Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-20 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street PLANNING BOARD AGENDA Thursday,May 20, 2004 AGENDA WORK SESSION: 7:00 P.M. 1) Continued Discussion of Code Amendments Regarding Conservation Easements 2) Continued Discussion of Code Amendments Regarding Large Lot Subdivision Study REGULAR MEETING: 8:00 P.M. 1) Review of Minutes from 4/15/04 Meeting 2) Blind Brook Club Anderson Hill Road Site Plan Amendment 3) Discussion of Code Amendments Regarding Site Plan Review BOARD Warren Agatston, Chairman Dominick Accurso, Jr. Floyd Caplan Michelle Fredman John Grzan Patricia Romano Jim Winter STAFF Victor Carosi,Village Engineer Jennifer M. Porter, Esq.,Village Counsel Trustee Dean Santon (arrived at 9:00 p.m.) Marilyn Timpone Mohamed,Village Consultant Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 1 Mr. Warren Agatston, Chairman of the Planning Board, welcomed everyone to the May 20, 2004 meeting. He introduced the members of the Board, Village Staff, and Consultants. He took a moment to thank prior Board member Danielle McCann for her hard work during her term on the Planning Board. Mr. Agatston noted that Planning Board meetings are not public hearings, but rather working sessions of the Planning Board. It was noted that although not public hearings, all notice requirements as set forth in Section 250-40(a) and 250-40(b) of the newly amended Village Code are required for all appearances before this Board that require action. Mr. Agatston pointed out that when a matter was placed on the agenda strictly for discussion purposes, no notice requirements were necessary. Nevertheless, members of the public are accorded an opportunity, at the discretion of the Chair, to address the Board on matters pertaining only to items before the Board. All speakers are asked 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 out of order. Mr. Agatston noted that the Planning Board hoped to close all meetings no later than 11:00 p.m. He also noted that on months where there were heavy agendas, the Planning Board would schedule a second meeting. In addition, work sessions could also be scheduled as needed. Mr. Agatston noted that the agenda for June may warrant two meetings. Mr. Agatston noted that the Planning Board found the site visits to the Blind Brook Club extremely helpful and productive. He felt that site visits should be made part of the process for similar applications. Mr. Agatston noted that, as mentioned at the previous meeting, several members of the Planning Board have been attending the Pace University Program sponsored by Westchester Municipal Planning Federation. The presentations have been extremely informative, and the feedback received from other Planning Board members has been very useful. He hoped that all Planning Board members would take advantage of future educational programs made available by the Federation. A Task Force investigating approval authority for the Planning Board has held several meetings. The first meeting was held on April 22, 2004. This Task Force was formed in accordance with the Vision Plan by the Mayor. Mr. Agatston noted that a Work Session was held earlier on Conservation Easements and Large Lot Subdivisions. The Board anticipates scheduling a Special Meeting early June to continue the discussion. The anticipation is that a recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Trustees in early July. Mr. Agatston reviewed the agenda, noting that there were only three matters before the Board. He called for the first item on the agenda. 1) Review of Minutes from April 15,2004 Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 2 Mr. Agatston called for comments from Board members. Several corrections were made to the minutes, and they were adopted as amended by a vote of seven ayes to zero noes. Mr. Agatston called for the next item on the agenda: 2) Blind Brook Club Anderson Hill Road Site Plan Amendment Mr. Gary Gianfrancesco, from the firm of Arconics, addressed the Board as the architect for the project. Also in attendance were the representatives from John Myers Consulting, Evans Associates, and Mr. Les Kennedy from the Blind Brook Club. Mr. Gianfrancesco thanked the Board for attendance at the second site visit. He stated that the site visit was very beneficial to the applicant, as well as the Village. 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. 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 maintenance garage facility, and associated structures, and move their functions to the newly constructed facility. This facility will be a state-of-the art, 9,775 square foot maintenance facility at the above referenced location. The original application was submitted on September 26, 2003. This project has been revised numerous times in response to the comments of Board Members, Village Staff, and Village Consultants. The submission now before the Planning Board also reflects comments from the Tree Committee, Environmental Council, Board of Trustee members, and Planning Board comments made at the last site walk of April 24, 2004. