Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-22 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street PLANNING BOARD AGENDA Thursday, July 22, 2004 Special Meeting @ 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL 2. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION STUDY AND R-20 SETBACK AMENDMENTS 3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING SCENIC ROADS OVERLAY DISTRICT CREATION 4. DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION HOURS OF OPERATION BOARD Warren Agatston, Chairman Dominick Accurso, Jr. Floyd Caplan Michele Fredman John Grzan Patricia Romano Jim Winter STAFF Victor Carosi,Village Engineer Jennifer M. Porter, Esq.,Village Counsel Marilyn Timpone Mohamed,Village Consultant Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary Mr. Warren Agatston, Chairman, welcomed everyone to the July 22, 2004 Special meeting of the Planning Board. He began the meeting by noting 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 Planning Board July 22,2004 Page I 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. Mr. Agatston noted that he had held a meeting earlier with Jennifer Porter, Esq., Village Attorney, Mr. Michael Izzo, Acting Building Inspector, and Mr. Christopher Bradbury, Village administrator, to discuss Code amendments and, specifically, the Sprinkler Law. Mr. Agatston asked permission to take the agenda out of order. With the Board's approval, he called for item 94: 4. DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION HOURS OF OPERATION Ms. Porter was called upon to discuss this matter. She noted that this is a minor revision to the Tier II Home Occupation. Section 250-38 only regulates hours of operations for pre-existing and Tier III related home occupations. These are the more intense type of homeowner occupations. A Tier II Home Occupation is allowed fewer visits, and only one employee, however, there have been some problems in the past few months with some of the Tier II Home Occupations operating at night and on weekends. The Village has decided to amend the law, making Tier II subject to the same hours as Tier III — Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., with no weekend hours. Ms. Porter noted that she prepared a cover letter to the Board on this matter, with an explanation of why this portion of the Code can be amended. In this instance hours of operations fall under the general welfare provision and the Village does have the right to regulate them. There are two provisions being added. The first one amends the hours of operation. The second notes that home occupations that are pre-existing (prior to the existence of the Tiering system) are required to comply with the regulations. Floyd Caplan noted that Tier II and Tier III are now regulated in the same manner in connection with hours of operation. The differences include the number of employees and limited amounts of visits per week. Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 2 Mr. James Winter questioned why Tier I was not included. Ms. Porter responded that Tier I is very limited and is someone practicing their own business in their home. There are no outside employees, and they are working within the confines of their homes. Ms. Michele Fredman requested an example of a Tier II Home Occupation. Ms. Porter responded that it could be a Chiropractor's office, where the occupant and one additional employee work from the home. The visitors, and the parking, are creating issues for the neighbors and the Village is now attempting to regulate the amount of traffic created from the occupation and the hours of operation. Mr. Agatston noted that this matter has been reviewed over the past six to eight months. There have been revisions, and now there is the issue of enforcement that must be addressed. The Village has recently hired a Code Enforcement Officer to help with these matters and part of his responsibilities will now be to help deal with complaints from neighbors/residents. Mr. John Grzan questioned why there were no weekend hours included in the resolution. Ms. Porter noted that the timeframe was decided upon by the Board of Trustees. Mr. Grzan asked that Saturday hours be included. Mr. Agatston suggested passing the resolution, and noted that the recommendation could include a suggestion of hours for Saturdays of 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Mr. Winter questioned whether it was abuses of hours that brought this matter to the attention of the Village. Ms. Porter noted that there were complaints of office hours as early as 6:00 a.m. as well as late hours. Ms. Romano pointed out that changing the hours does not preclude someone from coming in and requesting an exception to the hours. Ms. Porter responded that when making an application, a resident can request weekend hours for a Tier III Home Occupation. There being no further discussion, Ms. Porter read the following resolution: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND CHAPTER 250-38 OF THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK CONCERNING TIER II HOME OCCUPATIONS AND REFERRING SUCH LOCAL LAW BACK TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees is considering amending Section 250-38 of the Code to incorporate provisions regulating the hours of operation for new and existing Tier II home occupations; and Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 3 WHEREAS, the proposed local law was referred to the Planning Board by the Board of Trustees on July 13, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the local law at a meeting on July 22, 2004 at which time members of the public were given the opportunity to comment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board revised the proposed law to extend the hours of operation for Tier II home occupations to include hours on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook hereby recommends approval of the revised local law to amend Section 250-38 of Chapter 250 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook to regulate the hours of operation for new and existing Tier II Home Occupations and refers the proposed local law to the Board of Trustees for action. A modification was made in hours of operation for Tier 11 only on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. On a motion made by Floyd Caplan, and seconded by Patricia Romano, the resolution was adopted as amended by a vote of seven ayes to zero noes. Mr. Agatston took a moment to welcomed Trustee Santon to the meeting. He then called for item 93 on the agenda: 3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING SCENIC ROADS OVERLAY DISTRICT CREATION Ms. Timpone Mohamed, Village Consultant from the firm of Frederick P. Clark Associates, addressed the Board. She noted that she presented the Board with an amended resolution that included a recommendation for specific roads within the Village. Mr. Agatston requested that Ms. Timpone Mohamed give an overview of the Scenic Overlay District and the amendments to the Code. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the original law included both the enabling legislation for Conservation Easements as well as the creation of the Scenic Overlay District. The two topics were separated primarily to allow each of them to be placed within the Code, in an appropriate place. There was some difficulty in figuring out Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 4 where each of the two parts should go. By separating them, Conservation Easements was made into a separate chapter, and the Scenic Roads Overlay District became a modification of Chapter 250, in its appropriate place in the Chapter. The Scenic Roads Overlay District would create a special district that was located in various places in the Village. It would have somewhat more restrictive requirements than the underlying zoning district. Creation of the Scenic Roads Overlay District, would provide for a greater ability to preserve and protect certain scenic resources along the roads that have been studied, such as stone walls, rock outcroppings, vegetation, and architectural artifacts such as gates and fences. These items, when they exist along the edge of a road, are a part of the scenic character of the road. They are in danger of being removed or compromised by additional development and subdivisions of existing lots along the road. The significant provision is that the front yard setback for the properties within the Overlay District would be increased by a factor of 1.5 above what is required by the zoning district. This increase would allow for the preservation of the special characteristics on properties and the road, and allow for vegetated buffers aimed at preserving certain manmade features along the front property line. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the Overlay District regulations may have to be modified slightly once the site plan amendments are completed. The alterations referred to in the proposed law are alterations to the primary structure on the lot as opposed to accessory structures. Mr. Carosi questioned whether or not the intent of the word structure was to identify accessory buildings. Ms. Timpone Mohamed suggested changing the wording to accessory buildings or accessory structures. A pool is an accessory structure, anything with a roof is an accessory building. It was noted that there is a principal use on a lot, which is its main use and then there are accessory uses. The amendment creates an overlay district that would encompass certain roads and change the requirements of the underlying zoning district within the Overlay District. One of the things that could happen is a conservation easement could be placed on the front portion of the property. One of the objectives is to limit or screen the parking in front yards. Mr. Agatston suggested that any action within this district be referred to the Building Inspector. Once the determination is made that it is either inconsequential or it isn't. New structures, wherever they are, will come before the Board for Site Plan review under the new statute. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that this draft law was written prior to the work on site plan approval amendments. Ms. Porter responded that the site plan provisions Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 5 can be amended, and one of the triggers could be location within the Scenic Overlay District. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the Site Plan Approval portion of the Code is very complicated. She also noted that a special review was done in the R-10 District in the Lincoln Avenue corridor to determine if lots are deep enough to accommodate these amendments, and allow for backyard amenities. The Board of Trustees would be able to grant relief for an odd lot that might require it. The roads to be included are: King Street,north of the Hutchinson River Parkway; Anderson Hill Road; Lincoln Avenue from Westchester Avenue to the Blind Brook; Bowman Avenue, from North Ridge to the Blind Brook; Westchester Avenue, from North Ridge Street to Blind Brook; and North Ridge Street, from the Hutchinson Parkway to Ridge Boulevard. It is important to note that Lincoln Avenue and the other roads are in need of protection in terms of scenic quality. The logic was that these are roads are gateway roads into the Village — major through roads and major transportation routes for residents within the Village. These roads have a concentration of those kinds of artifacts and scenic characteristics that the Village is trying to preserve. These legislative amendments protect historic stone walls and new stone walls that are now scenic and deserve protection. Mr. Dominick Accurso requested that the approval authority regarding a building's exterior architectural elevation and features be clarified. The resolution contained conflicting language, specifically on which Board — the Board of Architectural Review, Planning Board or Board of Trustee — had final approval. He felt that an applicant could be confused if granted approval and then, as the process continued, was turned down by the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Agatston felt that the approving authority was the correct word as the Board of Trustees can refer an application to the Architectural Review Board and Planning Board for review. Trustee Santon noted that more than one body can give architectural criteria. Ms. Timpone-Mohamed read the resolution into the record. RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 250,ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AND THE ZONING MAP REGARDING SCENIC ROADS OVERLAY DISTRICTS Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 6 WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is considering a local law to amend Chapter 250, Zoning, of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and the Zoning Map regarding location of scenic roads overlay districts; and WHEREAS, the proposed text amendments are attached to this resolution with text to be deleted shown in strikeout and text to be added shown underlined; 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, June 10, and July 22, 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. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook hereby recommends approval of the proposed text amendments, as attached hereto and refers the proposed local law to the Board of Trustees for action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, in connection with such recommendation, recommends that Board of Trustees place the following road sections in Scenic Roads Overlay Districts: 1. King Street, north of the Hutchinson River Parkway 2. Anderson Hill Road from King Street to the Blind Brook 3. Lincoln Avenue, from Westchester Avenue to the Blind Brook 4. Bowman Avenue, from South Ridge Street to the municipal boundary with Harrison 5. Westchester Avenue/Route 120A, from North Ridge Street to the Blind Brook 6. North Ridge Street, from the Hutchinson River Parkway to Ridge Boulevard Mr. Agatston asked for a motion to approve the resolution, as amended. On a motion made by Patricia Romano, and seconded by Michele Fredman, the resolution was approved by a vote of 7 ayes to zero noes. Ms. Timpone Mohamed felt that it would be prudent to take the Large Lot Subdivision review next. Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 7 2. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION STUDY AND R-20 SETBACK AMENDMENTS Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that these amendments to Chapter 250 grew out of the large lot subdivision study done for the Board of Trustees. The study dealt with re-subdivisions within the Byram Ridge and Lincoln Avenue corridor neighborhoods. Code amendments were recommended as part of the study, and the amendments would change the requirements for front-yard setbacks for properties within the R-20 zoning district— the largest lots the district. If a new building was built on a lot whose neighbors exceeded the minimum front yard setback, which is 40 feet, then the new building would be required to be built at a setback that is the average of the setbacks of the two flanking buildings. This would maintain the spatial character of the neighborhood. It would use the average distance and allows for the new construction to be in keeping with the existing buildings in the neighborhood. Mr. Agatston noted that this matter had been discussed at the Planning Board level a number of times. This amendment simply amends the minimum front yard setback—the location of the house. Mr. Carosi noted that he would discuss updating the Code Books with the Village's Administration after the new laws have all been adopted. Ms. Timpone Mohamed 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 FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE R-20 DISTRICT 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 front yard setback requirements in the R-20 district; and WHEREAS, the proposed text amendments are attached to this resolution with text to be deleted shown in strikeout and text to be added shown underlined; and Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 8 WHEREAS, the proposed local law was referred to the Planning Board by the Board of Trustees on March 23, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the local law at public meetings on April 15, May 20, June 10, and July 22, 2004 at which time members of the public were given opportunity to comment and members of the Planning Board directed the Village's Consultants to make revisions and modifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook hereby recommends approval of the proposed text amendments, as revised and attached hereto and refers the proposed local law to the Board of Trustees for action. On a motion made by Mr. James Winter, and seconded by Ms. Romano, the resolution was approved by a vote of seven ayes to zero noes. Mr. Agatston called for a brief recess. The Board returned at 9:15 p.m. Upon their return, item 91 was called before the Board. 1. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL Ms. Porter noted that several amendments were made at the meeting referred to at the start of this Planning Board meeting by Mr. Agatston which was held earlier in the day. These amendments were made in connection with the Sprinkler Law. During that meeting, certain definitions were discussed. Ms. Porter noted that Section 209, Section 1, Subdivision A was revised, and that Subdivision B was a newly created provision. The way that the original amendments were worded was that the construction of all new buildings were subject to site plan review. However, at a previous Planning Board meeting a discussion regarding limiting the review to certain types of one and two family dwellings took place. Section B is the critical piece as it refers to one and two family dwellings that would result in usage of less than 75% of the maximum gross floor area permitted in the applicable zoning district. It was originally at the 50% mark, but during discussions with Village staff and consultants, it was determined that based upon the average home within Rye Brook, this would require site plan review for each and every one and two family dwellings. The threshold needed to be raised a bit to let some people out of the net. There are now two triggers that would require site plan approval. The first is the maximum gross floor area and the second is maximum impervious surface coverage. This is Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 9 the only section that deals with new buildings — it is the way that new construction is exempted out. Section 2 deals with teardowns. In order to review Section 2 the Board needed to have a clear view of the definitions. The definitions were reviewed. It was noted that these definitions were derived from the New York State Building and Residential Code. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the Acting Building Inspector requested that the Code in Rye Brook be consistent with the New York Building Code. Mr. Agatston noted Section 2 was the Section where Scenic Road Overlays would be added. The Board reviewed the definitions of renovations and additions. Ms. Porter noted that certain types of additions were separated out, basically to distinguish between construction activities and the activities that would not be subject to site plan review. They were purposely linked and defined so that they could be separated out. There are four main types of construction oriented activities, and all four are now defined. These definitions go into the Zoning Code. At this time alterations,renovations, additions and reconstruction are not part of the Code. The amendments trigger site plan review, the definitions have been coordinated with the New York State Building Code, and both will assist the Building Inspector. Mr. Agastston noted that eventually there will be sprinkler law changes. The Village is now reviewing whether or not it wants to create or require sprinklers in one or two family homes in simple renovations. Ms. Porter noted that now the amendments are dealing with the existing buildings, and what types of changes to existing buildings the Village would like to trigger site plan review. Mr. Carosi felt that site plan review should come into play when something affects the exterior of a building. Ms. Fredman asked if the code, and the amendments, are available for review on the Village's website. The response was that they were. Ms. Fredman suggested that this review be done slowly as these amendments are confusing. Mr. Grzan noted that there are two separate Codes: Building and Zoning. For clarification, he noted that the Building Code refers to interior work. Mr. Agatston noted that the amendments were being used to determine at what point there would be site plan approval required, when it wasn't a new home but a reconstruction. Mr. Carosi stated that site plan review should only come into play when the construction affects the exterior of the building. Mr. Agatston questioned using the word"addition"because it supposes adding on to a footprint. Mr. Carosi noted that adding on above a garage does not require touching the footprint of a building, however, digging would trigger a site plan review. He noted that a Tier II Home Occupation can potentially affect the neighborhood and those around it, and suggested site plan review for a Tier II use Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 10 as well. It was also noted that certain types of renovations do not require a building permit, such as the addition of a patio—unless it exceeds the amount of impervious surface permitted. The Village wants to be able to watch the residents who are bumping up against the maximum allowable because of the impacts that result. Trustee Santon pointed out that without the amendments a resident could now pave their entire back yard and their entire front yard without needing a building permit. He also noted that there were many Home Occupations that have not been reviewed because they were in existence before the Code was put in place. If a resident wants to work out of his/her own house, they can alter a room with a Building Permit but would need no Board approval or site plan review. So the aspect of who is coming and going, and the aspect of additional traffic is never reviewed. All the environment impacts that come along with that use never get reviewed by anyone except the Building Inspector. The Board discussed a change of use, and the decision was made to exclude Tier I Home Occupation uses. The Board moved their discussion to construction done outside of the home. This discussion included four key types of permits that affect the environmental conditions of the site. Keeping in mind that the objective was not to over legislate the Village, Ms. Timpone Mohamed felt that the pool permitting procedure should be added to the list of permits. She also noted that if someone is building a driveway, increasing the parking, building a wall, or whatever, there is now no site plan review because it is not tied to any alteration of the building. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that the amendments were attempts to try and create a trigger for site plan review. That would include paving for a parking area, the creation of a basketball court, etc., that would not be tied to alteration of a building. Retaining walls and fences should also be subject to permitting. If a resident constructs a fence on top of a berm or on top of a wall, then the Village should be able to get involved. In addition, the Village is trying to catch all significant grading changes. Ms. Timpone Mohamed noted that either the Village must review everything, or set triggers to limit what comes under site plan review. Mr. Caplan questioned whether or not the Board of Trustees realized that they would be handling all of these matters. Mr. Carosi noted that the Village now has a Code Enforcement Officer to handle complaints from neighbors. The Board discussed variances. Mr. Agatston noted that variances were the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, if an application is before the Zoning Board, topography is generally not discussed. If there are changes to the topography—excavation—then a site plan review should be required. Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 11 The Board also discussed removing vegetation, and clear cutting of properties. Clearing, which includes removing vegetation and their roots, can cause erosion control problems. Currently if trees are not greater than 12" in diameter, no permit is required to remove these trees. It was felt that by changing the definitions the aspects of concern to the community can be reviewed. Mr. Carosi noted that the Building Department has created a flow chart. They keep track of building permit forms, but things do happen in the Village that the Building Department is not made aware of. Sometimes the only way they find out about construction on residents' property is when a neighbor complains. Mr. Carosi noted that a Code definition will create equality for everyone. What constitutes a minor or major construction matter must be clearly defined. And, unfortunately, sometimes what is determined minor turns out to be major. The professionals need guidelines to work within so that they can be consistent. A lot of the applications that are now before the Village are complicated in terms of the amount of construction done on existing lots. The applications are moving into marginal areas. The Board was reminded that the Village Code was taken from the Town of Rye and simply copied. The Code is now being changed, made better. Ms. Porter noted that the end result of construction, the impacts to the Village,must be reviewed. As it was getting late, and there was much more to be reviewed on this matter, Mr. Agatston called for a motion to adjourn. The review will continue at the next Planning board meeting. A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Planning Board July 22,2004 Page 12