Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006_10_04 Town Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD ON OCTOBER 4, 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 Councilman Paul A. Winick ALSO PRESENT: Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator William Maker, Jr., Town Attorney Christina Battalia, Deputy Town Clerk WORK SESSION Overnight Parking Police Chief Rivera and Youth Officer Reynolds were there to report on overnight parking. Councilman Odierna said he was concerned about illegal dead-end parking – he is worried that fire trucks cannot get through and it is annoying to see all these illegal parkers not getting tickets. Chief Rivera reported that there had been 285 summons issued for illegal overnights in the past two months and his department had given out 365 overnight permits. Mr. Altieri explained the police give out permits to residents who are allowed up to three nights of overnight parking during the year. He added his office issues a letter of permission during construction. There was a prolonged discussion on illegal parking, and school crossing guards. Street Cleaning Supervisor O’Keeffe said because we have such a small commercial district it is cheaper to rent than to buy our own street sweeper. We are hearing complaints of not having street sweepers come through more often. Councilman Winick said that because of cars being parked when they came through on his street, the sweeper was unable to do a complete job. Mr. Altieri said they come through five times per year. Constables Mr. Maker said he had looked into this and found the Town would have to first pass a local law empowering a peace officer – adding that the Board could make anyone a constable. He suggested the Town start with one and if it works then they could add more. Leash Law The Supervisor received a letter from the Sheldrake Environmental Center discussing the problem of people walking their dogs unleashed at the Reservoir. The question is, if we pass a leash law who will enforce it. Councilwoman Wittner said it is necessary to enforce this. It is inappropriate for dogs to run loose in a Conservation Area. There was a discussion on a fine of up to $1,000.00. October 4, 2006 Parking Committee The Supervisor reported that the Parking Committee had met along with Jacquemart, and there were many questions and many ideas. Councilman Winick said the usual people showed – and they had gone over all the issues. They tried to get some sense of how much commuter parking is actually there, which will let us know if we need to create a district. Parking rates should go up. Greenway Councilwoman Seligson said she went to a meeting With the County to procure money to complete gaps in the Greenway Trail. The Commissioner was not there and money is not available. We asked for $42,000 for improvements to Old White Plains Road. She said she became upset and they got the message – after a year of meeting to end like this is upsetting. The Commissioner then came in and we brainstormed. There are funds apparently left over from CDBG it may be possible to use them. Mr. Maker said it sounds like it would be breaking the law and suggested we get an opinion from the County Attorneys. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor O’Keeffe at 8:40 PM. She then pointed out the location of exits. PUBLIC HEARINGS Bond Resolution – Water District Financing – ADJOURNED On motion of Councilman Winick, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, the public hearing was unanimously adjourned to October 18, 2006 Special Permit – FCD Mamaroneck, LLC (Forest City Residential) The following notice was entered into the record: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that a Public Hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck on Wednesday, October 4, 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 Special Permit Application made by FCD – Mamaroneck, LLC. The full text of this Application may be examined and copies obtained at the Town Clerk's office during regular hours (Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, or until 4:00 PM during June, July and August) at 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at the Public Hearing all persons interested will be given an opportunity to be heard and that all persons are invited to submit written comments at or prior thereto. On motion of Councilwoman Seligson, seconded by Councilwoman Wittner, the hearing was unanimously declared open. The following is the stenographer’s version of the Public hearing: 2 October 4, 2006 STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER TOWN COURT: TOWN OF MAMARONECK ---------------------------------------x THE PUBLIC MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD TOWN OF MAMARONECK ---------------------------------------x Mamaroneck Town Center 740 W. Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York October 4, 2006 8:15 p.m. CARBONE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Wanda J. Sepulveda 111 North Central Park Avenue Hartsdale, New York 10530 (914) 684-0201 A P P E A R A N C E S: VALERIE M. O'KEEFFE - SUPERVISOR PHYLLIS WITTNER - COUNCILWOMAN ERNEST C. ODIERNA - COUNCILMAN NANCY SELIGSON - COUNCILWOMAN PAUL A. WINICK - COUNCILMAN PATRICIA A. DICIOCCIO - TOWN CLERK WILLIAM MAKER, JR. - TOWN ATTORNEY STEPHEN V. ALTIERI - ADMINISTRATOR MS. O'KEEFFE: Good evening. Today is Wednesday, October 4th, 2006. We are having this hearing on tape. Please note the exits at the rear of the room. We have two public hearings tonight scheduled by agenda. The first one; a bonding resolution for water system improvements, has been put over, until we get more information. Mr. Maker; what steps would we have to take to ensure that we don't have to re notice? MR. MAKER: Just; essentially to adjourn it to a different date. MS. O'KEEFFE: I offer to move; a motion to adjourn the matter of the bonding resolution, water system improvement department pertaining to Pembroke Road until next the meeting. All in favor? (Whereupon; motion was passed unanimously.) MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you very much. The second public hearing, is a public hearing with respect, to a special permit regarding; FCD, Mamaroneck, LLC Forest City Daly, Mamaroneck. There have been minor changes in the name of the project, since we first looked into