Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-15 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes PLANNING BOARD AGENDA Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,New York 10573 THURSDAY,APRIL 15, 2004 @ 8:00 P.M. AGENDA BOARD: Warren Agatston, Chairman Dominick Accurso, Jr. Michele Fredman John Grzan Floyd Caplan Patricia Romano Excused. James Winter STAFF: Victor Carosi,Village Engineer Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Consultant Jennifer Porter, Esq.,Village Counsel Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary AGENDA 1. Review of Minutes of 3/4/04 and 3/10/04 Meetings 2. Blind Brook Club Anderson Hill Road Site Plan Amendment 3. Continued Discussion of Code Amendments Regarding Conservation Easements 4. Discussion of Code Amendments Regarding Large Lot Subdivision Study Mr. Agatston welcomed everyone in attendance tonight at the Rye Brook Planning Board Meeting of April 15, 2004, and noted that the meeting was not being video taped. Mr. Agatston welcomed the board members who were present, John Grzan, Pat Romano, Dominick Accurso, Floyd Caplan, and welcomed the newest member, Michelle Fredman. He noted that Jim Winter was excused from the meeting. He also introduced the Village Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 1 Engineer, Victor Carosi, Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed of F.P. Clark Associates, Jennifer Porter, Esq.,Village Attorney, and Paula Patafio, Board Secretary. Mr. Agatston expressed gratitude on behalf of the Board to Danielle McCann, whose term had expired, for her work and efforts on behalf of the community. Mr. Agatston noted that the Planning Board meetings are not public hearings but rather working sessions of the Planning Board. However, all Notice requirements set forth in Section 250-40A and Section 250-40B of the Village Code are required regarding appearance before this Board for action to be taken. Nevertheless, members of the public are accorded an opportunity, at the discretion of the Chair, to address the Board on matters pertaining only to process aspects of the application. All speakers are to speak only from the podium, and state their name, address, and affiliation. The length of speaker comments may be curtailed at the discretion of the Chair, particularly if a speaker's comments are deemed to be redundant, or repeat the same comments of prior speakers, and further depending upon the length of the agenda on any given evening. The Planning Board attempts not to allow its meetings to go beyond 11:00 p.m. Mr. Agatston thanked all the members of the Board who attended the Blind Book Club's site inspection. Having done that as a group rather than as in past practices, individually, was very worthwhile, especially with the Applicant and their consultants present to explain the site, and possible alternatives. Site visits such as this are extremely productive, and Mr. Agatston hoped to have the opportunity to schedule other site visits for future applications before the Planning Board. It was his opinion, however, and he noted that he would query counsel, that site visits such as this should be deemed a"public meeting" and, therefore,whenever a site visitation is scheduled it should be noticed. Mr. Agatston noted that during the Blind Brook site visitation he made a recommendation that both the Tree and Beautification Committee and the Advisory Council on Environmental Conservation visit the site. The Applicant has set aside Saturday, April 24th for this visit. It was noted that Trustee Harris also present at the first site visit and, he and the other members of the Board of Trustees could make their own determination of whether or not they would like to be a part of the scheduled visit on April 2e. Mr. Agatston took a few minutes to discuss a course of study that was recently conducted at Pace University sponsored by the Westchester Municipal Planning Federation. It was extremely well attended by Planning and Zoning Board members throughout the county, county officials, outside Planning consultants and others directly related to Planning in the county. The presentations were extremely informative, and the feedback received from other Planning Board members and officials will be very useful. Some of the sessions included Advanced SEQRA for Land Use Board Members, a meeting with Chairpersons, another one reviewing site plans and one relating to the new Storm Water Management Regulations which was chaired by David Kvinge, former of F.P. Clark Associates, who is now back working for the county. Ms. Romano attended one of the meetings, and Mr. Agatston expressed his interest in having all Planning Board members take advantage of the educational opportunities provided by the Federation and Pace Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 2 University. He noted that these classes are especially helpful to those who haven't had any formal planning and zoning training and education other than hands-on at Village meetings. The Planning Board hopes that eventually it will obtain approval authority and, therefore, this education is even more important. Mr. Agatston noted that the Mayor had appointed him to a task force to focus on the specific issue of whether, and how to provide final authority to the Planning Board. This task force will operate for approximately for 60-90 days and will report back to the Board of Trustees with a recommendation. It was noted that the May meeting date was rescheduled was now set for May 20th, instead of May 13th. Mr. Agatston proposed a work session for the meeting and suggested a start time of 7:00 p.m. Mr. Agatston noted that the Blind Brook Club matter would be taken out of order as the Tree and Beautification Committee was meeting in the Board Conference Room, and the objective was to have them sit in during the applicant's presentation. Mr. Agatston reviewed the agenda. He called for the first matter on the agenda: 1. REVIEW OF MINUTES OF 3/4/04 AND 3/10/04 MEETINGS Mr. Grzan noted that although he was not in attendance at the meeting, he viewed the tape in its entirety and could vote on the minutes. Marilyn Timpone- Mohamed noted that this was permissible. Jennifer Porter, Esq., stated that the Committee for Open Government informed the Village that under the Open Meetings Law, Section 106, there is no specific requirement for approval of minutes. Both summaries were accepted as submitted by a vote of six ayes to zero noes. Mr. Agatston turned to Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed of F.P. Clark & Associates for a presentation regarding Conservation Easements and Code Amendments in connection with large lot subdivisions. 