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that the most significant change since last month's submission was the addition of trees and shrubs to screen the facility from Anderson Hill Road, and the inclusion of a significant amount of tree planting along the top of the hill, on the ridge,behind the proposed structure. A discussion regarding the caliper inches of trees being removed, and the total caliper inches of trees to be replaced took place. Mr. Gianfrancesco stated that 17 trees would be removed. The total of caliper inches of trees being removed as a direct impact of the project was 455 caliper inches. It was also noted that additional trees would be removed due to the health/condition of the trees. The current submission doubles the original amount of proposed new trees,which was 147 caliper inches. After the Planning Board request, additional trees were added to the plan. The new total is 320.5 caliper inches of trees to be planted. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that the Blind Brook Club totals over 150 acres, and there Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 3 were approximately 800 trees in total on the property. Ms. Michelle Fredman suggested that the applicant could add trees in other areas of the Club. Mr. Kennedy noted that changes to the landscape required Blind Brook Club Board approval. In addition, because this is a golf course, the addition of trees is difficult. It was noted that along Anderson Hill Road there is a buffer of trees and shrubs all along the property line. Mr. Gianfrancesco also pointed out that there would be various plantings within the storm water basins, totally 15,500 square feet. As well as plantings between the two basins, in the amount of 13,300 square feet, which will serve to enhance the quality of the existing water course buffer. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that this project had been formulated out of constraints. The constraints dictated where the new building could be placed. There were the constraints of function, because the golf course needs to be maintained during the construction process. Additional constraints included the access drive, the existing residence, the water course, the wetland delineation, the wetland buffer line, and an area of steep slopes. The Landscape Architect, Allan Pilch, from Evans Associates addressed the Board. He presented the planting plan, and reviewed the intent of this plan. He noted that there were plantings to restore a portion of the wetlands buffer that would be disturbed during construction. In addition, tree planting was proposed for screening of parking areas, the new maintenance facility, and the two parking spaces for the existing residence. Most of the new plantings that have been proposed serve to screen the new maintenance building and protect the building from golfers who may not be very accurate. The applicant proposes native trees that range in size from 2 to 3 '/2 caliper inches. He reviewed the transplanting process and the impact that transplanting has on trees. He noted that this impacted is called "transplant shock" which results from the loss of the root system of the plants. When a tree is physically remove from the ground, it losses its root system, and the natural balance is thrown off. The amount of nutrients and water that reaches the crown is reduced. Larger trees have a larger crown,but the root ball can only be so large. Therefore, the trees with the larger crowns require a longer period of time for the natural balance to be re-established between the roots and the crown when it is planted. The crown basically stops growing until the natural balance is re-established. Therefore, most arborists recommend the smaller trees because of the effect of transplant shock. The larger the plant, the greater risk of the plant dying. The applicant has chosen the size of the trees indicated on the plan because they would have a better chance of surviving. It was noted that a second issue regarding planting of larger trees was the cost. The pricing difference from a 2" caliper tree to a 4" caliper tree is at least doubled. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that this project must be viewed as a whole. The proposal, as previously stated, cures a host of ills. He reviewed the project,noting Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 4 that the new facility will be entirely outside of the 100' wetlands buffer of the Blind Brook. The new structure will house all of the activities which currently are conducted outside, uncontrolled, and currently within the 100' buffer. The project will institute storm water management control at the property where none currently exists. The proposed storm water system, which is intended to handle a 25 year storm from the new building and parking areas, has been designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical, protect water quality, and satisfy the appropriate requirements of the Clean Water Act. The facility will incorporate environmentally sensitive water recycling from the washing of equipment; OSHA approved above ground fuel tanks, pesticide storage, and ultimately the construction of a forced main sewer system that would serve the main structure and the residence located on the property. The construction of the new forced main sewer system will allow the applicant to remove the two septic systems and the fields that are now within the 100' buffer. Ultimately, the project, when completed, will reduce the amount of impervious surface within the wetland buffer by 1,133 square feet. The