this. Before we do anything, we must; as well, have an open forum hearing. Do I hear a motion to open the public hearing. MS. SELIGSON: I do. MS. O'KEEFFE: All in favor? (Whereupon; motion was passed unanimously.) MS. O'KEEFFE: I'd like to make a statement before we engage here. This evening; the Town Board will consider a second amendment in connection with the application of Forest City Daly. If 3 October 4, 2006 approved, the building amendment will permit Forest City Daly to construct a building with a total height of eighty-seven feet. Well; we're obviously past that already. Under what we had previously, the maximum height that was permitted, was seventy-five feet. However; by raising the height of the building to eighty-seven feet, Forest City adds one story to the building, making it eighty stories tall, as it stands. Raising the residential total number of units to 139 units. In view of comments that were made regarding a recent petition by Forest City Daly, it would be appropriate to step back; for a moment and review the application. The implication to the Town and the review process done by the Town Board, Town Staff and Town Consultants; originally contacted in 2001 by Forest City. A proposal was made to construct a residential development on Madison Avenue, next to the Town's public works yard. Representatives of Forest City held public meetings in 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 initiated a formal environmental review as part of the proposal; pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Law; which, we call SEQR. By, indicating its intention to serve as a lead agency during the review process of the Town Board. There is no objection that the Town Board undertook the role of lead agency in May, 2002. It held a joint meeting with the standing Board of Architectural Review, and Forest City to discuss the areas of particular environmental concerns that needed to be analyzed, and with an environmental impact statement, to be prepared in connection with the development proposal. Agencies and interested parties received copies of the proposed DEIF, that was prepared prior to the joint meeting; at a public hearing on the scope of DEIS; which was held on June 3rd, 2002. Upon receiving the comments of the scoping documents; revisions were made, and a scoping document was adopted June 20th, 2002. To be considered by DEIS; was a proposal to construct 186 rental apartments in a seven story structure on 2.94 acres. Within the building would be, eight, affordable work force apartments. The building would have six stories of residential apartments, and one, above ground for stores or apartments. 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 spaces for use at the Clocktower office building on Madison Avenue. The residential parking ratio for the proposed building was; 1.4 spaces for each residential unit. The original DEIS submitted by Forest City Daly was rejected by the Council as being inadequate. A revised DEIS was accepted on November 19th, 2003. he DEIS, also presented a preferred alternative proposal – 152 rental units on 2.1 acres. A reduction of the lot size came about, as a result of the decision of Forest City to not improve the parking lot on Madison Avenue in the proposal. This lot would now remain under the ownership of the Clocktower building for parking for their tenants. The preferred alternative proposal included a total of 162 apartments; some to be set aside for work force. It 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 with the Croton House apartments where there are 244 spaces for 142 units. That's a ratio of 1.72 spaces per unit. Also, is was determined; that if a development of this type would be constructed, there must be generated to the community, public benefits identified. One; improve a fairly deteriorated part of town. Two; provide housing at affordable levels. And, three; improve the parking situation in and around Washington Square. Keeping these objectives in mind; the Town Board and various involved agencies reviewed the DEIS. On January 2, 2004, and February 12, 2004, the Town Board held a public hearings on the Forest.City DEIS. It also accepted written comments on the DEIS. Having received various comments on the documents, the final environmental impact statement, what we call; FEIS, was prepared to answer the comments made by the public and involved agencies. On January 5th, 2005; three years after initiating the environmental review, the FEIS was accepted by the Town Board. Upon completion of the environmental review process; the Town Board issued its findings on a proposal; March 7th, 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 work force apartments should be increased from 8 to 9. By reducing the number of apartment units and maintain the same number of parking spaces, the ratio of parking spaces to apartments was approved. Included in the finding statement, was the requirement of Forest City to contribute a parking deck over lot number three; based upon the aforementioned formula. Upon completion of the featured process, the Town Board amended it in, May of 2005. Before it could obtain a building permit, Forest City applied for and received a special permit from the Town Board. Forest City filed a Special Permit Application on October 13, 2005. That application announced that the residential components would be condominiums, not rental apartments. Under New York State law, local zoning regulations can not govern the type of ownership for residential units. Local zoning regulations can only regulate such things as; the number of units, the height, set back, floor area ratios and parking requirements. Although; approved for 159 units, Forest City Condominiums' proposal reduced the total number of residential units to 135. A reduction of 15 percent. In the approved zoning, the building would be seven stories, six for residential purposes, 4 October 4, 2006 and one story for parking. There would be, 259 parking spaces for residential use. Included was, 13 visitor spaces, and 246 spaces for the residential units. These numbers equate to a ratio of 1.82 two space per residential unit. The updated condominium proposal continued to include 9 affordable, work force units, that would remain in perpetuity as rental apartments. The requirement for Forest City to contribute to the construction of a parking deck, also