Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-10 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes PLANNING BOARD AGENDA Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,New York 10573 THURSDAY,JUNE 10,2004 @ 8:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. MR. &MRS. DAVID FORBES 1 BROOKSIDE WAY WETLANDS AND STEEP SLOPES APPLICATION 2. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS 3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION STUDY AND R-20 SETBACK AMENDMENTS 4. DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING SITE PLAN REVIEW 5. REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 20, 2004 BOARD: Warren Agatston, Chairman Floyd Caplan Michele Fredman John Grzan Patricia Romano Excused. Domenick Accurso, Jr. James Winter STAFF: Victor Carosi,Village Engineer Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Consultant Jennifer Porter, Esq.,Village Counsel Paula Patafio,Meeting Secretary Mr. Agatston began the meeting by noting 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 Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 1 required regarding appearance before this Board for us to take action. Nevertheless, members of the public will then be accorded an opportunity, at the discretion of the Chair, to address the Board on matters pertaining only to process aspects of this 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 may repeat the same comments of prior speakers, and further depending upon the length of the agenda on any given evening. We attempt not to allow our meetings to go beyond 11:00 p.m. Mr. Agatston called for item 95 on the agenda, and turned to the Board for comments. 5. REVIEW OF MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 20, 2004 Mr. Agatston noted that he made a correction to the summary in connection with the application from the Blind Brook Club. He asked that the summary reflect his request that an additional 50 caliper inches trees of be added elsewhere on the property. This is important as it relates to how the compromise was reached. Mr. Agatston noted that this change had already been incorporated into the resolution. In addition, Mr. Grzan noted that he had made a point during the discussion regarding soil erosion during construction. Both additions will be made part of the final version of the May 20, 2004 Planning Board summary. On a motion made by Ms. Patricia Romano, and seconded by Mr. John Grzan, the minutes were approved as amended by a vote of five ayes to zero noes. Mr. Agatston called for the first item on the agenda: 1. MR. & MRS. DAVID FORBES 1 BROOKSIDE WAY WETLANDS AND STEEP SLOPES APPLICATION Mr. Agatston noted that no action could be taken at this meeting for this application. He suggested a site visit, with the applicant, Village Staff, and Consultants. He asked that the applicant stake out what is on the plan — the area of the steep slope that is shown on the latest drawing, the trees to be removed, the footprint of the building, the pool, and the pool house. He noted that site visits have proven to be extremely helpful in understanding applications. He requested that Ms. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, Village Consultant from the firm of F.P. Clark Associates, coordinate the site visit and advise everyone of the date and time scheduled via e-mail. Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 2 Mr. Agatston called for comments from the applicant. Mr. Daniel Forbes, applicant, addressed the Board. He introduced his attorney, John Loveless, Esq.; the Landscape Architect, Jeri D. Barrett, R.L.A. of J.D. Barrett and Associates, LLC; the Civil Engineer, Michael Mastrogiacomo; and the Architect, Michael Finelli. He noted that everyone involved with the project was in attendance to respond to any questions from the Board,Village Consultants, or staff. Mr. Barrett began the presentation on the application. He noted that the Site Plan encompasses improvements that the applicant would like to see on this large piece of property. The house is a large, long house that is in a state of disrepair. The home fronts on Brookside Way. There is a level rear yard, with black top, and then it slopes up. The area of a former pool is covered over by a slab of cement. This was done by a previous owner when the pool was moved inside the house. The proposal before the Board was to renovate the house and improve the grounds. Mr. Barrett noted that the existing footprint of the house would be expanded upon. In addition, a circular driveway was proposed, along with a swimming pool, a pool house, a deck, some walkways, and a patio. Mr. Barrett noted that there was an existing deck on the house, and the newly proposed deck would be rebuilt in the same location. In addition, it would be much smaller than the existing deck. The proposed pool would be in the area of the previous pool, removing that impervious surface and replacing it with the new pool. Mr. Barrett was reminded that a pool is impervious surface. Mr. Barrett noted that the applicant will be looking to address storm water runoff and the additional runoff that might be generated by the project. He stated that there is a 100' buffer to the Blind Brook, and improvements are also being proposed for the buffer area. Mr. Barrett noted that the applicant attempted to find the best way to protect the 100' buffer to the Blind Brook. During construction, there will be an erosion and sediment control plan in place. The applicant proposes plantings for the buffer area that will enhance and improve the buffer area. The hope is to introduce native species to the area