project will plant 320.5 caliper inches of trees and 28,800 square feet of various plantings. As a whole, on balance, the project has sufficiently addresses all issues raised. Mr. Agatston requested that the applicant consider a compromise by increasing the total number of trees to be planted by 50 caliper inches. Mr. Kennedy responded that the applicant would be willing o add an additional 50 caliper inches, thereby totaling 370.5 total caliper inches. He stated that they would not add additional trees to the plan, but would ad larger trees having approximately 4 to 4 1/2 caliper inches each. A discussion regarding the pump house, and its removal, ensued. It was noted that this pump house has not been used in several years. Mr. Kennedy stated, however, this pump house is functional and considered as a back-up to the main pumping station, and the applicant would prefer it be left standing. Mr. Gianfrancesco noted that the pump house is located on the edge of the Brook and he felt that, on balance, it might be more detrimental to remove this pump house. The consensus of the Board was to leave the pump house in tact, with two members in favor or removing it. Ms. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, Village Consultant, addressed the Board. She briefly reviewed her comments that were presented in her May 13, 2004 memorandum. She noted that she had reviewed the additional materials submitted by the applicant, and had some comments. She noted that the Village Engineering Consultant may also have comments; however, his memorandum has not yet been received. Ms. Timpone Mohamed stated that in terms of construction, all comments from the office of F.P. Clark Associates had been answered. She did note, however, that the soil tests for the area around the underground tanks to be removed has not been completed. If these tests come back other than "clean,"requiring changes to Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 5 the removal or construction plans, amendments to the plans would require review and approval by the Village Engineer. The applicant has done everything possible to decrease the amount of impervious surface in the buffer area. The applicant had presented two alternate plans, but the plan before the Board today is the better plan. A monitoring and maintenance plan has been presented by the applicant for the buffers and the storm water basins. Ms. Timpone Mohamed felt that these plans should be combined into a single plan, addressing the entire area as a whole. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that 17 trees would be removed, for a total of 455 caliper inches. She pointed out that this area of the golf course will look very different after construction, and the landscaping in that area will be greatly changed. It was her opinion that the applicant should match the number of caliper inches removed with the number of caliper inches replaced. She suggested adding additional smaller trees in the area if the applicant's Landscape Architect felt that larger trees would not be prudent. Regarding the tree protection notes on Sheet EC-la provision for replacing protected trees lost due to damage during construction, should be added. If during construction protected trees are damaged, or die, they should be replaced. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that there were a few items that need to be revised before the applicant makes its presentation to the Board of Trustees. She agreed with Mr. Gianfrancesco that, in the end, this project would improve the conditions of the Brook and the buffer area. Mr. Agatston called for final questions or comments. There being none, Jennifer Porter, Esq., Village Counsel, was asked to amend the resolution before the Board to reflect the changes made. Jennifer Porter, Esq.,read the resolution, as amended: RESOLUTION REFERRING A SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR A NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT THE BLIND BROOK CLUB, 980 ANDERSON HILL ROAD, TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WHEREAS, the Blind Brook Club has made an application to the Village to remove an existing maintenance building, garage, septic system, and underground fuel storage tanks to construct a new maintenance facility with sprinkler system, new force main sewer, storm water management system and fuel storage tanks to serve the property at 980 Anderson Hill Road, Section 1, Block 4, Lot 1 in the R-20/Z-1 Zoning District; and Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 6 WHEREAS, the application was referred to the Village Planning Board by the Village Board of Trustees on November 25, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Village Planning Consultant has reviewed the information submitted and made recommendations regarding: tree preservation; impervious surface coverage in the Blind Brook buffer; landscaping and screening; and the post-construction monitoring plan for the restored buffer and storm water management basins within the buffer; and WHEREAS, the Village Planning Board has reviewed the information submitted by the applicant in connection with the application, including a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and the report and recommendation of the Village Planning Consultant and initial report and recommendation of the