remains part of the proposal. All of this brings us up to the petition filed by Forest City, on May 12, 2006, to increase; excuse me -- Now; the special permit that is before us; almost a year ago. That is what is before us tonight. The public hearing on the special permit required under the zoning change that we passed. If approved; the initial height of the building would allow for the addition of four more residential units; increasing the total to 139 units. Which; is well below the number of units acceptable for this project. The project will continue to have 246 parking spaces for residential use. Resulting in a parking ratio of 1.77 spaces per unit. More than the building ordinance required, and still higher than the parking ratio of the Carlton House Apartments. In fact; Forest City's proposal calls for one parking space per each bedroom in the condominium. Finally; 9 of the residential units will be continued to be rental work force affordable units. That's where we are now. Tonight; the best way to do this, would probably be to ask Forest City if they would like to make further comments. After what we'll open the forum to the public, before we obviously continue. Mr. Tung; when you're ready. MR. TUNG: Good evening, Madam Supervisor, the Council, and ladies and gentlemen. I'm Andrew Tung of Divney Tung Schwalbe; on behalf of Forest City. The Supervisor has given a very concise and full description of our process; to date. We are here after making revisions to the Special Permit request of this board; passed here in July. At which point, we were sent to the Finding Board and its associated agencies for advice on the proposal to the zoning that had been enacted earlier in the year to add one floor to the proposed building. And, also; to add the component of the parking deck on Myrtle Boulevard, to Forest City's responsibility to design and construct. So; as part of that, we also took to the Planning Board, the VAR and other associated boards; the design for the parking deck. MS. O'KEEFFE: I will ask Mr. Tung turn to that around so, you can see it. MR. TUNG: The site plan for the mix used building as the project on Madison. This is; in fact, the same site plan that has existed since the end of the Seaver process. The FDIS -- it shows the retention and the graduation of the existing retail buildings. It holds the sports pub, the store, and the renovation and upgrading of the landscaping. The preservation of the parking lot in front of that, expanded to encompass the area currently occupied at the level at the restaurant. The residential building that is in back, of the access of Byron Place; that was the same as previously reviewed by the Board and its findings, a year and a half ago. It was proposed to add one additional story, that did not change the design of the building at all. Upon review of the Planning Board and the VAR; of which you have the correspondence; neither of those agencies had further comment on the design of the buildings. The other comment being reviewed, now at this point, based upon conversations; as the Supervisor mentioned; was the added obligation to construct a parking dep on lot three; which is further up on Myrtle Boulevard at the building at the intersection of North Chatsworth. This is triangular shaped lot; that currently has 98 spaces. The feature of the lot -- construct a fairly simple deck; in the location. The grade of slope is from north to south, down Myrtle Boulevard; which allows the two existing driveways on that lot to serve as driveways to a new deck; to construct it at the level of the north entrance. And, a great level to be constructed to the grade of the south entrance. We're showing on this drawing, a triangular lot. Myrtle Boulevard is here; North Chatsworth on the right side. There are two existing driveways; the south driveway and the north driveway. From the north driveway, you would access the upper level of the deck; shown in the lighter granite. (Indicating). The south driveway, you could access the same level as today. You could access the lower lever and; which would be excavated under the upper level. Thereby; allowing available spaces without having to build internal ramps, or external ramps; which, would not be possible in this location because of the narrow width of the driveway. In review of the plan with the Planning Board, the VAR; we undertook a series of exercises to locate various treatments of the facade of the parking deck; which, had originally been designed to relate and complement the buildings across Myrtle Boulevard, the west side of Myrtle Boulevard. If you would like, I can review those elevations with you. They looked at, initially; an arch panel, and we looked with the Planning Board, and the VAR; and the use of brick, both for the columns, and for the panels, and for the look and treatment of the panels. We looked with Planning Board and the VAR, regarding the landscaping, the treatment. We were able to maintain most of the existing trees. It actually served to block the view to it -- that facade in itself, is a low property structure. At our earlier proposal to you in July, we proposed building the north driveway slightly to ease grading. We heard from both this 5 October 4, 2006 Board and the other boards. We are able to maintain the north driveway in the same place as the north driveway is today. From an access point of view; it will remain in the same location. That is the extent of the revisions for special permit presented to the Board. I believe, at the end of the day; it's been a positive recommendation to this Board. MS. O'KEEFFE: I think that's accurate. Before we go to the floor; I'm going to ask if any member of the Board would like to ask Mr. Tung any questions, comments? MS. SELIGSON: I'll comment. I think the public should know, that we had reviewed this special permit; we're very, very familiar with it. I think everyone here is; as well, with the proposal and we're pretty comfortable in understanding the whole issue. MS. O'KEEFFE: I think all of us; although we won't have the opportunity to look at the details of the presentation with respect, to the design of the deck; the shape of it. MR. TUNG: The lot is narrow; it actually; fits just for one bay of parking, but it's a very efficient use of land in the fact; that we can use the adjacent roadway to make that transition; to gain access to