that would enhance the value of this buffer area. It was pointed out that currently everything drains from the hill downward towards the Brook. Mr. Barrett pointed out the steep slopes on the property, noting that they have been identified on a plan for the Board. Most of the regulated slopes are in the 15% to 25% area, and they would be within the work area and contract line. The applicant will be putting together a Slope Map. Retaining walls are proposed for the area behind the pool in order to minimize the grade in that area. Mr. Michael Mastrogiacomo, Civil Engineer, was called upon for a presentation on Storm Water Phase II requirements. He pointed out that the biggest problem on the site is direct discharge into the Blind Brook. There will be calculations done for a net zero increase in runoff. Percolation tests will be done on the property. There will be overflow pipes into the Brook, and any runoff that ends in Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 3 the Blind Brook will be cleaner and much less than what now exists. There will be drywells to keep the runoff on site. Mr. Mastrogiacomo noted that the Brook flows away from the property. Mr. Finelli, Architect from the firm of Delineate, Inc., noted that the existing house is approximately 106' in length, and in the shape of a "Z". The proposed structure will be reduced in length, and increased slightly in width. The existing home now sits on four different elevations, accessed by stairways in the house. There is a pool house that was added on to the existing home in the late 1970's. They are squaring off the house, adding a shingle type facade. The existing first floor elevation will become the common elevation for the proposed new house. There will be a first and second floor to the house. The garage will be in the same location, which is 6' lower than the original first floor. The rear of the house is a walk-out onto the terrace. The position for the driveway was decided upon after reviewing site view distance. Mr. Finelli noted that they were below the required height, even with the recent amendments to the Village's Code. There is a question being raised concerning the floor area ratio. The applicants believe that they are below the floor area maximum allowed. However, the report from F.P. Clark & Associates indicates that the area of the property located in Harrison should be removed from the calculations, which reduces the square footage allowed. Mr. Mastrogiacomo noted that this property is deeded as one lot. It is approximately a 65,000 square foot lot. Removing the portion of the property located in Harrison would mean that the applicant would lose approximately 11% --just over 5,000 square feet. Ms. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed responded to the question of why this portion of the property should be removed from the calculations. She noted that this parcel is on the border of Harrison and, in fact, a portion is in Harrison. She began a discussion regarding what area of the lot could be used in making calculations for the application. Mr. Finelli felt that it was unfair if, as requested, the portion of the property in Harrison was excluded, and pointed out that the portion of the parcel being discussed was a small triangular piece near the Blind Brook. He noted that there is nothing built on this portion of the property. Mr. Grzan asked Mr. Finelli for the size of the existing home. Mr. Finelli responded that it was 5,500 square feet. Currently the home is empty. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that although this is not a site plan approval, in order to be able to give a wetland and steep slope permit the site plan must be reviewed. This lot straddles two legal jurisdictions, which brings up an issue of zoning. Case law, and the fact that Rye Brook has no jurisdiction in Harrison, back up the fact that only the portion of the lot in Rye Brook should be used to calculate not only the maximum impervious surfaces but the maximum gross floor area of the house as well. Whatever is built within the Village of Rye Brook should conform to the regulations of the Village's Zoning Code. The applicant Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 4 should review the calculations, to make sure that they fall below the maximum allowable on the portion of the lot in Rye Brook. Ms. Timpone Mohamed addressed tree replacement, noting that the trees on the plan that will be planted as part of the tree replacement plan approved by the Tree Committee are all outside of the wetland buffer area. She also pointed out that the tree replacement plan has been reviewed by the Tree Committee. Anything planted inside the buffer area will be part of the approval process that the Planning Board is going through now. Mr. Barrett noted that the Evergreens that are on the planting plans will give the property definition and privacy. Mr. Forbes noted that 18 trees will be removed, and 95 trees and 1200 shrubs will be replanted. The Tree Committee discussed trees removed within the 100' buffer. It is important to note that before the tree replanting can begin, the drainage for the property must be approved. This is also tied to the steep slopes and grading. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that she suggested a wetland buffer mitigation plan and a post-construction monitoring plan be submitted by the applicant. Amendments to the wetlands law specifically require that pesticide use in the wetland buffer be minimized. She suggested that no lawn be placed within the wetland buffer. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that when the wetland buffer is discussed the plantings for that area are separate from the trees that were removed and proposed to be replaced. In addition, there will need to be a planting plan to stabilize the steep slopes. She reminded the applicant and the Board that all plans must be submitted in accordance with the Wetlands and Steep Slopes Law, therefore the Village needs to review the unaltered topographic survey. It was noted that the new pool is proposed to be constructed outside of the buffer area. The Village's Consultant has recommended that the amount of impervious surface within the buffer area not be increased. There is currently a concern regarding the circular driveway and the increase in area that will result from squaring off the house. A question was raised regarding whether or not the applicant can mitigate any disturbance. It was noted that the home and improvements should be designed to mitigate the amount of disturbance within the wetland buffer and the preference is not to add any additional impervious surface in the buffer area. The applicant must obtain a Steep Slopes Work Permit. The applicant has provided an existing steep slopes map, and has stated that they will provide a post-construction steep slopes map. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the recommendation is that the applicant minimize the necessity to create additional steep slopes, as well as minimize the amount of disturbance to the steep slopes. She noted that a Tree Protection Plan should also be provided. This should be a Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 5 survey of exactly what trees exist on the property today — health, size and location. The next step would be to create a tree protection plan for those trees during construction. Ms. Timpone Mohamed also requested a total number of caliper inches of trees removed so that the Village can determine whether or not the applicant is adhering to the Tree Preservation requirements. The applicant must also provide an Erosion and Sediment Control plan, and the Storm Water Management plan should also be completed. Mr. Grzan noted that the assessment to the wetland area was done outside of the normal time of the year when this type of work should be done. Ms. Timpone Mohamed responded that the wetland on the property is really only the Brook. There isn't another wetland other than the course of the Brook. Mr. Grzan felt that a second report should be done when appropriate. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that a second report would give a better view of the buffer, but that the watercourse itself would not change and, therefore, the wetland delineation will not change. She stated that she would review this matter, as well as the report, to determine whether or not this would be necessary. This matter would also be reviewed during the site walk,with the arborist. Mr. Grzan noted that in order to create a flat space for a chipping green, grading must take place. Ms. Timpone Mohamed agreed that this would be considered a construction activity. Mr. Agatston questioned whether or not the applicant has completed test borings. The attorney stated that the test borings have not yet been completed. A preliminary design has been put together, but no drainage analysis has been put together because it is still premature. The attorney for the applicant addressed the Board. He requested clarification of why a significant portion of the property should be excluded when calculating maximum floor coverage and impervious surface coverage. He asked that the Village's Counsel address this matter. Jennifer Porter, Esq., Village Counsel, addressed the Board. She noted that the property is located in two different municipalities. The problem lies in the fact that the requirement for Rye Brook's Code cannot be extended outward into other municipal jurisdictions. Therefore, if Rye Brook is imposing its impervious surface and minimum lot coverage requirements upon a portion of the property that exists outside of the municipal boundaries then the municipality is exceeding its authority. Also, there are no regulations for lots that straddle two municipal boundaries. However, with respect to the subdivision of land, Ms. Porter referred to Section 219-33, Subdivision H-1. Essentially the problem would be the creation of a non- conforming lot by applying impervious surface requirements for a larger area and, Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 6 therefore, the lot becomes non-conforming with respect to the Village of Rye Brook's Code. Mr. Floyd Caplan noted that there were no other situations similar to this within the Village. Ms. Porter agreed with Mr. Caplan. The attorney felt that Rye Brook cannot impose its zoning requirements on Harrison. He noted that no zoning requirements were being imposed on the land. Ms. Porter noted but when considering the parcel as a whole, this would make the parcel non-conforming. The requirements being applied are only applicable within the municipal boundaries of Rye Brook and applying them to the larger area. This creates a jurisdictional problem as well. The attorney disagreed with the creation of jurisdictional problems, and insisted that this takes away the owners' rights. Ms. Porter noted that portion of the property outside of Rye Brook meant that it was out of the Village's jurisdiction to regulate, to which the applicant's attorney disagreed. Mr. Agatston stopped the discussion. He noted that there were a number of issues that must be addressed, and the applicant would be before the Planning Board again. He suggested that