMATION OF THE MARCH 2, 2005 SEQRA FINDINGS
Except where amended either explicitly or by implication by these
Supplemental Findings, the Town Board restates and confirms the facts
found, the findings made, and the conclusions drawn in its March 2, 2005
SEQRA Findings.
2.0 SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS
2.1 SEQR History
This document is a Supplemental Findings statement prepared pursuant
to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the New York State
Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 for the proposed
FCD Mamaroneck LLC Mixed-Use Development project in Town of
Mamaroneck, New York.
This Findings statement attests that the Town of Mamaroneck Town
Board, acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review of this action,
has complied with the applicable procedural requirements of Part 617,
including but not limited to the following:
• Circulation of Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency on March 8, 2002;
• Designation of Lead Agency and Issuance of Positive Declaration with
direction to applicant to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) on April 1 7, 2002;
• Circulation of draft DEIS Scope to Involved and Interested Agencies
and scheduling a Scoping Session for June 3, 2002, on May 1, 2002;
• Publication of the Notice of Positive Declaration and Scoping Session
in the Environmental Notice /bulletin on May 1 5, 2002;
• Holding of a public Scoping Session for the DEIS on June 3, 2002;
• Adoption of a final DEIS Scope on June 20, 2002;
• Circulation of the adopted DEIS Scope to Involved and Interested
Agencies on June 21, 2002;
• Preparation of a DEIS by the Applicant;
• Review of drafts and revisions of the proposed DEIS with respect to
completeness;
• Acceptance of the DEIS on November 19, 2003;
• Scheduling a DEIS Public Hearing for January 20, 2004 and
distribution of the accepted DEIS to Involved and Interested Agencies on
December 3, 2003;
• Publication of the Notice of Completion of DEIS and Public Hearing in
the Environmental Notice Bulletin on December 17, 2003;
• Holding of a Public Hearing on the DEIS on January 20 and February
12, 2004, and the establishment of a written comment period on the DEIS
ending on February 25, 2004;
• Preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) by the
Applicant;
• Review of drafts and revisions of the proposed FEIS with respect to
completeness;
• Acceptance of the FEIS on January 5, 2005, and subsequent filing and
distribution of the FEIS to Involved and Interested Agencies;
• Publication of the Notice of Completion of FEIS in the Environmental
Notice Bulletin on January 26, 2005;
• Preparation and adoption of the March 2, 2005 Findings Statement;
• Preparation and adoption of these Supplemental Findings on June 21,
2006.
2.2 Basis for Supplemental Findings
The Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck finds, upon due
15
June 21, 2006
consideration of the May 12, 2006 EAF (Environmental Assessment Form)
and the June 16, 2006 letter from Divney Tung Schwalbe regarding
updated architectural floor plans and shadow study, that the proposed
change in height of the FCD Mamaroneck LLC project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment for the following reasons:
Visual Impact on the Environs
FCD Mamaroneck LLC proposes that its mixed-use building will
be increased in height by one story and twelve feet. The increase
in height will allow the applicant to increase the sizes of the
proposed one- and two-bedroom condominium units, and thus to
generate the additional revenue required to construct the
municipal parking deck. The new building will have seven
residential stories above its parking garage. To accommodate the
change in apartment sizes and thus the change in inferior floor
plans, the building windows will shift somewhat. However, the
overall architectural detailing of the exterior remains as
approved.
In assessing this change, the Town Board has been concerned solely with
the impacts potentially created by the change in structure height, as no
other part of the development program is planned to change. The May 12,
2006 EAF provided graphics showing visual simulations of the higher
building from the same vantage points shown in the FEIS. As
demonstrated in the FEIS, the proposed building will be visible from the
adjacent streets of Myrtle Boulevard, Washington Square, Madison
Avenue and North Chatsworth Avenue. The March Findings determined
that the building design, siting, material selection and landscaping will
enhance the appearance of the site environs. The Town Board finds in
these Supplemental Findings that the building, even with the additional
story, will enhance the overall site environs. Furthermore, since the grade
of the property on which the applicant’s building will be constructed is at
a lower elevation than the grade of the existing buildings in the area, the
impact created by the addition of one story and twelve feet will not be
significant.