the two levels. MS. O'KEEFFE: And, the fact that you don't have to cut down those trees; is very comforting. MR. TUNG: That's very beneficial; yes. MS. O'KEEFFE: Usually, when we have a meeting like this; we have somebody sitting in the back. That person has cards, and, they get your names, and a number; if you're the first one here, second one here, third one here. Our rules are; everyone will have a chance to comment. No one will comment twice, until everybody has had a chance to talk once. We ask you, to try to keep your comments to less than, three minutes. If you want to come back and reiterate something; that's fine. Please come up to the microphone and state your name and address. Thank you, Mr. Tung. MR. TUNG: Thank you. MS. O'KEEFFE: Okay, Mr. Chalk. MR. CHALK: My name is Viv Chalk -- I am very, very disappointed with the Board and the people here who want to change this from rental to a condominium. First of all, is was much simpler for them to rent and then convert to a condominium. Why; because when you reassess the condominium, taxes will rise forty percent. I want to prevent that. If they open up this building for one year, and then, start converting it; they are not subject to that, because their assessing procedures would remain the same. When you have this as an apartment, it will be assessed on the income approach. But, when you have a condominium, it will be similar for what the condominium sold for. The future buyers do not need this extra pain. Now, I want to talk about the parking. It's very important, that the system we establish; that they use the parking spaces, and that they are required to rent or own the parking. In other areas, this has led to a lot of cars on streets, and we want to make sure there's a flow that's proper. Because, that had to be ensured; that these people who are going to buy or rent; they must rent with a parking space. MS. O'KEEFFE: I think we have answered both of them. The first one, with respect, to the fact that it's not rental but condominium; was a business decision that the applicant makes. As Mr. Maker has told us; the zoning law can not control, the form of ownership of a building. We can't force it to be a rental, we can't force it to be a condo, we can't force to be a co-op. We can't force it. MR. CHALK: I understand that; but, meanwhile the future people, who are going to buy or rent -- not the renters, but the buyers, will certainly be penalized dramatically. They don't need that experience. 6 October 4, 2006 MS. O'KEEFFE: Would you like to know about the parking? MR. CHALK: Yes; I would. MS. WITTNER: With every apartment goes a garage space; and the opportunity to rent that space. There is also a parking space for every bedroom. MR. CHALK: The rule should be; they should have a sticker and an area where it still leaves a visitor parking; that's very important. Thank you. MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you. Who else would like to talk or give an opinion? MS. HUFF: My name is Emily Huff, and I live at 72 Powell Avenue, Larchmont. I apologize that I haven't read all of the documents and information made available, but I'm interested as a parent within the school system; of where the children in that apartment building, what school would they be zoned for; is it Murray Avenue? The town demographics study has shown it is already at capacity. And, the district is struggling with that. I'm curious about that. My first question; is what school, and my second question, what the revenue implications are for the Town in this project; assuming there are any? What those plans are for that revenue? MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you. With respect, to what school the children of that building who may, or may not live there would go. Under the present school distrubution; it would be Edward Murray Avenue school; however that is not written in stone. Everyone who lived in the Washington Square, went to Chatsworth area school. Murray Avenue, started when you got up Murray Avenue; those people went to Murray, and the people who lived in the apartment houses went to Chatsworth. That's what it is now. We have with us, our consultant who studied how many school children would be living in a building this size. Please come up here and tell us. MS. SEXTON: I'm actually going to refer that to Mr. Andrew Tung. The school children impact evaluation is a major part; as you can imagine, of the environmental impact statement. There were questions about that. I don't have those documents in front of me. That is answered in more detail in the final environmental statement. MS. O'KEEFFE: Was that done when it was a rental unit, or after the decision to make it condominiums? MS. SEXTON: We went back and revisited that analysis. The DEIS documents were written; at the time, that the proposals were for rental. And, then the applicants came back to the town Board, and said, we; in fact, are going to make it an ownership project. They needed to do for that, I think; a supplemental analysis, and one part of that analysis was whether; the number of school children, would actually change. I can ask Andy Tung, if he recalls, the numbers off the top of his head. I want to assure you; that is something we did look at. We happened to revisit that analysis, once the ownership pattern and dwelling pattern came down. MR. TUNG: The schools was a consideration and a very important one. The Town, in fact; required us to look at two methods of projecting the number of school kids that might come from this project; that initially went with 186 units. It also looked at the experience of the local, multi- family residences that are newly built in the area, and the existing multi-family residences within the school district. From all that, and in coordination with the school district; it was determined that the increase under what's called; a portioner's guide estimate for the schools. There would be approximately fifteen schools that participated in the project. That number has stayed the same, that's over the kindergarten to twelfth grade. That's slightly more than, one per grade. That number has stayed the same, and we have tracked that. And, we have the other environmental factors, so; that the current proposal which; is at 139 units or 50 below the 182; are at, or below the original projections that were found to be acceptable by the Town Board in it's findings. That has been reviewed; both initially and as we changed the project. 