Town of Eastchester, NY: Minutes, Planning Board Meeting, November 28, 2007

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 11/28/07

2 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD MEETING

NOVEMBER 28, 2007

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

6 MINUTES OF THE

7 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD MEETING

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

11 HELD AT: Eastchester Town Hall

40 Mill Road

12 Eastchester, New York 10709

November 28, 2007 7:00 p.m.

14 BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:

Angela Cascione, Acting Chairman

16 Joseph Cermele, Member

Robert Pulaski, Member

17 James Bonanno, Member

19 EASTCHESTER EMPLOYEES IN ATTENDANCE:

21 LOUIS REDA, Deputy Town Attorney

MARGARET UHLE, Director of Planning

22 JAY KING, Building Inspector

KERI OUELLETTE, Assistant Planner

24 DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

25 COLONIAL ROAD

25 BRONXVILLE, NEW YORK 10708

(914) 469-6353

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 11/28/07

3 Ms. Cascione: Calls meeting to order.

4 Pledge of Allegiance.

5 Mr. Cermele: Calls roll:

6 Mr. Pulaski: Present.

7 Mr. Bonanno: Present.

8 Ms. Cascione: Present.

9 Mr. Cermele: Present.

10 Ms. Cascione: States Chairman DelSavio

is unable to make tonight's meeting.

APPLICATION 07-01, 16 ETON PLACE

14 Ms. Uhle: States building department

received a letter from Ms. Valente dated

15 November 27th, 2007 on Tuesday afternoon.

States letter was forwarded to all the Planning

16 Board members and accepted in the record.

States there were a few issues in that letter

17 she wants to address for the record. Explains

the letter requests that Ms. Cascione recuse

18 herself from the Eton Place application or she

be required to step down from the application

19 based on comments she made at the October

meeting. States her and Mr. Reda reviewed the

20 videotape and consulted with Mr. DelSavio and

determined that Ms. Cascione's comments were

21 appropriate for a Planning Board member

expressing her opinions. States Ms. Cascione

22 is not recusing herself and they are not asking

her to step down and the comments she made were

23 appropriate for a Planning Board member.

States she had a lot of questions from

24 residents with regard to the SEQRA process and

that the Planning Board adopt a positive

25 declaration with regard to this application.

Explains Planning Board is following the SEQRA

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 11/28/07

regulations to a T with regard to the

2 environmental review of this application.

Explains this is considered an unlisted action.

3 Explains the SEQRA regulations. States she

wants to make it clear that this implication

4 that the Planning Board is not conducting an

appropriate environmental review is not

5 accurate, they're doing everything very

appropriately. Explains typically a project of

6 this scale and scope would not require an

environmental impact statement it requires an

7 environmental analysis which the board is doing

appropriately. States with regard to the

8 public hearing at the last meeting it got a

little out of control. Wants to make sure

9 everybody feels comfortable coming to the

microphone and expressing their opinion and

10 nobody feels intimidated by any board members

or the applicant or by other residents. Asks

11 that all comments with regard to these

applications specifically address the

12 application, that there not be personal attacks

on board members, on the applicant or on other

13 residents. Explains this application is for

three single family homes so the conversation

14 should be related to the construction of those

three single family homes. States any comments

15 not related to the application which are

personal attacks on other people will not be

16 tolerated and they will move on to the next

person.

Mr. Pilch: Alan Pilch, town

18 environmental consultant. Discusses state

jurisdiction regulations. States in his review

19 of this project the disturbance is about one

acre. Explains if it is over one acre in

20 disturbance they're required to develop an

erosion and sediment control plan and also a

21 storm water pollution prevention plan. States

Planning Board has requested of this applicant

22 to include water quality components in their

development. States he reviewed the DEC

23 records of fresh water wetlands and this

particular Lake Ida is not listed on it so it's

24 not subject to a fresh water wetland permit.

Explains this Lake Ida is classified as C by

25 the DEC and it's not protected by the DEC so

any disturbance of that site is not regulated

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 11/28/07

by the state. States in his opinion this body

2 of water seems to be isolated and no federal

permits would be required for the disturbance

3 of that water body. States this project is the

Planning Board's jurisdiction unless it

4 disturbs over one acre of property. States he

spoke with a member of the board for Leewood

5 Country Club who indicated this year was

typical for water withdrawal from that lake.

6 Explains he, Margaret and Keri went out and

physically measured from the concrete dock and

7 twelve feet would be a typical drop of that

lake level. States there are concerns with

8 regard to that. States one is a safety issue

because it's a vertical drop down to a rock

9 ledge and then to water and then it's unknown

how deep that water is at that location.

10 States the other concern is the lake receives

run off from about fourteen existing houses and

11 the development of an appropriate well

functioning storm water management system for

12 this body of water is important in order to

protect the water quality.

Ms. Cascione: States the chairman had

14 asked at the last meeting if he could list and

prioritize the environmental concerns and

15 compare them between the two proposals.

