Town of Eastchester, NY: Minutes, Plannung Board Meeting, September 26, 2007

2 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD MEETING

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

6 MINUTES OF THE

7 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD MEETING

9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X

HELD AT: Eastchester Town Hall

11 40 Mill Road

Eastchester, New York 10709

12 September 26, 2007 7:00 p.m.

BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:

15 Chairman Raymond DelSavio

Joseph Cermele, Member

16 James Bonanno, Member

18 EASTCHESTER EMPLOYEES IN ATTENDANCE:

20 LOUIS REDA, Deputy Town Attorney

MARGARET UHLE, Director of Planning

21 JAY KING, Building Inspector

23 DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

25 COLONIAL ROAD

24 BRONXVILLE, NEW YORK 10708

(914) 469-6353

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 9/26/07

The Chairman: Calls meeting to order.

Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Uhle: States Mr. Pulaski and Ms.

5 Cascione will not be able to attend tonight's

meeting. Calls roll:

Mr. Cermele: Present.

The Chairman: Present.

Mr. Bonanno: Present.

Ms. Uhle: States Application 07-01, 16

10 Eton Place was adjourned this afternoon.

12 APPLICATION 07-60, 2 HOWELL PLACE

Ms. Uhle: States there is not a

14 presentation involved with this. Explains a

variance was required for effective square and

15 Zoning Board denied application. Explains

applicant filed an Article 78 and courts ruled

16 in favor of the applicant and also determined

that a variance was not required for the

17 effective square and ordered that the

application be returned to the Planning Board

18 for the approval of the re-subdivision.

Explains this was not noticed as a public

19 hearing, but there are two individuals that

would like to make brief comments and that's at

20 the board's discretion.

21 The Chairman: Asks if anybody wishes to

make a brief comment.

Mr. Corlis: Charles Corlis (Ph.), 124

23 Highland Avenue. States this is a minor lot

line adjustment. States he is glad this

24 process is over with.

25 Mr. Catsoris: Nicholas Catsoris (Ph.), 4

Howell Place. States joining him is Kristin

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 9/26/07

Matthews and Loretta Dalton representing Twin

2 Lakes Neighborhood Association. States they

are disappointed in the decision but wanted to

3 thank the entire Planning Board including Ms.

Uhle and Mr. Reda for all their efforts with

4 this application and respectfully request if

there ever is a time when a house is built on

5 this property that they would have the

opportunity to address either the Planning

6 Board or Zoning Board or ARB to give their

comments to any design or construction or

7 placement.

8 The Chairman: Explains any application

to the building department has to go through

9 the site planning and ARB process which are

both public hearings.

Entertains a motion for the approval of

11 the revision of Lots 108 and 109 on Block 2,

Section 73 known as 2 Howell Place in

12 Application 07-60.

13 Mr. Cermele: Seconds motion.

14 (All aye.)

15 Mr. Cermele: Explains the Planning Board

originally sent this application to the Zoning

16 Board with a negative recommendation, the

Zoning Board denied the application and from

17 there the applicant filed an Article 78, the

town challenged it, the court deemed the

18 effective square was not an issue and therefore

the Planning Board is bound to approve it.

Mr. Reda: Explains further after the

20 decision from the Appellate Division the town

took it to the Court of Appeals and the Court

21 of Appeals denied it and sent it back. States

the town exhausted all remedies to appeal this.

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 9/26/07

2 APPLICATION 07-59, 83-87 MAPLE AVENUE

Mr. Davis: Robert Davis for the

4 applicant. States they are here tonight to

commence the public hearing on site plan and

5 the special permit and commence the SEQRA

process. Explains project is one condominium

6 building with ten two bedroom units. States

property consists of three tax lots on Maple

7 Street and they are occupied by two single

family residences and a two family residence.

8 States three tax lots would be merged to

reflect the ownership of the developed property

9 in condominium form. States project requires

no variances but requires site plan approval

10 and architectural review. Explains because the

property is bisected by the boundary line

11 between the RB commercial district and R-6

zoning district, in order to use the portion of

12 the property zoned R-6 in connection with the

condominium the project requires a special

13 permit. Explains that extension would be

fifty-five feet which is twenty-seven percent

14 less than permitted by the ordinance. Feels

this will not have a significant impact on the

15 neighborhood. States special permit aspect

only applies to the westerly third of the

16 property which is already developed with one of

the residences and a driveway and those would

17 be removed and replaced by a twenty foot fully

landscaped buffer, to the east of that the exit

18 drive for the condominium and two parking

spaces in the rear of the property and to the

19 far east of that westerly third a seven foot

portion of the building which would extend over

20 the line. States ninety percent of the

building will lie fully within the RB district

21 and toward the commercial uses which join the

property. Explains the use is not a commercial

22 use as would be permitted in the RB district

but a residential use M700 which is much less

23 intense than the commercial use permitted as of

right.