7 October 4, 2006 MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you very much. As for the revenue; what the prognosis was for the Town to get revenue from this project. MR. ALTIERI: When the studies were originally done, there was estimate that there would be a cash revenue of somewhere in the neighborhood between, five and seven hundred thousand dollars. But, I think the more important factor that the Town should consider; there is no way in projecting when this project goes on the assessment role, what the actual tax break will be. The more important factor for the Town, is what would the increase in assessment would be, and that is not a number we can give you right now. By increasing the total assessment, and with the fact that this project will not require us to expand any of our existing municipal services; we have the opportunity to expand the assessment and spread the Town budget; which, actually impacts positively with the rest of the community. MR. MIANO: My name is Josh Miano, I live at 10 Lafayette in Larchmont. My first question was addressed by the lady in the white shirt. The comparison would be; twelve children of school age in that building of 139 units. I live in Larchmont and basically, I find it kind of hard to believe there will be only twelve more children, considering that the Myrtle school district is overcrowded and at more than capacity; at this point in time. I wanted to draw that attention that concerns many residents of Lafayette Road. Number two; the traffic flow on north of 95, coming down and up North Chatsworth has increased tremendously; at this point in time. I think traffic provisions have to be made for that specific reason. Number three; I'd like to know how many trees are on Myrtle Avenue right now. And, if most of them are going to stay. If there are ten; do most mean nine, or does it mean three? MS. O'KEEFFE: As far as the Murray District goes; we understand your concern. We were concerned with that right from the beginning. We weren't going to allow a situation it was going to have a major adverse impact on the school system. That is why, great care was taken to use two different counting methods, to predict how many children. They went through all types of comparable models and came up with this number. Both methods they used are acceptable in the profession; and they came up within the same range of 132. MS. SELIGSON: It did seem like a low number; but when we looked at comparable numbers in the area, and found that these mechanisms did prove to be true, we decided to have a little more faith. MR. MIANO: Just to the question; the buildings that are there now; would you not say, that the majority of the people living in the apartments for the last twenty to thirty years, are retirees and they are going to be moving out, and the whole demographic of the people moving into this particular building will be a much younger demographic? MR. WINICK: Not necessarily; first of all, the two buildings that we looked at; down by the middle school and is down to its twelfth year of occupancy now. I was surprised that those projections, we actually hit the projection number, exactly. But; that was considerably lower, in terms of income. That was twenty percent section 8 and eighty percent affordable housing, which; some people believed would result in more families with young children moving in. It didn't prove to be the case. The other building we looked at was the Avalon; also new on Mamaroneck Avenue. That also hit the projected number. If the apartment mix -- I'm sure will get some families in there. This is going to be luxury housing. A lot of people bailing out of their houses to buy the apartments to continue living in this area. We see a lot of that in White Plains right now. MS. O'KEEFFE: Also; the apartments now that already exists, one would think young families with children are moving in; but, many, many people my age are now selling their houses and moving into apartments. MR. WINICK: The trend this year -- the school district tried to figure it out. Locally, the people are selling their houses after their children exit the system. The mix of apartments; we did not allow any three bedroom apartments. There's a waiting between one and two bedrooms. The lower the likely hood of children. MR. MIANO: Something you just said; that the families moving out of their home as their last child exits school; I haven't thought of it that way. Isn't that going to put an additional burden on the 8 October 4, 2006 school systems right now? I have children going into Myrtle next year; it is projected, as I understand, there is not going be enough room in the kindergarten to handle another classroom. You have many of the generation that is moving out with children of the upper grade levels, it leaves many other children of lower grade levels. Is there going be re-district calculation. I'm just saying; if you have addressed other avenues of thought available to everybody. MS. O'KEEFFE: I think it's the hope of all the schools in the district to put aside their overcrowding; let's say, there's a thousand kids, and probably a certain number of seats; you're going to look at specific buildings with problems. And the number of trees that are there now. Mr. Tung, do you know the number of trees there now, and the number going to be removed? MR. TUNG: There are approximately; a dozen along the frontage of the existing parking lot. In the building; we'll remove two; possibly three, that are not in great shape. In order; to maximize at the point were the parking comes out to the sidewalk. Some of these trees are very large and growing on the pavement. We are trying to improve the soil condition around the ones that do remain, and there are about two, that we know of that will be removed. MS. WITTNER: Did you talk of the trees that you're adding on the other side of the building? MR. TUNG: Yes; there's a plan both for this area and the remain spaces that there will be; as well as, tress around the proposed building on Madison Avenue. We're looking at both the architecture and the landscaping in both areas. MS. O'KEEFFE: You had another question regarding the traffic coming and going toward 95. You were concerned about cars coming down North Chatsworth towards 95, and Jefferson