3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 4. DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION STUDY Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed noted that her firm had reviewed Conservation Easements with the Planning Board at a prior meeting. At that time some members, and Village staff, expressed concern that the overlay district would not Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 3 allow ample room for accessory buildings and other site improvements in the rear yards of existing lots within the RIO District of the Lincoln Avenue Corridor. The concern was as the setbacks decreased a property owners' ability to construct amenities in the rear yard. A rendering was completed using a typical lot for the RIO Zone to show that all amenities could fit. She noted that in reviewing the lots within the RIO district it was found that the majority of the lots are substantially larger than the minimum lot size dictated by this zone. They are on an average 15,000 square feet. It was also noted that if any exceptions exist, the property owners could apply for a variance and, based on proof of hardship would, most likely, be granted the variance. She reminded the Board that the increase to the setback would be by a factor of 1.5. Mr. Agatston felt that the Conservation Easement concept could be an "over kill." Ms. Timpone-Mohamed stated that amendments were an attempt by the Board to preserve the character of two neighborhoods within Rye Brook. Lincoln Avenue, which is one of the most scenic roads within the Village, was added to other scenic roads mentioned in the Vision Plan. Recent `tear-downs' have been affecting the character of the neighborhood, as the character of this neighborhood directly depends upon the larger lots and deeper setbacks. The idea behind a conservation easement is to preserve the scenic character of a lot by protecting vegetation,natural features, or constructed features, adjacent to the right-of-way. Ms. Patricia Romano noted that the study also included King Street. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed agreed and noted that the Village's Vision Plan identified two roads — King Street North of the Hutch and Anderson Hill Road, and Lincoln Avenue as roads worth preserving. There are a number of features, such as stonewalls, green and open space, that create the setting of these roads. The study was completed with the intent of finding a mechanism for protecting these features that could be applied when necessary to any road or property within the Village. Michele Fredman questioned whether or not the Village was looking to preserve the character of the neighborhood,but in doing so was pushing property owners to build amenities closer to their neighbors. Mr. Victor Carosi, Village Engineer, noted that there is a building envelope that is created on each lot. The Code allows for accessory structures to have their own setbacks. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that there would a trade-off. She stated the amendments could intensify the need to build closer to the side yard set backs when the building is pushed further from the street. She also stated that the preference is not to up-zone, but to find a way to maintain the character of the neighborhood without removing the right to subdivide. Mr. Agatston questioned what was more important—the quality of the homeowners' life or the character of the neighborhood. Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 4 Mr. Grzan questioned whether or not the Village was spot-zoning. Ms. Timpone- Mohamed noted that the proposed changes in setback requirements proposed by the large lot subdivision study would be for the entire R20 District. In addition, changing these setbacks would change the way the properties could be re- developed. Technically an overlay district as proposed by the conservation easements study is not a zone but rather a set of regulations that are overlaid on existing zoning districts. The Overlay District regulations supercede those of the underlying district. This would be a floating set of regulations that could be applied in various places, as they were needed. The proposal to change the setback requirements for the R20 District is a different strategy that would also preserve existing setbacks, influence subdivision, and preserve neighborhood character. Mr. Agatston asked that Ms. Timpone-Mohamed review the Large Lot Subdivision amendments. He stated that, in his opinion, the Conservation Easements and Large Lot Subdivisions melded and, for clarification purposes, should be reviewed together. Mr. Agatston discussed the overlay districts. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that her study has recommended three streets. The Planning Board could concur with the study or not. It could recommend those streets, additional streets, different streets, or no streets at all to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Agatston questioned the decision of who would control the Conservation Easement. The choice shifted from Village Staff to a Land Trust. Ms. Timpone- Mohamed responded that more research was conducted into the mechanism of a Trust and how it works. There were a number of issues, including a baseline documentation of the property that must be done. Then there is routine monitoring of the property that would require stewardship. The land Trust would set up the conservation easement. They charge a fee, but if the Conservation Easement is set up with an endowment provided, that endowment will pay for any fees and costs incurred with setting up the easements, documenting the property and monitoring them. Mr. Agatston questioned whether or not this was necessary in such a small Village. Jennifer Porter, Esq., who has done a lot of work in the area of Conservation Easements, addressed the Board. She noted that the purpose, in the most general sense, of Conservation Easements is to preserve open space. It is a means by which you can perpetually restrict the ability to develop a parcel of land. You remove the ability from any individual from now or in the future to develop a particular piece of land. This protects a municipality from over- development. The question of Land Trust versus Municipalities was raised. She noted that the Land Trusts have specific expertise in dealing with conservation easements; they have no special interest within any municipality; and using the Land Trust takes advantage of land trust funding. They also have the ability to act Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 5 more quickly. Ms. Porter noted that her recommendation would be to work with a Land Trust. They have the right of enforcement and they can make site visits. Ms. Timpone Mohamed stated that the Village would decide whether to use a non-profit, such as the Westchester Land Trust, or whether it would be more cost effective to hold the easement in-house, or to outsource. Ms. Romano noted that it was the property owners' choice of whether or not to set up Conservation Easement. Mr. Grzan stated that the land owner can place a Conservation Easement on their own property voluntarily, or if they are applying for a permit for work to be done on their home, the Board could place a Conservation Easement as a condition. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed stated that as part of the overlay district, there are parameters set for easements. Mr. Grzan felt that these restrictions were unfair to the property owner. For years the property owner paid taxes and now when he or she wants to subdivide the property and sell off a portion and benefit from the sale, they are told that they cannot develop it. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed responded that a property owner who might be required to place an easement as a condition of approval would continue to have the right to develop a property. These amendments guide the development of the property. The monetary gain that the property owner receives from the property is not in the form of reduced taxes but rather a tax credit on their income. She also noted that the Conservation Easement would be adjacent to the `right of way' in the case of the Scenic Roads Overlay Districts proposed. Properties that are adjacent to properties with Conservation Easements have been known to go up in value. Ms. Porter noted that there is a balance of public rights and the character of the Village. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that there were several lots on both sides of Lincoln Avenue that could be subdivided, and a number of lots that present the opportunity for tear-down renovations. The real issue here is the scenic quality of the road. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that a Conservation Easement can be any size you chose. It is a mechanism to protect a specific place or site feature. She pointed out that currently the Deer Run subdivision has Conservation Easements in place. Mr. Grzan noted that these easements were put in place by conditions of the site plan approval. Mr. Agatston noted that the next Planning Board meeting was scheduled for the third Thursday in May—May 200i. At that meeting, depending upon the schedule, he felt that it would be beneficial to schedule a Work Session. Ms. Romano felt that the Conservation Easement and Overlay District needed to be decided upon before the amendments proposed by the large lot subdivision study. Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 6 Mr. Agatston noted that the representatives for Garden Inn were in attendance. They were not on the agenda but would, if time allowed, heard, briefly, by the Planning Board. Mr. Wagner, representative for the applicant, noted that they were interested in hearing the discussions on the Conservation Easements, and the Blind Brook Club. At 9:10 p.m., the Planning Board invited the Tree Committee to join them for a presentation from the Blind Brook Club. Mr. Agatston welcomed the Tree and Beautification Committee, and its chairman, Roger Herman, and thanked them for their attendance. He noted that this presentation was a continuing review in which the Planning Board first heard from the Applicant at the January 9t' meeting, then again at our March 11th meeting, and again at the site visitation of April 10th. Briefly, he asked that the construction plans be reviewed with respect to the Blind Brook Club's maintenance building, site design and parking, the various regulated activities in the wetlands and impositions to the Blind Brook, the retention/filtration basins and, of importance to the Tree Committee, the Tree Protection Plan. He noted that Ms. Timpone-Mohamed would be asked to review the revised plans and other matters that she has received in response to this Board's comments as well as the various comments and discussions that took place at the site on April 10 '. Next he suggested that the applicant, and any members of the Tree and Beautification Committee that wish to raise any issues, be heard. Finally, any members of the public that wish to be heard would be given time to address the Board. 