Village Engineering Consultant; and WHEREAS, the Village Planning Board is familiar with the site and all aspects of the project; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing a 1,133 square-foot decrease in the amount of impervious surface coverage within the wetland buffer, from 14,312 square feet to 13,179 square feet of impervious surface coverage; and WHEREAS, the proposed project would improve the water quality of the Blind Brook by removal of an existing septic system, construction of storm water management facilities and improvement of the functionality of the watercourse buffer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby refers the application back to the Village Board of Trustees for action and recommends approval of the amended special use permit, site plan approval and permit to perform regulated activities in a wetland, subject to the following conditions: 1. The construction, soil removal and tank removal plans shall be approved by the Village Engineer. 2. Soil tests for hazardous materials in the area surrounding the existing subsurface petroleum storage tanks shall be reviewed by the Village Engineer. Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 7 3. A total of 370.5 caliper inches of new trees comprised of a mix of 2- 4.5 inch caliper trees shall be planted on the project site and in the immediate area surrounding the project site or other locations within the watercourse buffer where trees might be planted to improve the functioning of the buffer. 4. A comprehensive post-construction monitoring plan for the restored buffer and the storm water management basins within the buffer shall be developed by combining the plans already submitted. The plan shall include the following additional provisions: • Submission of a baseline report that documents the physical condition and functioning of the storm water facilities and the buffer one month after completion, including, but not limited to as-built drawings and lists and quantities of plants species installed. The baseline report shall be completed by the Owner's landscape architect/environmental designer and shall be delivered to the Village Engineer for approval. • All inspections, monitoring and reporting shall be performed by a landscape architect/environmental designer hired by the Owner, whose credentials are satisfactory to the Village Engineer. • The Village Engineer shall be notified at least 24 hours in advance of an inspection. • Inspection reports shall include: a.) Photographs, field logs, other supporting data and a summary of the functioning of the storm water facilities and buffer in comparison to the design performance standards approved. b.) Percentage of plant survival in all planted and seeded areas associated with the storm water facilities. c.) The average, minimum and maximum depth of sediment in the storm water basins. Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 8 d.) The physical condition of all structures that are part of the storm water facilities. e.) Evaluation of the storm water facilities and buffer functions. £) Maintenance and repair records from the previous year. g.) Recommendations for any repairs, modifications, mowing or adjustments to grading or plantings. h.) Documentation regarding the presence and monitoring of harmful insects. All this shall be done to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 5. A note stating that protected trees lost due to damage incurred during construction and the subsequent growing season will be replaced shall be added to the tree protection notes. Mr. Agatston called for a vote on the resolution, as amended. Mr. Grzan made a motion to approve, which was seconded by Mr. Floyd Caplan. The resolution passed on a vote of 7 ayes to zero noes. The applicant thanked the Planning Board for their recommendation. Mr. Agatston asked that the Village Engineer discuss the matter of the timeliness of Mr. Dolph Rotfeld's reports to speed them up. Mr. Carosi stated that this matter would be referred to the Administrator. Mr. Agatston called for a brief recess. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Agatston called for the final item on the agenda: 3) Discussion of Code Amendments Regarding Site Plan Review Mr. Agatston noted that Section 209-1 of the Village Code had been referred to the Planning Board for review. Ms. Porter was asked to review this matter. Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 9 Ms. Porter noted that this referral opened the proposed amendments for discussion. This section surrounds the review and approval of site plan applications. Basically, the Village would be adding a very broad provision to the Code that would provide a site plan review be required for construction of all new buildings, including single and two family-dwellings. Mr. Agatston questioned"why" these amendments were necessary. Ms. Porter noted that the proposed amendments were proposed because of concerns raised in the past several years of how to deal with tear downs, alterations, new constructions, etc. The Village Board has raised concern that a lot of single and two-family dwellings were undergoing renovations which should be in the preview of the Planning Board and the Village Board. She noted that this discussion was the just the beginning and these amendments are very broad. The root of the problem