Street. MR. ALTIERI: Under the terms of the special permit approved by the Board; Forest City Daly will be required to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Jefferson and Madison and the entrance to the thruway. That will go a long way to better control the traffic at that intersection during the morning hours. MS. O'KEEFFE: We have appointed a Washington Square Traffic Committee. We have a traffic engineer; we have people from each one of the apartment buildings from the neighborhood. Mr. Coughlin representing the commercial buildings; and Mr. Winick who is sitting with us. He is the chairman of a traffic study in 2000. And we're going to look at the entire picture of parking around there. Part of that picture; is to note parking for residential is part of traffic. There's a huge amount of traffic coming at all times. You can't stop the traffic but you can certainly slow it down. We should be finished within six months. We well keep our eye on it. If you have any further questions, or concerns; we'd be very happy to hear about that. We have Mrs. Coughlin at the microphone. MS. COUGHLIN: Diane Coughlin, 35 Byron Lane; Larchmont. I just want to ask; what color is the wall. The wall that will face Myrtle Boulevard on the parking area? MR. TUNG: The full size boards are in the office. There are three colors proposed, there's off white pre-cast concrete, that would be a beige color. There's an inset panel which; depending on the Board's preference, would be a darker cut out, or the brick in fill to match the proposed above brick blend of the residential building. And, on the roof of the stairs that goes from the upper level to the lower level; which would be the shorter profile of this; would be the red, terra cotta color tiles, similar also to the residential building. MS. O'KEEFFE: The closest we could see, was the color of 17 North Chatsworth. It matches close to this now. We were trying to look to see what the color would be. There is no gray, there. There are a lot of people wondering about that. (Indicating). Thank you; Mr. Tung. MS. COUGHLIN: That's very good. Thank you. Thank you very much. MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you very much. Mr. Coughlin. MR. COUGHLIN: My name is Jack Coughlin. About fifteen years ago, I went through the same process. It took me about three years to build my building on Myrtle Boulevard. I think it's five or six years ago; someone from the Town board; maybe you, Valerie, told me about the possibilities of building an apartment house down the street. For five or six years; because it was going to be in the neighborhood, I followed every portion of the process. I have attended several of the planning board 9 October 4, 2006 meetings, and I attended your meetings. I think the Town has done a marvelous job of researching every question that has been asked. And, if I was in your position; I would vote approval. Thank you. MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you, Jack. We appreciate that. Nobody's perfect so we try not to let anything get past us. Anybody else who would like to say anything? I think we can adjourn the hearing until our next meeting; which is on October 18. MS. SELIGSON: We anticipated we would have it tonight; but, we would have to live with this for a long time. We can come up with the right language. MR. ODIERNA: None of us are under the assumption that this will completely solve all the parking problems of that area. This is a small piece of the total problem; and we realize that. As Valerie indicated; the Parking Committee will be working over the next six months to try to get an arm around the problem and do as good a job as we can, given the job and the demand that we have for parking spaces. MS. O'KEEFFE: On that note; I'd just like to point out that Councilwoman Seligson; who lives in the Village of Larchmont, is an advocate of ambulation. If you can get from point A to point B to buy a loaf of bread on foot; you should use that method as you're able bodied. So; one of the things; hopefully, if you are able body, people in the apartment houses will not drive to get what they need. People do that. MS. SELIGSON: I think; that's fine, if you can do that. Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck are, in general a much more accommodating, friendly and comfortable place. And, getting a little fresh air, having fun; I think all around it's a better experience in your community; if you can do it. MR. TUNG: One quick question; we understand the Board is not making a decision tonight; but is it your intent to close the hearing? MS. O'KEEFFE: No; we're going to keep this hearing open until the 18th and we will vote then. Is there a motion to adjourn this hearing to the 18th? MS. WITTNER: I do. MS. O'KEEFFE: Do I hear a second; all in favor? (Whereupon, motion was passed unanimously.) MS. O'KEEFFE: Thank you very much; ladies and gentlemen. (Time noted: 9:30 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N Certified to be a true and accurate transcript of the aforesaid proceeding. ------------------------ Wanda J. Sepulveda On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Winick, it was RESOLVED, that the Mamaroneck Town Board does hereby adjourn the public hearing for FCD Mamaroneck, LLC until October 18, 2006. 10 October 4, 2006 The above resolution was put to a roll call vote: Winick - Aye Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Wittner - Aye O’Keeffe - Aye BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS The meeting was called to order by Commissioner O’Keeffe and on motion of Commissioner Wittner, seconded by Commissioner Winick, the Board of Fire Commissioners was unanimously declared open. Present were the following members of the Commission: Commissioner: Valerie M. O’Keeffe Commissioner: Phyllis Wittner Commissioner: Ernest C. Odierna Commissioner: Nancy Seligson Commissioner: Paul A. Winick 1. FIRE CLAIMS Commissioner Winick presented fire claims for authorization of payment, thereafter on motion of Commissioner Winick, seconded by Commissioner Wittner, it was RESOLVED that this Commission hereby authorizes payment of the following Fire Department claims as approved by the Fire Chief and audited by the Comptroller’s Office: Country Wide Supply 115.80 G&K Services 59.91 New York State Assoc. of Fire Chiefs 100.00 Nextel 199.36 Poland Spring 107.35 