Explains with respect to the parking they are

25 providing twenty-eight spaces. States each

unit has a two unit indoor garage and they were

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 9/26/07

able to find space for three additional guest

2 spaces on the property for a total of eight.

Explains no parking is permitted on Maple

3 Street. States they presented a full traffic

report which demonstrates this use will have no

4 discernable impact on the traffic on or around

Maple Street. States school district has ample

5 capacity for any increase in students resulting

from this project.

Ms. Rivera: Rebecca Rivera, Joseph

7 Crocco Architects. Explains they were able to

add three additional parking spaces on the lot

8 for a total of eight. Shows location of

parking spaces. Shows color rendition of

9 proposed building. States units stagger a

little to give it character. Shows materials

10 and finishes. States it will be a hardy plank

finish, driftwood shingle on the roof and stone

11 around front pillars.

12 Mr. Hinterstein: States he did the

traffic report. Discusses traffic report.

13 States all his findings are in the report.

Explains in the report he shows a table of what

14 the levels of service are and there are no

changes of the levels of service with this ten

15 family unit. Explains if you have general

office space you have the same amount of cars,

16 if you have medical office space you have about

the same. States what changed it was the

17 retail use; a video store could see

thirty-eight vehicles in an hour instead of

18 twenty; a day care center could see up to

fifty-four or fifty-six vehicles an hour and a

19 convenience store could go up to a hundred and

ten vehicles an hour. States a ten unit

20 development will not effect the neighborhood at

all. States town's consultant reviewed the

21 report and confirmed the results of the report.

22 Mr. Mathia: Steve Mathia, TRC Engineers,

traffic consultants for the town of

23 Eastchester. States in general the traffic

study that was prepared by Mr. Hinterstein for

24 this application followed the standard

methodologies that are used in traffic studies

25 in New York. Explains Mr. Hinterstein

performed traffic counts in the area of the

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 9/26/07

project including a couple of key intersections

2 near the site, he did traffic studies in May of

this year following the conversion of a segment

3 of Rescigno Drive to a one way street. States

they would conclude the numbers Mr. Hinterstein

4 used were conservatively high in predicting

traffic for the proposed development. States

5 the conclusions that Mr. Hinterstein reaches

are acceptable because the traffic volumes that

6 this development would generate when added to

the background traffic in the area would not

7 have an impact on the way intersections operate

under conditions without it. States in general

8 he is comfortable Mr. Hinterstein has

acceptable numbers.

The Chairman: Asks if there was any

10 analysis of turning in and out of driveways.

11 Mr. Mathia: Explains Mr. Hinterstein

evaluated the exit from the site and included a

12 comparative table where he brought in traffic

volume generation information from alternative

13 land uses. States the proposed use is the

least intense traffic generator based on the

14 comparison to other potential or hypothetical

uses under other zoning categories. States

15 they had a few questions about the layout of

the site as far as circulation is concerned

16 through the site. States they weren't certain

how the garage arrangement was going to work

17 and whether there was sufficient room to back

out of the garage. Ask if they could show a

18 turning radius or some indication on the plan

that a car backing out of the garage has the

19 room to maneuver without backing into the car

parked behind it. States it doesn't show on

20 the plans that the exit drive is going to be

aligned with Rescigno Drive. Explains they

21 would like it to be as directly across from the

southbound side of Rescigno Drive as possible

22 so there is no offset alignment. Asks that

they clarify the dumpster location and that a

23 garbage truck has the room to maneuver in order

to pick up or unload the dumpster. Asks that

24 they show that an emergency vehicle from the

town could access the building.

Mr. Davis: Explains in Mr. Hinterstein's

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 9/26/07

report he based his traffic study on ten units

2 when really there is a net increase of only six

units because there are already four units

3 there. States regarding the question about the

back out ability from the garage, these are

4 full indoor garages so they have greater room

to back up.

The Chairman: States plans should be

6 dimensioned.

7 Mr. Davis: States they studied the

turning radii and have confirmed the ability of

8 emergency vehicles and garbage trucks to go

around the entire perimeter of the building.

9 States they have given the information of the

capacity of the dumpster.

Ms. Rivera: Explains the parking spaces

11 are inside and there is a twenty-five foot back

up space. Shows location of exit in relation

12 to Rescigno Drive.

13 Mr. Cermele: Makes a motion to open the

public hearing for application 07-59.

Mr. Bonanno: Seconds motion.

(All aye.)

Ms. Weilstein: Susan Weilstein (Ph.), 30

17 Stratford Road. Asks if any consideration has

been given to the preservation of the natural

18 environment in the site. States there are many

trees and shrubs on this site, asks if most of

19 those would be cut down for this particular

development. Feels these trees add natural

20 drainage for the area and given the floods

we've had that needs to be considered. States