2. BLIND BROOK CLUB ANDERSON HILL ROAD SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Agatston noted that a site visit took place at the Blind Brook Club the previous Saturday. The Planning Board was joined by Trustee Robert Harris. The Tree Committee has received an invitation for the following Saturday, scheduled for April 24, 2004, for the next site visit on April 24, 2004. Mr. Agatston noted that these visits are very informative. Mr. Gary Gianfrancesco, from the firm of Arconics, addressed the Board as the architect for the project. Also in attendance was the representative from John Myers Consulting, and John Bladt and Les Kennedy from the Blind Brook Club. Mr. Gianfrancesco thanked the Planning Board, Ms. Timpone-Mohamed, and Trustee Robert Harris, for attendance at the site visit. He noted that the site visit was very beneficial to everyone. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that the proposed project is located at the westerly most portion of the site, along Anderson Hill Road. The Blind Brook Club proposes to construct a new maintenance facility at the westerly portion of the existing 150 acre site, which borders along the Blind Brook. This area is in the vicinity that is Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 7 currently utilized for the golf course maintenance. The operation is year round, with a staff of five to seven individuals. From March through September, seasonal workers are brought in, bringing this number up to approximately 15 employees. During April through October, the maintenance facility will be in operation seven days a week. In the off season it will be open five days a week, Monday through Friday. Normal hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The function of this facility will be to store, repair, and maintain equipment used on the golf course. The proposed project intends to remove the existing facility, maintenance garage facility, and associated structures to the newly constructed facility. This facility will be equipped with a state-of-the art, environmentally sensitive water recycling system and OSHA approved storage. Two existing septic tanks will also be moved. A new sewer is being installed in the front of the project, and the building will be properly landscaped, and will include storm water management features. Currently there are no controls of the storm water and it runs directly into the Blind Brook. This building will be fully sprinkled. In addition, this project would call for the removal of the septic system, underground gas and diesel storage tanks, and a propane tank within the 100' setback. They would also remove two steel storage containers, an existing garage, and storage shed. They will be avoiding existing slopes, and will install a storm water management system and a chemical storage system. Essentially the proposed construction will reduce, to the maximum extent possible to protect the water quality and satisfy the appropriate requirements of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that the proposed construction includes an approximate 10,900 square foot footprint. This facility will house all equipment used on and off season; it will include a mechanic's shop, and will also have an administrative component to the building. There will be an organized area next to the building, with handicapped spaces, and a driveway with truck access. The building is separated into three different areas. The administrative component includes offices, conference/meeting room, and lockers for the employees. The mechanic shop will be used to maintain the equipment. There is a garage to be used as a storage area. There will be wash bins, an enclosed pesticide storage area, and an above ground fueling area. The structure is a one-story building. The frame will be a prefabricated metal building, with the exterior constructed of cement and stucco. There will be a decorative block base, and the windows will face Anderson Hill Road. The overall height of the building to the peak is 17', and it will be tucked behind the slope. All of the maintenance facility functions currently fall within the buffer area. The goal was to locate as much of the facility outside of the buffer zone. The project will be in conformance with the storm water guidelines. The proposed building will be located outside of the buffer zone, and adjacent to the steep slopes. There are a group of mature trees on the slope that are being proposed to be removed. In the interest of saving some of the mature White Pines, the building has been shifted forward, which causes a portion of the building to fall within the buffer Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 8 area. There are two large storm water basins which will act as wetlands. The applicant proposes heavy plantings of the area between the two storm water basins. Mr. Gianfrancesco reviewed some of the comments made by Ms. Timpone- Mohamed. Allan Pilch of Evans Associates, environmental consultant on the project, began his portion of the presentation by reviewing what was being proposed within the watercourse buffer itself. It was noted that there were 78 trees tagged by tag number, species, condition of the trees, and a recommendation pertaining to the trees based upon the health condition. There were 16 trees that were identified in poor condition for safety reasons. These trees should be removed with or without the project. The project itself would impact an additional 17 trees. As mitigation for the impact there are two proposed storm water management basins. Runoff from the existing impervious surfaces—the maintenance building, shed, and gravel area—currently runs directly into the Blind Brook without any treatment. The proposed storm water basins have been designed in accordance with the 90% rule of New York State. They will be planted with appropriate materials which will absorb nutrients from the storm water runoff Under this design, the storm water basins will treat the storm water runoff from both impervious and pervious surfaces. There will be some trees, but mainly shrub materials. The basins are intended to function as an extended extension of the shallow wetlands. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that some of her concerns had already been addressed. The applicant has provided more narrative which describes the materials to be removed from the site, and added a description of the removal procedure for the underground tanks. The area around the underground tanks must be tested, and any changes that may develop because of soil testing should be submitted to the Village Engineer for review. Mr. Kennedy noted that the tanks that were installed in 1990 will be replaced by above ground containers. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that the duration of the construction would be approximately six months. The construction plan should be reviewed by the Village's Engineer. It was noted that the applicant addressed the matter of additional impervious surface. The five parking spaces for the driveway have been removed, and the end result was that there was a net decrease of 1,133 square feet by removal of the proposed parking spaces, tanks, etc. As requested by the Village's consultant, the maintenance building has heights shown on the revised plans. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed stated that in her opinion the building should not be moved closer to the wetland buffer. Water quality Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 9 protection takes precedence over saving trees outside the buffer. She felt that removing as much of the maintenance activity as possible within the buffer was the more prudent way to go. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that a landscape plan has been provided. It describes the areas of proposed plantings. In terms of trees, the project proposes the removal of 17 trees that total 455 caliber inches — they are big trees. The applicant proposes to plant 147 caliber inches of replacement trees. The maintenance replacement suggested by the arborist is not included. The trees have been tagged, indicating which trees would be removed because they are diseased, dead or dying. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed suggested that the total number of caliper inches of trees removed should be replaced by an equal number of calipers of new trees. Clearly there is not enough room within the immediate site to put so many trees, but the applicant could improve the buffer elsewhere on the property with the addition of trees. A one-to-one ratio tends to be the norm. It was noted that shrubs are not calculated in the replacement. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that there is the issue that removal of mature trees that requires mitigation. The issue of the disturbance to the buffer and the mitigation that would be required for that disturbance must also be reviewed. The Code says two-to-one for the buffer, one-to-one for wetlands. The wetland buffer should be a combination of trees plus shrubs as trees provide one function and shrubs provide another. 18,000 square feet of water course buffer would be enhanced by plantings. The applicant would also be required to comply with Section 245-9(A)(2) of the Village Code. Spillways are being constructed on the channel side of the Blind Brook and, depending upon the amount of disturbance, the bank should be repaired when it is disturbed during construction. Mr. Carosi agreed that the applicant should add more trees throughout the golf course—or elsewhere within the Village to comply. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that the maintenance building must be operational until the new facility is operational. It was noted that a Maintenance and Monitoring plan has been submitted, as well as tree survey and tree preservation maps. A tree protection plan has partially been provided, and additions will be made to this plan. A lighting plan will be submitted. She recommended fixtures that aim light downward and shield glare. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that the drawings had been reorganized and that they are now much easier to review. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted there are three large White Pines that will be re- evaluated after the construction. If they are deemed a safety hazard, then they would be removed. All new trees would be planted on top of the hill. Mr. Kennedy noted that the objective is to screen the new facility from the golf Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 10 course. Moving the building back would require the three trees that are proposed to stay to be removed. It is feasible to move the building into the hills, but this would mean that the access roads must be re-graded. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that this would cause additional disturbance. Moving the building forward would save the trees,but the water quality would suffer. Mr. Carosi noted that there were additional constraints to moving the building further into the slope. The entrance is on Anderson Hill Road and there are two areas on either side that must be tied into access to the facility. Mr. Gianfrancesco agreed, noting that the access road would be in the same place after construction. The applicant is working with the basic roadbed that exists. A discussion of whether or not an oil water separator for the parking area was required. Mr. Kennedy noted that the parking lot was for staff that work inside of the building. Any oil from vehicles inside the building will be contained. Mr. Agatston asked for a timeline of where the application was heading. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that there were missing items and plans that needed to be reviewed. The applicant would be returning at the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Carosi pointed out that there were still outstanding engineer aspects. The Village's Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld, has provided a report, and the major engineering aspects have been addressed. The Department of Environmental Conservation's requirements have also been met. The applicant was thanked for the presentation, and everyone was reminded of the next site visit, scheduled for April 24d'. Mr. Agatston called for a very brief presentation by Mr. Wagner, the representative for the Garden Inn. Mr. Wagner addressed the Board, informally. Plans have been submitted detailing the three projects/alternatives. The applicant has submitted a series of site plans, which have been initially reviewed by F.P. Clark. Some additional modifications have been made. On March 23rd a letter was submitted to the Village. Visuals were included with this submission. Mr. Wagner asked if there were any comments from the Planning Board. Mr. Agatston noted that the Planning Board had received the new plans for review, but that the Board had not yet had an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Wagner noted that there are three separate site plan applications. Each one is very specific. This is tripling the costs. Someone indicated that trees were removed from the property. Mr. Wagner assured the Board that no trees were removed while the survey Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 11 team was marking where the building would be located. Mr. Carosi stated that only some shrubs were cut back during that process. Mr. Wagner stated that this has been a very long process. The footprints have been changed to minimize the impact to the wetlands. Retaining walls are now being proposed. He noted that the Garden Inn would present at the Planning Board's May meeting Ms. Timpone-Mohamed asked for a few moments to discuss large lot subdivisions. Mr. Agatston noted that as it was already 10:20 p.m., a short discussion could be held. The first portion of the discussion focused on the boundary line for the R20 District. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed stated that normally the line would trace each property line of properties along King Street. It is clear that this district boundary does not run along King Street. It was noted that the house or structure in this area is deemed to be in the zone that it is physically located in. A parcel can be located in two different zones. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that one way to deal with the setback issues would be to create a sliding scale for setbacks. A tear-down alteration or new building would be required to use the average of the setbacks of the neighboring properties as the minimum front yard set back This would prohibit a property owner from shoving a building very close to the street. In addition, a deeper set back would change how a property could be subdivided. A lot that might have been dividable into three lots may no longer be dividable that way. Mr. Agatston questioned what prevented a house behind a house. Mr. Carosi stated that there were a number of factors within the Code that would prevent it. Mr. Grzan felt that in looking at the Code Book that the same end results could be accomplished by changing the language or add provisions without making more active changes. He felt that the proposed amendments were too restrictive. Trustee Santon reminded everyone that by developing this area the Village loses ambiance and the character of the neighborhood is changed. Ms. Romano asked whether or not these amendments would impact the Garden Inn. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that these amendments would not affect the Garden Inn because that property is located in a Hotel District. A discussion regarding the ability of the applicant to meet the setbacks for a Hotel District ensued. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that the Garden Inn was complying with the setback requirements, with only the required road frontage not being met. Mr. Agatston noted that the reason for these amendments was to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Conservation Easements can be used as a tool to create the kind of buffer (open space) that the Village is looking for. Up-zoning is harder to justify and it could wreak havoc on property values and the properties become unattractive to residential subdivisions. Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 12 Mr. Grzan noted that Rye Brook is losing its suburban appearance. He felt that these amendments were chipping away at the Village's Zoning Code creating a very inconsistent document. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed noted that in developing the proposed amendments we have been looking for inconsistencies and have attempted to avoid inconsistency. Through use the regulations would be fine tuned. When applicants come in for review loop holes might be discovered and could be corrected. Mr. Carosi noted that when the Zoning Code was first developed it was developed with a goal for the time. Now 60 years later the vision is different. The Village is trying to work within the confines of existing zones; trying to keep the Code,but fine tune it. Mr. Agatston stated that depending on the schedule for the 20th, he would like to see a Special Meeting scheduled. If it did not fit into the scheduled for May, he suggested early June,with an hour work session being sufficient. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Planning Board April 15,2004 Page 13