must be addressed. Research must be done to determine if there were ways to streamline the site plan review process. This would assist the Building Department in the review of these types of applications, and give final approval to the Board of Trustees. Mr. Dominick Accurso, Jr. noted that these types of application are referred to the Architectural Review Board that reviews the plans for what the building would look like, elevation, etc. The Planning Board reviews the plans for conformance with Zoning. Mr. Agatston felt that this would add more work for the Board of Trustees and/or the Planning Board. Ms. Timpone Mohamed addressed the Board to respond to the concerns raised. She noted that she had done some research on this matter and came up with three sets of Codes from other municipalities that have site plan approval. When this matter was originally referred several issues connected with the Red Roof Farm subdivision were brought up. Although this subdivision went through subdivision approval, some of the problems that exist within that subdivision were actually a result of the fact that when each individual home was built, site improvements and changes to the site were not coordinated within the entire subdivision. The end result was problems that were unexpected and that might have been avoided if each lot were required to go through the site plan approval process. Ms. Timpone Mohamed stated that another issue discussed was the alterations that are sufficiently major to constitute a tear down of an existing building. The permitting process calls for certain required drawings and information that is requested when a building permit is applied for. They are somewhat less than what the Planning Board would require when doing a site plan review. There are certain problems that have recently been experienced with alterations within the Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 10 Village where the Building Department did not have sufficient information for a complete review. Ms. Timpone Mohamed used a recent alteration/tear down as an example, and noted when the plans that were submitted to the Building Department were reviewed retaining walls and additional site work was not indicated. More drawings could have been required, but without site plan approval process that would allow the Building Inspector to refer applications to the Planning Board, the decision is left to the Building Inspector. It was the Building Inspector that has requested additional assistance because he realizes that some applications go beyond a threshold that is covered by the Building Permit procedure. When renovating an existing lot — and building up to the maximum on the lot — there are much more complicated issues that require a much deeper review. By creating thresholds for referral to the Planning Board and site plan review, additional review would be required. Mr. Agatston felt that this matter could be discussed more in depth during a Work Session. He pointed out that recent Work Sessions have proven to be very productive in the most recent Code review. Mr. Carosi noted that this was the beginning of the modifications to the Code. The Building Inspector also utilizes the New York State Building Code. The review comes from a safety perspective. The Site Plan Review Chapter of the Village's Code may have to be modified. This is a work in progress. Grading, access to the homes, tree removal, drainage patterns, etc., and the impacts to the surrounding homes must be reviewed. This review would be a benefit to the existing homeowners within the Village. This review starts the process. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that serious research and study must be done in order to create a law that would do the job and not burden a homeowner trying to do a small addition. Mr. Caplan noted that these amendments could add several months to the applicant's approval process. Ms. Timpone Mohamed agreed that it might increase the amount of time that an application remained within the Village waiting for approval. Mr. Agatston noted that everyone is aware of tear downs and the implications. He questioned whether or not the Board wanted to consider these amendments, and polled the Board. Mr. Grzan noted that these amendments would address problems in the future. He felt that it behooved the Village to review these amendments. The Planning Board must be concerned with the impacts to all residents, especially those residents who live within 500' of the proposed construction. Ms. Patricia Romano noted that it was very important to retain the character of Rye Brook. She felt that a Village of tear downs would change the character. She noted that she was in favor of the proposed review. The remaining Board members agreed. Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 11 Mr. Agatston stated that as the consensus of the Board was to review this matter, he suggested additional Work Sessions, and perhaps a second meeting in the month of June. He requested that this matter be referred back to the Village's Consultants, Legal Counsel, Building Department, and staff, to see how it can be developed a little bit more. There being no further matters before the Board, the Planning Board meeting of May 20, 2004 was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Planning Board Mary 20,2004 Page 12