The June 16, 2006 letter included diagrams showing the shadows that will
be cast by the building at its proposed eight-story height. The longest
possible shadow for the year will occur on the winter solstice. At 9:00
a.m., the shadow will lie west across the Thruway ramps, having no
impact on nearby residential structures. At 4:00 p.m. of that day, the
shadow will have moved to extend across Madison Avenue, falling on the
Clock tower Building, an office building. The summer solstice shadow
study (morning and afternoon) likewise will have no impact on existing
residential structures.
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The Town Board has considered the May 12, 2006 zoning petition, the EAF
submitted by the applicant, the June 16, 2006 letter from Divney Tung
Schwalbe regarding updated architectural floor plans and shadow study,
the June 20, 2006 report rendered by the Planning Board on this matter,
and the presentations made by the applicant in support of its proposed
amendments to the text of the BMUB district and the opinions expressed
by the persons who spoke at the June 21, 2006 public hearing. As a result
of this process, the Town Board balances the following interests: the
long-standing intent of the BMUB zoning, the various public benefits
arising from the application, and the concern of area residents regarding
16
June 21, 2006
the proposed building’s size and parking in the area. The EAF (text and
graphics) and the enclosures contained in the June 16, 2006 letter from
Divney Tung Schwalbe conclusively show that the building’s exterior
design features will remain substantially the same as originally approved
in the March 2, 2005 Findings with some adjustment to accommodate any
window shifts associated with the modification of the interior floor plans
and that the additional height will not cast shadows on existing residential
structures. Furthermore, since the grade of the property on which the
applicant’s building will be constructed is at a lower elevation than the
grade of the existing buildings in the area, the impact created by the
addition of one story or twelve feet will not be significant.
Therefore, a further amendment to the text of the BMUB zoning district
which, if enacted, would allow the addition of one more story and twelve
feet to the height of the proposed building will not have an adverse impact
upon the environment.
The Town Board finds and certifies that the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part
617 have been met, as listed below.
1. The Town Board has given due consideration to the EAF (text and
graphics), the June 16, 2006 letter from Divney Tung Schwalbe, and
information provided by the applicant and consultants engaged by the
town on the cost of constructing the necessary public parking structure,
the opinions expressed by the persons who spoke at the June 21, 2006
public hearing and the information obtained during the course of this
SEQRA review process;
2. This Supplemental Findings Statement has been prepared
pursuant to and as required by 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Findings consider
the relevant environmental impacts, facts, and conclusions disclosed in
the EAF.
3. This Findings Statement weighs and balances relevant
environmental impacts with social, economic, and other considerations.
4. This Findings Statement provides a rationale for the Lead Agency’s
decision.
5. This Findings Statement certifies that consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations, the action approved by the
Town Board, from among the reasonable alternatives available, is an
action that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts revealed
in the environmental impact statement process to the maximum extent
practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative
measures that were identified as practicable in the Draft EIS, Final EIS,
and the March 2, 2005 Findings Statement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that within five (5) business days of the
adoption of this resolution, the Supervisor or other duly authorized
member of the Town Board shall cause a copy of this resolution to be
filed with the Town Clerk, and a copy sent to the Applicant/Owner and
interested and involved agencies.
The above was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
Amendment to BMUB
n motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Odierna, the
O
17
June 21, 2006
following local law was adopted:
Local Law No. 13 – 2006
This local law shall be known as the “2006 Amendment to the Business-Mixed Use
Business District” Law.
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck
Section 1 – Purpose:
This law amends the requirements of the Business-Mixed Use Business zoning
district and a related provision of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck.
Section 2 – Amendment to an existing section of the Code of the Town of
Mamaroneck:
Section 240-25 E (1) (b) of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck hereby is repealed
in its entirety and the following substituted in its place:
§240-25. Business-Mixed Use Business District: B-MUB
“(b) Maximum height shall be seven floors, excluding covered parking and service
area and lobby, up to a maximum height of 87 feet. The height shall be calculated
from the average street grade of the site at the curb of the front yard.”