Town of Mamaroneck Professional Fire Fighters 220.08 Smith Electric 474.60 Westchester Joint Water Works 102.28 TOTAL 1379.38 The above resolution was put to a roll call vote: Winick - Aye Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Wittner - Aye O’Keeffe - Aye 2. OTHER FIRE BUSINESS Supervisor O'Keeffe, reported on the death of ex-chief William McDermott, the Board sent their condolences. Councilwoman Wittner stated that she would miss his voice and serious comments. Mr. Altieri stated he agreed with Councilwoman Wittner adding Mr. McDermott was committed to giving back to his community. Supervisor O'Keeffe remembered him at the fire on North Chatsworth Ave. He was found at the bottom tarmac filling oxygen tanks for the firemen, adding she was sorry to see him go. 11 October 4, 2006 Councilwoman Wittner reported that the Fire Department would be purchasing a new fire truck, more details would be presented at a future Board meeting. Councilman Odierna stated that this Friday the Fire Inspection would take place at the Fire House at 6:30PM. There being no further business to come before the Commission, on motion of Commissioner Wittner, seconded by Commissioner Odierna, the Commission unanimously adjourned. AFFAIRS OF THE TOWN 1. Report of Bids – Contract TA 06-06 Mamaroneck Department of Public Works Garage Roof Replacement Mr. Altieri reported that the original bid estimate was in the range of $145,000.00 – $165,000.00, adding that eight proposals were received on this Contract with prices ranging from a low bid of $91,500.00 to a high bid of $160,000.00. The Roofing Contract included One (1)) Add Alternate and One (1) Unit Price. Although the criterion for award is based on the submitted lump sum Base Bid plus Alternates if applicable, the Project Team at this time has not decided yet if any of these Add Alternates will be accepted. Therefore the Roofing contract shall be awarded based solely on the most economical Base Bid received from a qualified bidder. It is therefore recommended that this Bid be awarded to J. Salvatore & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $91,500.00. Mr. Irving Shaw, Resident, asked the Board why there was only a one year warranty on workmanship? He also encouraged the Board to make sure a “hose” test would be performed to test the quality of the roof with regard to water leakage. On motion of Councilman Odierna, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck does hereby award the Bid TA-06-06 to J. Salvatore & Sons, Inc for Mamaroneck Department of Public Works Garage Roof Replacement in the amount of $ 91,500.00. BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Administrator is authorized to execute said contract on behalf of the Town. The above resolution was put to a roll call vote: Winick - Aye Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Wittner - Aye O’Keeffe - Aye 2. Authorization – Sale of Surplus Vehicles On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Winick, it was RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Mamaroneck does hereby declare the following vehicles as surplus and authorize the Town Administrator to facilitate their sale through a joint public auction with other municipalities in the Sound Shore area. 12 TOWN VEHICLES TO BE AUCTIONED Fleet# Year Make Model New Lic. Plate# Vehicle ID# Purchase Date Purchase Price Department 7 1997 Chevy Blazer K57956 1GNDT13W3VK196758 3/11/97 $30,000 Fire transfer to VAC Code tntorcement/Pool 10 1997 Ford Crown Victoria-Green DEK 5190 2FALP7IWOVX183712 5/23/97 $22,038 Car 13 2003 Ford Crown Victoria MARKED CAR 2 2FAHP71W23X213845 07/08/03 $21,107 Police 20 19 2003 Ford Crown Victoria MARKED CAR 3 2FAHP71W43X213846 07/08/03 $21,107 Police 17 80 1995 Ford Taurus 'K57960 1FALP52UXSA302405 6/21/95 $13,598 Recreation 81 1994 Ford Taurus Wagon L49139 1FALP5843RA278403 10/14/03 Donation Town Center 83 2003 _Ford Crown Victoria MARKED CAR 7 2FAFP71WX3X112722 06/06/02 $21,197 Police 7 98 1994 Chevy Caprice, "DARE"CAR 6 1GIBL52WORR186736 12/30/94 $15,102 Police 6 197 1990 GMC Bucket/Tree L32899 1GDL7DIF2LV510730 2/14/90 $61,807 Highway 1994 Ford Harben Sewer Cleaner Serial# 19633 3/96 BODY ONLY 301 2000 Ford Crown Victoria 2FAFP71W4YX206796 02/01/01 $21,305 Fire October 4, 2006 13 October 4, 2006 The above resolution was put to a roll call vote: Winick - Aye Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Wittner - Aye O’Keeffe - Aye 3. Salary Authorizations Police Department Councilwoman Seligson reminded the audience that there is a Town Policy prohibiting family members from reporting directly to another family member. On motion of Councilman Odierna, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby authorize the appointment of Joseph J. Galbo to the position of Probationary Police Officer at a annual salary of $ 45,556.25 effective October 5, 2006. The above resolution was put to a roll call vote: Winick - Aye Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Wittner - Aye O’Keeffe - Aye Recreation On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was RESOLVED, that as provided for in the 2004 Town Budget the Town Board does hereby authorize the payment of salary to the following: Ice Skating School Kathleen Bird, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Dorothy Vaughn-Johnson, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Diane McCray, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Penny Doyle-Duffy, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Kathleen Bird, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 14 October 4, 2006 2006. Andrew Sawyer, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $16/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Amy DeNicola, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Aimee McGowan, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Christine Vita, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour effective September 29, 2006. Judith Wolf, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Debra Fertig, Hommocks Park Ice Park, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Katherine Ryan, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Instructor, $17/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Hommocks Pool Katelyn Burke, Hommocks Pool, Lifeguard, $7.50/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Mia Bruschi, Hommocks