16 Mr. Pilch: Explains a scheme which has

less impervious surface is better than one that

17 has more. States there were concerns he had

with regard to both plans. States circulation

18 on the conventional plan, access into the

subdivision was superior than the cluster plan

19 whereas there are certain environmental

benefits to the cluster plan versus the

20 conventional plan. States the differences are

very minimal overall between the two so there

21 is not a lot to differentiate between them when

it comes to the overall environmental impact.

Mr. Pulaski: Discusses drop off points

23 along the lake. States his concern is about

safety and it seems Mr. Pilch's report

24 indicates that he shouldn't be concerned except

at the concrete pier.

Mr. Pilch: States yes. Explains there

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 11/28/07

is a more gradual slope around the remainder of

2 the south side and there probably is some point

where it drops off but he was unable to

3 determine that.

4 Ms. Uhle: Explains when they went out

Mr. Pilch was able to walk out to the waters

5 edge except by the concrete pier.

6 Mr. Pulaski: States Mr. Pilch's report

recommended to the applicant they try to

7 determine the source of the water coming in.

8 Mr. Pilch: Explains on the north side of

the lake roughly twenty feet to the east of the

9 pump house there is a pipe which discharges

vertically down and there is a constant flow

10 into the lake. Explains he is not aware of

what that source is.

Ms. Uhle: States the highway

12 superintendent wasn't aware of it and the

gentleman from Leewood wasn't aware of it.

Mr. Bonanno: Asks if runoff from 16 Eton

14 feeds into the lake.

15 Mr. Pilch: Feels there are a couple of

sources. Feels there is more than just surface

16 water run off.

17 Mr. Bonanno: Asks if when they build

there is the run off going to increase or

18 decrease.

19 Mr. Pilch: States as it gets converted

to impervious surfaces there will be greater

20 volumes of run off and the quality of that run

off will decrease. Explains it can be

21 mitigated by providing appropriate storm water

run off control.

Mr. Cermele: Asks what he suggests they

23 do to alleviate any negative impact on the

lake.

Mr. Pilch: States to minimize the impact

25 to the lake the applicant should develop a

storm water management plan which would capture

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 11/28/07

and treat what's termed the water quality

2 volume.

3 Mr. Davis: Robert Davis, attorney for

the applicant. States this is the fifth

4 meeting and the fourth public hearing. States

the project team, Mr. Fain and the engineers

5 are experienced in developing storm water

quality treatment. Explains that's fairly

6 routine for projects of this type. States they

proposed that from the outset. States the

7 quality of the water will be better after the

project than it is today. States all the water

8 run off from this property will be treated.

States they have met twice with Ms. Uhle and

9 with Mr. Pilch. States they responded in full

detail to Mr. Pilch's memo of October 24th.

10 States they submitted a complete item by item

response to the submission made by the Leewood

11 Civic Association at the last meeting. States

they did confirm this property is not located

12 in any flood plain. States they confirmed that

the depth of the lake had declined by a depth

13 of eleven feet. Believes it relates to the

combination of weather conditions and

14 irrigation by the golf course. States they

provided a synopsis of the use of the lake by

15 the golf course. States they sent a letter to

the golf course representative that Mr. Pilch

16 mentioned and they were not responded to.

States since the last meeting they have more

17 details on the plans. States the plans for

this subdivision have been before the town for

18 over a year, have undergone very careful

scrutiny, no variances are required, it's an as

19 of right project, it's an environmentally sound

project. Explains this lake is a man made

20 quarry pit used by the golf course for

irrigation and by adjoining owners for

21 recreation. States they respectfully submit

it's time to move forward with one of the two

22 plans and they feel that should be the cluster

plan which they believe is the most beneficial

23 to the town and the neighbors. Asks board to

grant sketch plan approval for one of the plans

24 and then upon the conclusion of this fourth

public hearing session asks board to close the

25 public hearing and since there is no

significant adverse impact as a result of this

DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER

1 EASTCHESTER PLANNING BOARD - 11/28/07

project they would ask there be a negative

2 declaration and that they grant preliminary

subdivision approval.

Mr. Fain: Jay Fain, Fain & Associates.

4 Thanks Mr. Pilch for his review of this

project. States they prepared a memorandum

5 dated November 2nd, 2007 in regards to the

twenty-eight points raised by the Leewood Civic

6 Association. States there will be a complete

erosion sediment plan and a full storm water

7 pollution prevention plan prepared for this

project. States they will keep this under one

8 acre and that saves them one step in not having

to file with the New York State DEC. States

9 they will comply with the New York State DEC

standards. Discusses cluster plan versus

10 conventional plan. States under the cluster

plan there's about fifteen hundred and

11 ninety-eight square feet less impervious area.

States the other advantage of the cluster plan

12 is they could provide a thirty-five foot

minimum setback. States it also allows them to

13 keep a fifteen to twenty foot natural buffer

along the pond which is very important. States

14 they can add a railing on the concrete platform

if it's necessary. States they would like to

15 see the water level remain more stable. States

they investigated the water line that enters

16 from the north side of the pond. Explains

there is a four inch pipe and the flow is

17 constant so that means it's not a storm water

input. States it appears crystal clear and

18 there is no sediment in it. States they will

investigate it further.

Ms. Cascione: Asks if the concrete pier