Section 3 – Amendment of an existing section of the Code of the Town of
Mamaroneck:
The last sentence of section 240-56 A. of the Code of the Town of Mamaroneck
is repealed and the following substituted in its place:
“No structure having a height of more than 70 feet in an R-TA District, more than 87
feet in a B-MUB District, or more than 50 feet in any other district shall be erected
unless approved by the Board of Appeals.”
Section 4 – Severability:
Should any provision of this Local Law be declared invalid or unconstitutional by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration of unconstitutionality or
invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this Local Law, which may be
implemented without the invalid or unconstitutional provisions.
Section 5 – Effective Date:
This Local Law shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of State.
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS
Fire Department Business
AFFAIRS OF THE TOWN
1. Authorization – Amended Snow & Ice Agreement – New York State
On motion of Councilwoman Seligson, seconded by councilwoman Wittner, it was
RESOLVED, that the Mamaroneck Town Board does hereby
approve the supplemental agreement between the New York
18
June 21, 2006
State Department of Transportation and the Town of
Mamaroneck for reimbursement for snow removal for the
2006/2007 season; and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the
Town Administrator, Stephen V. Altieri, to execute said
contract.
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner -Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
2. Authorization – Appraisal Services
This matter was held over.
3. Salary Authorization – Community Services
Recreation
COMMUNITY SERVICES
On motion of Councilman Odierna, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, it was
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the
appointment of Vivian Portillo as a Summer Youth Worker for
Community Services Department from Monday, June 26, 2006
through Friday, August 25, 2006 at $8.00 per hour.
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
RECREATION
On motion of Councilman Odierna, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, it was
RESOLVED, that as provided for in the 2006 Town
Budget the Town Board does hereby authorize the
payment of salary to the following:
HOMMOCKS PLAYGROUND
Name Position Salary
Christopher Altieri Sports Specialist $280 per week
Charles Rizzo Sports Specialist $280 per week
Carolina Bracho Lifeguard $9.50 per hour
Emily Frey Lifeguard $10.00 per hour
Jamie Valentinetti Lifeguard $10.00 per hour
Biju Paniker Alternate E.M.T. $11.00 per hour
Naeemah Amir Counselor $200 per week
Gina Angiolillo Counselor $215 per week
Tommy Bates Counselor $225 per week
Julie Brown Counselor $220 per week
Carmen DeJesus Counselor $295 per week
19
June 21, 2006
Peter Denyssenko Counselor $180 per week
Joseph Feichtl Counselor $220 per week
Samantha Gagliardi Counselor $205 per week
David Geeslin Counselor $210 per week
Derek Lanza Counselor $230 per week
John Lanza Counselor $245 per week
Ruby Leon Counselor $185 per week
Laurben Medina Counselor $250 per week
John Mueller Counselor $180 per week
Ethan Orenstein Counselor $230 per week
Ariana Sanabria Counselor $215 per week
Corey Smalls Counselor $245 per week
Alexandra Tischler Counselor $250 per week
Vincent Vozza Counselor $260 per week
MONROE PRE SCHOOL
Maria Ellin Director $3,800 for season
(June 20th to August 11th)
Cosette Albert Counselor $190 per week
Maria Cavallaro Counselor $200 per week
Jeffrey Kitsis Counselor $185 per week
Christopher Leddy Counselor $135 per week
Juanita Mitchell Counselor $210 per week
Justin Mitchell Counselor $185 per week
Jaren Murphy Counselor $145 per week
CHATSWORTH PRE SCHOOL
Thelma Rhodes Unit Leader $335 per week
Nicole Spano E.M.T. $11 per hour
Elsa Brewer Counselor $197 per hour
Kandie Brown Counselor $195 per hour
Christa Glielmi Counselor $165 per hour
Allison Ratner Counselor $180 per week
TENNIS
Michael Goodman Instructor $20 per hour
Robert Lawner Instructor $16 per hour
K. Lester Li Instructor $21 per hour
Sarah Permutt Instructor $11 per hour
Dana Portnoy Instructor $11 per hour