Pool, Asst. MSC Coach, $4,000.00 /season (October 16 thru March 15), effective September 29, 2006. Michael Costello, Hommocks Pool, Lifeguard, $7.50/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Cheryl Moeller, Hommocks Pool, Manager, $16/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Thomas Saporito, Hommocks Pool, Lifeguard, $7.50/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Elise McNally, Hommocks Pool, Lifeguard, $7.50/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Philip Comerford, Hommocks Pool, Lifeguard, $8/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Men’s Basketball William Reilly, Hommocks Gym, Instructor, $60/session, effective September 29, 2006. Pat Roman, Substitute Instructor, $60/session. Hommocks Rink Veronica Martins, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, EMT, $11/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Veronica Martins, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Alt. Skate Guard, $9/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Michael Alberico, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Alt. Skate Guard, $9/hour, effective September 29, 2006. John Carnes, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Alt. Skate Guard, $9/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Frank Commrade, Hommocks Park Ice Rink, Skate Guard, $10.50/hour, effective September 29, 2006. Women’s Fitness & Aqua Jog Sarah Lanza, Instructor, $50/session. 15 October 4, 2006 Fran Aivaz, Pilates Instructor, $60/session. Volleyball Suzanne Elson, Instructor, $55/session. Open Gym Billy Bryon, Director, $75/session. John Dematas, Assistant Instructor, $45/session. Jim Telesco, Assistant Instructor, $40/session. Pizza Bingo Francine Brill, Assistant, $12/hour. Eileen Puleo, Assistant, $12/hour. Margaret Walts, Assistant, $10/hour. The above resolution was put to a roll call vote: Winick - Aye Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Wittner - Aye O’Keeffe - Aye 4. Set Public Hearing- Constable Law – Appearance Ticket Mr. Maker explained that this law would create a Constable or Peace Officer, with the authority to issue “on-the-spot” summons’, making quality of life laws easier to enforce. On motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilwoman Seligson, it was RESOLVED, that the Town Board does hereby set the date for public hearing on the Constable law to be November 1, 2006; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized to publish the notice of said hearing in a newspaper appointed as an official newspaper, and that said notice be posted. The above resolution was put to a roll call vote: Winick - Aye Seligson - Aye Odierna - Aye Wittner - Aye O’Keeffe - Aye ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Barbara Spiridon, Little Farms Rd., asked if the Board had any news on the sale of the Gillette property, adding that residents in the area felt strongly that this area retain as much open space as possible. 16 October 4, 2006 Mr. Irving Shaw, Resident, stated that in regard to Certiorari, the Town should set up a committee on reassessment. Felt the Town should not use an “ordinary” tax assessor. Mr. Altieri explained to Mr. Shaw that the Consultant hired by the Town of Mamaroneck and the City of New Rochelle is an MAI Certified Appraiser, adding we will not be using our own Assessors. The issues you raise this evening will be addressed by them during this process. Supervisor O'Keeffe added that his comments may be premature, stating, let us look at the study Councilman Winick added that no one will make any decisions without public input. George Roniger, Larchmont Garden’s Civic Association wanted to emphasize that Ms. Spiridon speaks for the Larchmont Gardens Association in regards to the Gillette property, adding this issue was discussed at our last meeting. He stated he was glad to hear progress was being made on the issues of Revaluation, Constable Law, and grant money for the Brook. Mr. Roniger asked the Board to report on the repair of the arches at the Myrtle Boulevard entrance. Supervisor O'Keeffe stated that work at the Rouken Glen entrance has been completed - we are willing to work with any neighborhood as a joint project; we should get an evaluation of what needs to be done. REPORTS OF THE COUNCIL th Councilman Winick attended the Traffic Committee meeting on September 13, they will recommend new signage for Madison & Lafayette Streets, marking the lack of a thorough fare more clear. They will take no action on the request for stop signs at the intersection of Rocky Road and Hickory Grove Drive, emphasizing there was no history of accidents at that intersection. He reported that the Housing Authority was in great financial shape, there is discussion of possible income generated for the Town. Last night he attended the the newly formed committee studying the parking issues at Myrtle and No. Chatsworth. Councilwoman Seligson attended the Zoning Board last evening. She and Mr. Altieri attended a Greenway meeting, adding there was still a stalemate with additional funding needed to complete the gap in the loop. She attended the Council on Ecosystem Management meeting, created by Gov. Pataki, this could be a potential source of funding for the Long Island Sound. Councilman Odierna attended the Government Technology show in Albany, it was very informative. He attended the LMC-TV community needs meetings, many pertinent issues were discussed. Councilwoman Wittner also attended an LMC-TV meeting at which there was a presentation explaining the issues surrounding Cablevision and Verizon. TOWN SUPERVISOR REPORTS Supervisor O’Keeffe stated she had been in contact with Dr. Fried Superintendent of Schools and the Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck to determine what cooperatively we can do about the issue of playing fields. 17 October 4, 2006 ADJOURNMENT The Supervisor announced the next Town Board meeting would be held on October 18, 2006. Then on motion of Councilwoman Wittner, seconded by Councilman Winick the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:40 PM in memory of Violet Facila of N. Brook Road. She was 93 years old and would be remembered as a great lobbyist for the sound barriers on N. Brook Street. Submitted by _________________________________ Patricia A. DiCioccio, Town Clerk F:\\Documents\\Minutes\\2006w\\10-04-06.Last.Doc 18