a memorandum be submitted to the Village Attorney by the applicant. Ms. Porter noted that additional research would be done on the matter. Mr. Agatston suggested that legal counsel meet with Village Counsel to discuss this matter further. Mr. Agatston called for members of the public that wished to address the Board on this matter. The owner of the property at 6 Charles Lane addressed the Board. He noted that his property is directly in behind the applicant's property. He questioned the removal of the trees along the property line, and the effect on the privacy this would have. Mr. Finelli noted that the Pine Trees do not offer any privacy, however, the applicant has proposed trees that will block the open view. This skirt of trees will enhance the privacy of the applicant, along with the privacy of the adjacent property owners. There being no further comments from members of the public, Mr. Agatston turned to the Board and applicant for final comments and questions. Mr. Mastrogiacomo noted that the center line of the Brook is being used to calculate the size of the parcel within Harrison. He stated, however, that the center line of the Brook moves from year to year and in two years the square footage will have significantly changed. Mr. Finelli noted that the charge of adequately mitigating the impacts that would occur in the buffer falls upon the applicant. He noted that the applicant will be reviewing storm water quality, as well as tree preservation. It was noted that the Tree Committee has already reviewed the plans, and the applicant discussed tree Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 7 removal and replacement with that Committee. Mr. Agatston noted that one of the main issues would be the addition of impervious surface within the wetland buffer. It will be important for the applicant to create a mitigation plan. Mr. Forbes noted that he was anxious to begin the process because it was his intention to begin construction by September or October so as not to lose a year. Mr. Grzan made several suggestions for the applicant to consider i.e. a smaller sized home, eliminating some of the facilities, and moving the house further away from the steep slopes. Mr. Mastrogiacomo thanked Mr. Grzan for his suggestions, and reminded the Board that the applicant was using the footprint of the existing house and they were doing the minimum that they could in the rear of the property. He noted that the home is located on a major artery and the house will be visible from the street. Mr. Agatston thanked the applicant for the presentation. The Board would be advised of the date of the site visit. Ms. Porter noted that the site visit was not considered a public meeting, and did not require notification. The Board took a five minute recess. Upon the Board's return, Mr. Agatston called upon Jennifer Porter to discuss a newly proposed law with respect to sign regulations and campaigns. Jennifer Porter, Esq., noted that the impetuous behind the law was that election signs were being posted over a month prior to the date of the election. This resolution will reduce the timeframe from 35 days to 15 days prior to the election. Mr. Agatston called for comments or questions. One member of the Board questioned why this matter was referred to them. Ms. Porter noted that all amendments to local laws that amend the Village's Zoning Code or the Building Code must be referred to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. Ms. Porter read the resolution: RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 250,ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK REGARDING ELECTION SIGNAGE WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is considering a local law to amend Chapter 250, Zoning, of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook to reduce the time period when signs erected in connection with elections or political campaigns may be displayed; and WHEREAS, the proposed local law was referred to the Planning Board by the Board of Trustees on June 8, 2004; and Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 8 WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the local law at a meeting on June 10, 2004, at which time members of the public were given the opportunity to comment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook hereby recommends approval of the local law to amend Section 250-35.F.(1)(3) of Chapter 250 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook to reduce the time period when signs erected in connection with elections or political campaigns may be displayed and refers the proposed local law to the Board of Trustees for action. Mr. Grzan asked a procedural question. He felt that the signage was part of the campaign. The debates take place 35 days before an election and he felt that changing the timeframe for erection of signs could be considered limiting. Ms. Patricia Romano noted that the signs affect the character of the Village. The excess signage takes away from the character of the Village. Mr. Grzan felt that, in his opinion, this resolution regulated political activity. Ms. Porter noted that people have the right to exercise political beliefs; however, the municipality also has the right to place restrictions on the amount of signs and the timeframe in which they are erected. On a motion made by Ms. Michele Fredman, and seconded by Ms. Romano, the resolution was adopted. Floyd Caplan Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye John Grzan Voting No Patricia Romano Voting Aye Warren Agatston Voting Aye The resolution passed by a vote of four ayes to one no. Mr. Grzan noted that his no vote was because he felt that the Village was attempting to control the process. 2) CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Mr. Agatston noted that this matter had been before the Planning Board twice before. Ms. Timpone Mohamed was called upon to explain how this matter was split into two amendments. Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 9 Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that, in consultation with Jennifer Porter, the original local law that was referred to the Planning Board was reviewed. The issue dealt with was the difficulty in placing it in the Code. The Zoning Code numbering and logic breaks down and topics have ended up where they really don't belong. Originally, the portion of the law that deals with empowering the Board of Trustees to accept and place conservation easements throughout the Village was woven into the Scenic Roads Overlay Districts law. A decision was made to separate the two pieces of the law and break them apart, so that the two items could be added to the proper sections. There are now two local laws that supercede the previous one. A new local law would add Chapter 105 — Conservation Easements—to the Village Code. The second local law will amend Chapter 250-7, adding subsection F — Scenic Overlay Districts, are tied together in a way because within the Scenic Overlay Law there is the ability to apply a conservation easement to the 35' buffer that has been suggested as part of the regulation for that district, to preserve the buffers. The Conservation Easement Chapter stands alone. A Conservation Easement can be placed by a homeowner, or by the Village, on a specific property that is within the Scenic Overlay District because that specific property has some historical feature that should be preserved. This simplifies the matter—separating the two subjects so that one can be voted upon when the other is still being worked on. There are two proposed resolutions. Mr. Agatston noted that one resolution created Chapter 105 and the other was on the Scenic Roads Overlay Districts. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the Zoning Map would need to be amended for the Overlay Districts. Ms. Porter worked with the Village's Consultants on this matter. This new Conservation Easements Chapter was made as broad as possible so that the possibility of being able to impose this easement to preserve an entire parcel that is used as open space was left as an option. Ms. Porter noted that the resolution leaves the decision to manage the conservation easements in-house or retaining a not-for- profit land trust open. Ms. Porter noted that the intent to separate these two amendments to the local law was to clarify the issues which became confusing. Chapter 105 explains what a Conservation Easement is and where the authority to impose a Conservation Easement upon a parcel of land is derived from. As an example, she noted that open space and an open area is defined. The types of natural and man-made resources that the Village might seek to protect are expanded upon. A property owner can come in and request a Conservation Easement. The municipality can also place a Conservation Easement as a condition of a site plan approval or subdivision application. Mr. Caplan questioned whether or not there would be estate and tax benefits. Ms. Porter noted that there were some benefits. The assessed valuation on the land should be taken into consideration because this land would be permanently restricted from future development. The main reason a homeowner would place a Conservation Easement would be to protect the land beyond their lifetime as it Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 10 would prevent future development of the property. This preserves the property or feature in perpetuity, and it is a recorded document that would run with the deed of the land. Mr. Caplan felt that the easement constricts an applicants' use of their property. Mr. Agatston noted that when an easement is placed on a property as a condition the applicant must agree. It is used as a bartering tool. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that this type of imposition of a conservation easement is tied to preserving something. The property owner knows that a wetland buffer, steep slopes, etc. is on their property. This easement protects something that is environmentally sensitive that is in jeopardy of being lost, or deteriorated. It is a tool to protect some element on the land that the homeowner knows is there. Mr. Grzan clarified, noting that as part of the wetland permit or steep slope permit the Village can designate part of the area as a conservation area. It could be used as a mitigation tool. He questioned how a Conservation Easement would effect the calculations of the property in connection with zoning and building, such as floor area ratio, height setbacks, etc. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the property would stay in the ownership of the property owner, and the square footage of the easement would be included in calculations of impervious surfaces, etc. The Board briefly discussed conservations easements and Village parkland. Mr. Agatston noted that the Planning Board's authority to place a conservation easement is based upon applications before them. Ms. Porter noted that the Village could place a conservation easement on a park, however, if the land is already dedicated parkland it is, in essence, already protected. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that there must be a legitimate reason for the placement of a Conservation Easement. There is a list of criteria that the property must have. If there is no natural feature, no scenic reason or architectural reason — and the property owner is only doing this to devaluate the land, no easement would be granted. In addition, there is no guarantee that there will be a change in the evaluation of the property. If the owner did not get something in return for placing an easement such as site plan approval or a tax deduction on income tax because the easement would be classified as a charitable donation. A Conservation Easement should be taken into consideration when looking at the property to be developed. It has also been found that properties around the parcel with a Conservation Easement go up in value because of the scenic features on the site have been preserved. Mr. Agatston called for questions or comments from members of the public. Mr. Ken Heller of Lincoln Avenue addressed the Board. He noted that as it stands now, if an individual homeowner applies for a Conservation Easement he/she must go through the same procedure as a subdivision. This is not a subdivision, Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 11 but rather preserves a piece of land from being developed in the future. The process becomes a burden. The homeowner is making a gift to the community by stopping the land from being subdivided in the future, and it is unfair that the homeowner should bear this type of burden. Mr. Heller noted that it is extremely expense and extremely complicated. The owner is doing nothing to the land but preserving the openness. Ms. Porter responded to Mr. Heller's comments. She noted that the process was not comparable to the subdivision process. You must submit a survey to show the boundaries of the property. The fee is set by the Village, and it is a flat application fee. The other costs would be the costs associated with the public hearing, i.e. notification. After the Village Board agrees that this can go forward. It must be in the public interest. Valuation is up to the Tax Assessor. There is no control over that process, and the valuation of the property is not within the Village's control. It can require the Tax Assessor to review the matter, but it cannot require him to devalue the property. The creation of a Conservation Easement is a negotiating process. Mr. Agatston polled the Board to see if they were ready to make a decision on this matter. He called for a motion to amend Section 105-5; with a requested word change: "shall" to "may." Mr. Agatston clarified that this vote was on the amendment— word change — and not the resolution. The vote was taken and it was three ayes to two noes. Ms. Porter noted that as a seven member board, to pass a vote would require four ayes. Ms. Porter noted that a public hearing in connection with a proposed Conservation Easement cannot be held until the Planning Board has completed its review and has referred the matter back to the Board of Trustees. In this way, the Village is trying to limit the cost to a homeowner who would like to create a Conservation Easement. The Village wants to encourage landowners to preserve land and features in this manner. Therefore, once the Board of Trustees has reviewed the matter, and decides it is in the public's interest,then a public hearing would be scheduled. This would be a public process. There is a requirement within the Village's Code that matters must be referred to the Planning Board. This method also deals with the cost factor involved for the applicant. Mr. Agatston noted that the Village is trying to encourage landowners to place Conservation Easements and, in order to do so, the Village is trying to prevent the cost factor from coming in until the Board of Trustees has reviewed the process before a public hearing has been set. Then the matter is referred to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. The Board of Trustees may choose to keep this in their control. The significant notification requirements kick in with the public hearing. Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 12 Mr. Victor Carosi, Village Engineer, suggested that meeting the notification requirements be left to the individual applicants. An applicant has the right to request a waiver of notification area from the Board of Trustees. Mr. Agatston called for a motion. Ms. Fredman made a motion to table the resolution for further discussion. Mr. Agatston reminded everyone that this local law has been proposed as a benefit to all residents of the Village. It would be used as a mitigation tool during site plan development. A landowner could designate a parcel of land in perpetuity in exchange for something else that they have requested during the application process. It was noted that the County can record a conservation easement without the Village. This is a right that property owners have, however, it would be beneficial for the Village to be involved. Ms. Fredman agreed, noting that this allows the Village to develop a plan. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that Conservation Easements are used to preserve existing open space. The Village would want to be involved in placing Conservation Easements because they are part of a larger open space program. The Village looks at all of the developable land, all the current open space, and makes a determination that that open space is part of the resources of the Village as a whole. The easement is placed as part of a plan that preserves a certain amount of open space within the Village — while allowing development. Mr. Agatston stated that the Planning Board's referral is a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. As the hour was late, he reminded everyone that there were other local law amendments that need to be discussed, and suggested that this matter move forward. He also noted that in order to apply for a conservation easement a homeowner must submit a survey map and a metes and bounds description, which most landowners have in their possession. Therefore, there isn't a great expense in this portion of the process. These amendments will create a useable tool to site plan applications. A motion was made to include Site Plan, Wetland and Steep Slope approvals to the list as it would increase the benefits to the Village. As drafted, Mr. Agatston called for a motion to amend Section B, page 3. There was a motion, but no second. Mr. Agatston included the previously requested word change of"shall" to "may" in Section 105-5. Mr. Caplan made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Grzan. Ms. Porter read the resolution: Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 13 RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES A LOCAL LAW ADDING CHAPTER 105 TO THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK REGARDING CONSERVATION EASEMENTS WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is considering a local law to amend Chapter 250, Zoning, of the code of the Village of Rye Brook regarding scenic roads overlay districts and conservation easements; and WHEREAS, the proposed local law was referred to the Planning Board by the Board of Trustees on February 24, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the local law at public meetings on March 11, April 15, May 20, and June 10, 2004, at which time members of the public were given opportunity to comment and members of the Planning Board directed the Village Consultants to make revisions and modifications; and WHEREAS, the proposed law was revised to add a new Chapter (Chapter 105) to the Village Code regarding Conservation Easements in lieu of incorporating language regarding Conservation Easements into the Scenic Roads Overlay District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook hereby recommends approval of the proposed local law adding Chapter 105, Conservation Easements, to the Village Code, as attached hereto, and refers the proposed local law to the Board of trustees for action. Floyd Caplan Voting Aye Michele Fredman Voting Aye John Grzan Voting Aye Patricia Romano Voting Aye Warren Agatston Voting Aye Mr. Agatston noted that there was a Scenic Roads Overlay amendment—which has been separated from the Conservation Easement—for which there was a resolution and a draft of the local law before the Planning Board. He asked that the members of the Board Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 14 review this draft carefully over the next month so that it can be reviewed at the next meeting, along with the Large Lot Subdivision amendments. Ms. Timpone Mohamed was asked to give a brief update on the I-287 Planning Study. She noted that she has been going to the meetings in order to keep abreast of the process and that the process has come to a screeching halt. There was a meeting scheduled for June 21, 2004 that she has discovered will not present any new information. The next public review has been postponed to the fall. However, the County Planning Office has a PowerPoint presentation and right of way plans. These are very specific plans for implementation of certain elements of what they are about to do. Rye Brook should review the plans. She would contact Mr. Ed Burroughs of the County Planning Office, and review the plans that directly affect Rye Brook — and then have a meeting with the Planning Board to review the plans. The Planning Task Force would like feedback from the Village. Mr. Agatston responded that this would be in the best interest of the Village. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that she would advise the County Planning Office that the Village would like to review these plans, and then set up a meeting with the Planning Board. Mr. Caplan asked if there was an update as to what was happening at the intersection of King and the Merritt Parkway. Mr. Victor Carosi, Village Engineer, noted that he was part of the Task Force Committee that has been meeting with the local homeowners associations and the Town of Greenwich. Meetings have been held to review the findings from the meeting held in April. Potential design alternatives have been reviewed. Another meeting is scheduled with the design team for the next few weeks. The Village of Rye Brook, in concert with the Town of Greenwich, contracted a firm to help come up with a consensus building set of plans. They are not engineered plans, but rather plans created by a group that is able to bring groups together. They can determine whether or not the alternatives are feasible. The firm will then take the consensus, and the plans, to the Department of Transportation. The public is invited to these meetings. Mr. Caplan noted that any plan will be an improvement for this area. Mr. Carosi noted that there are different alternatives. Some involve land taking, some involve traffic lights, and traffic circles. Each plan has pros and cons. The public needs to have input, and an agreement must be reached before presenting a plan to the Department of Public Works. Mr. Agatston noted that the next meeting of the Planning Board was tentatively scheduled for July 8 '. On a motion made by Mr. Grzan, and seconded by Ms. Romano, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Planning Board June 10,2004 Page 15