Scott Schwartz Instructor $13 per hour
HOMMOCKS POOL
Name Position Salary
Charles Alston Certified Pool Operator $20.00 per hour
Ann Anderson Manager $15.75 per hour
Alternate Lifeguard $12.50 per hour
Patti Ball Manager $17.25 per hour
Jessica Bear Key Attendant $8.00 per hour
Chelsea Bruck Lifeguard $9.50 per hour
Christine Corsetti Lifeguard $9.50 per hour
Elizabeth Eney Key Attendant $7.25 per hour
Caline Friedli Lifeguard $10.50 per hour
Leticia Garcia Key Attendant $11.00 per hour
Sara Gartman Lifeguard $9.75 per hour
John Keenan Manager $18.25 per hour
Swim Instructor $19.00 per hour
Emma Kravet Lifeguard $10.25 per hour
Swim Instructor $17.75 per hour
Laura Lightbody Lifeguard $9.50 per hour
Tamara Muscarell Early Morning Swim $32.00 per session
20
June 21, 2006
Lifeguard
Meredith Naughton Lifeguard $9.00 per hour
Swim Instructor $17.00 per hour
Katelyn O’Connor Lifeguard $9.00 per hour
Alternate Swim $18.25 per hour
Instructor
Maggie Leigh O’Neill Lifeguard $10.25 per hour
Swim Instructor $19.50 per hour
Alexandra Oppenheimer Lifeguard $10.25 per hour
Alternate Swim $18.00 per hour
Instructor
Katie Ragone Lifeguard $8.25 per hour
Michael Ragone Lifeguard $9.50 per hour
Keira Rakoff Lifeguard $9.75 per hour
Jonathan Rubin Lifeguard $9.25 per hour
Cathleen Scanlon Lifeguard $10.00 per hour
Alternate Swim $18.00 per hour
Instructor
Edwin Scanlon Alternate Lifeguard $10.25 per hour
Alternate Swim $18.00 per hour
Instructor
Joanne Schroeder Manager $18.25 per hour
Manager/C.P.O $18.75 per hour
Certified Pool Operator $18.00 per hour
Katharine Spader Lifeguard $10.25 per hour
Swim Instructor $19.25 per hour
Early Morning Swim $25.00 per session
Lifeguard
Emily Steinnagel Lifeguard $11.50 per hour
Head Swim Instructor $20.50 per hour
Kelsey Wentz Alternate Lifeguard $9.25 per hour
Sabrinia Bielowski MSC Coach $6,600 for season
(June 26 th to August 10 th)
HOMMOCKS POOL
Name Position Salary
Erica Block Lifeguard $9.50 per hour
Bryan Brandom Lifeguard $9.00 per hour
Julia Caro Lifeguard $8.25 per hour
Kathleen Corsetti Lifeguard $8.75 per hour
Alex Frouman Lifeguard $8.75 per hour
Katherine Frouman Lifeguard $9.50 per hour
Zachary Greenblatt Key Attendant $7.50 per hour
Jennifer Heinbockel Lifeguard $10.00 per hour
Alternate Swim $18.00 per hour
Instructor
Andrew Holbrook Lifeguard $9.50 per hour
Anna Kravet Lifeguard $8.50 per hour
Megan Mannion Key Attendant $7.50 per hour
Sara Matthias Key Attendant $7.75 per hour
Barbara Mendes Key Attendant $10.25 per hour
Sean O’Connor Lifeguard $8.75 per hour
Shannon O’Neill Lifeguard $9.00 per hour
Rebecca Sobel Lifeguard $9.00 per hour
Caroline Spader Lifeguard $8.25 per hour
Early Morning Swim $25.00 per session
Lifeguard
Thomas Spader Lifeguard $9.25 per hour
Early Morning Swim $25.00 per session
Lifeguard
Melissa Weaver Swim Instructor $18.25 per hour
Robert Wittich, Jr. Mushroom Pool $9.50 per hour
21
June 21, 2006
Supervisor
Sarah Lanza Aqua Jog Instructor $50.00 per session
CHATSWORTH PRE SCHOOL
Julia Gacio Unit Leader $295.00 per week*
Kathleen Faulkner Unit Leader $235.00 per week**
Peter Denyssenko Counselor $160.00 per week*
Naghmeh Moussapour Counselor $140.00 per week
Waleska Salgado Counselor $125.00 per week
Mario Zapata Counselor $160.00 per week
*Change in salary
**Change in position & salary
HOMMOCKS PLAYGROUND
Michael Meillo E.M.T. $11.00 per hour
Brian Lowman Counselor $215.00 per week
Drew Moore Counselor $210.00 per week
Matt Pickett Counselor $200.00 per week
Steve Sandoval Counselor $215.00 per week
Ziggy Scipio Counselor $220.00 per week
Rachel Shapiro Counselor $205.00 per week
Alexandra Tischler Counselor $250.00 per week
MONROE PRE SCHOOL
Josey Cannon Counselor $180.00 per week
Diana DiMicelli Counselor $110.00 per week
Brittany Ganesh Counselor $160.00 per week
Aliza Hoffman Counselor $190.00 per week
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
The Following are all ADDED ITEMS to the original agenda:
4. Salary Authorization – Kiosk
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Odierna, it was
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the
appointment of Richard Maciejowski as a Clerk at the Town
Kiosk effective June 21, 2006 at an hourly rate of $10.00 per
hour.
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
5. Appointments – Boards & Committees – Coastal Zone Management
22
June 21, 2006
Human Rights Commission
COSTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was
RESOLVED, that Lisa Hochman, is appointed as a Member
of the Costal Zone Management; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the foregoing appointment shall be
effective immediately upon the appointee taking and
subscribing the oath mandated by section 25 of the New
York Town Law and shall expire on August 31, 2009
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was
RESOLVED, that Naomi Hill has been appointed as a
Member of the Human Rights Commission; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the foregoing appointment shall be
effective immediately upon the appointee taking and
subscribing the oath mandated by section 25 of the New
York Town Law and shall expire on March 31, 2009
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe Aye
6. Approval of Certiorari
On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Odierna, it was
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby approve
the following Settlement of Certiorari as recommended
by the Town Attorney:
Shoreline Realty Company, LLC
173 Center Avenue
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Block 832, Lot 44:
Town of Mamaroneck/Village of Mamaroneck
Year Current Assessment Reduced Assessment
2004 $15,900 $9,500
23
June 21, 2006
2005 $15,900 $9,500
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 8, 2006 Special Meeting
June 12, 2006 Special Meeting
Special Meeting June 8, 2006
On motion of Councilwoman Seligson, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, the
following were unanimously approved:
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby approve the
Board minutes from the Special Meeting of, June 8, 2006 as
amended.
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
Special Meeting March 24, 2006
On motion of Councilwoman Seligson, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, it was
RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby approve the
Board minutes from the Special Meeting of, June 12, 2006
as amended.
The above resolution was put to a roll call vote:
Winick - Absent
Seligson - Aye
Odierna - Aye
Wittner - Aye
O’Keeffe - Aye
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
George Roniger said that the Larchmont Gardens’ Civic Association wanted to know about
sediment control at the Duck Pond.
Mr. Altieri said it is being determined and reviewed.
Mr. Roniger said there are four trees that have been marked to be taken down, but they still
are not down. The Administrator said they are just not high priority but they will be cut
down.
24
June 21, 2006
SUPERVISOR’S REPORT
She said they are finalizing everything with the US Golf Tournament and everything went
well – the Town was complimented on radio and TV on how well things went. The traffic
and safety were all handled professionally. She thanked the police, highway ambulance,
and fire departments for doing such a spectacular job. She added thanks to Frank Cioffi,
Matt Peloso, and Michael Liverzani. She said George Latimer was able to procure $61,670
for GIS. There will be a parade on June 29 in the Village of Mamaroneck at 7:00 PM.
Councilman Odierna attended a Kayak meeting where he met nice people looking for
access to the water. Councilwoman Seligson said they were an impressive group, besides
needing access to water they need storage space for the boats and parking. The Planning
Board met last week.
Councilwoman Wittner said the Board of Assessment met on June 20. She found the
process and method of arriving at an assessment interesting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Supervisor made a motion to adjourn in memory of Carol Russo Pennachio, wife of
retired Sergeant Frank Pennachio, and sister of our Code Enforcement Office Joe Russo.
Her death was sudden and very sad. The Board adjourned at 12:55 AM.
Submitted by
_________________________________
Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk
F:\\Documents\\Minutes\\2006w\\06-21-06.Last.Doc
25