Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-25 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2001-7:30 P.M. AGENDA Executive Session Regarding Litigation: 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. KOCHER TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL, 483 FRANKLIN STREET, SECTION 1, BLOCK 23, LOTS 8 & 9 2. CONSIDERING A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS IN THE R-12, R-15, R-20 ZONING DISTRICTS AND THE LINCOLN AVENUE CORRIDOR RESOLUTIONS 1. KOCHER TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL, 483 FRANKLIN STREET, SECTION 1, BLOCK 23, LOTS 8 & 9 2. BELLEFAIR RETAINING WALL RELOCATION – BELLEFAIR BOULEVARD BELLEFAIR P.U.D. AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SECTION 1, BLOCK 3 3. 900 KING STREET SPRINT CELLULAR ANTENNAS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SECTION 1, BLOCK 6, LOT 2A1 4. APPROVING USE OF VILLAGE STREETS FOR 19TH ANNUAL WESTCHESTER TRIATHLON 1 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 5. REFERRING CAMPO SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION TO PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6. AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULE OF BILLS PAYABLE 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 24, 2001 June 12, 2001 DISCUSSION 1. VARIOUS BELLEFAIR SITE PLAN ISSUES UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONVENE The September 25, 2001 meeting of the Board of Trustees was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Filipowski. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. PRESENT: Mayor Francis L. Filipows1d Trustee Jody H. Brackman Trustee Donald Degling Trustee Lawrence A. Rand Trustee Dean Santon STAFF: Ingrid Bent, Assistant to the Village Administrator Stephanie Burns, Village Counsel Mr. Ed Beane, Village Counsel David S. Kvinge, RLA, AICP, Village Consultant David H. Stolman, AICP, PP, Village Consultant Chief Robert Santoro, Police Chief Victor Carosi, Village Engineer William Gerety, Building Inspector Paula Patafio, Meeting Secretary 2 Board of'Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Excused: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator The meeting began with a moment of silence in memory of those lost on September 11 tip It was noted that the Executive Session, which was originally scheduled for 6:30, would be held at the end of meeting. Mayor Filipowski called for the first item on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING 1. KOCHER TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL, 483 FRANKLIN STREET, SECTION 1, BLOCK 239 LOTS 8 & 9 On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Les Maxon, of counsel for the law firm of Gioffre & Gioffre, addressed the Board as the representative for the applicant. Mr. Gary Gianfiancesco, of the firm of Arconics, was also in attendance as the architect on the project. Mr. Maxon gave a brief presentation of the application, noting that this property is located at 483 Franklin Street and is comprised of two lots in an R2F Zone known and designated as Section 1, Block 23, Lots 8 and 9. Pursuant to the original subdivision of 1880, there were two lots that are carried on the Village Tax Roll. However, by operation of law, the lots have been merged. This property has been in the Kocher family since the 1950s and there is an existing house on Lot 8. The Kocher's have now retired and are looking to sell the property. The house is currently rented to the contract vendee's parents. Mr. Maxon noted that Lot 9 is 5735 square feet, and Lot 8, the one with the existing house, is 5743 square feet. Both lots exceed the minimum square footage required in this zone. The application has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which voted favorably to grant the variance requested. The remaining lot will stand as a 50' frontage by a depth, which is more than the code requires, thereby creating a lot larger — in each of the two cases — than the R2F Code requires. The requirement is 5000 square feet and the lots are 3 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 5735 square feet and 5743 square feet. Mr. Gianfrancesco, the architect on the project, was asked to address the Board. He noted that the application is in compliance with the Village's zoning bulk requirements, as well as exceeding the minimum square footage required in this zone. In addition, there is now a greater rear yard setback than the code requires. Mr. Gianfrancesco also noted that the applicant has made every effort to preserve trees on the property, and is observing the open space requirement with the current site plan. Trustee Donald Degling noted that there is a Resolution on the Agenda for this application. He noted that the most recent site plan was amended on August 13'b, and the Zoning Board of Appeals approved this final site plan. Mayor Filipowski asked if there were any members of the public that wished to address the Board on this application. Mr. Ben Miloro of Hillcrest Avenue addressed the Board. He asked if notification of this Public Hearing was sent out. Mr. Maron stated that notice had been given to both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board, as well as the Board of Trustees. The list for notification was put together based upon the tax roll. The notices are sent to the owner of the properties within 500' of the subject property. Mr. Marin also noted that many of the neighbors have submitted letters in support of the application. Mayor Filipowski called members of the public who wished to speak in regard to this application. There being no one, he asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing on the Kocher Two-Lot Subdivision. On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Public Hearing was closed. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Mayor Filipowski asked that the Resolution on this application be taken out of order. With the Board's permission, he called for the Resolution. 4 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 RESOLUTION 1. KOCHER TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL, 483 FRANKLIN STREET, SEC'T'ION 1, BLOCK 239 LOTS 8 & 9 Mrs. Bent-Richards read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION KOCHER 2-LOT SUBDIVISION PRELEUMARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL 483 FRANKLIN STREET SECTION 1, BLOCK 23, LOTS 8 and 9 WHEREAS, Maureen and Jay Kocher have made an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting Preliminary Subdivision. Approval to re-subdivide the existing 11,481 square-foot parcel of land into two (2) building lots, 5,743 square feet (Lot A, Tax Lot 8) and 5,738 square feet(Lot B, Tax Lot 9) in size; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located on the north side of Franklin Street approximately 400 feet west of the intersection formed by Franklin Street and Merritt Street, within the R2-F Two-Family Residential Zoning District and is shown on the Tax Map as Section 1, Block 23, Lots 8 and 9; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees has reviewed and accepted as adequate the information submitted by the applicant in support of the application, including a Short Environmental Assessment Form(EAF), and the following plans: 1. Sheet SP-1, "Site Plan, Location Map, Zoning Map and Zoning Statistics" dated 3/14/01, last revised 8113101, prepared by Arconics, Rye Brook, New York; and WHEREAS, the Village's Planning Consultant submitted comments and recommendations to the Village Planning Board by memorandum dated July 3, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Village Zoning Board of Appeals granted the applicants a variance by its decision dated 5101/01; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees referred the application to the Village Planning Board on June 26, 2001, and the Village Planning Board, by 5 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 resolution dated August 9, 2001, recommended granting Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees is familiar with the Site and all aspects of the Project and has been satisfied that the Project will comply with the standards and requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Code, except as otherwise noted; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees determined that the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 61.7 for which the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees is the Lead Agency and the only Involved Agency for the environmental review with respect to the approval of said Amended Site Plan; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was held on September 25, 2001 in the Rye Brook Village Hall, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard, and the public hearing was closed on that date; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby adopts and incorporates as findings and determinations the recitations and statements set forth above as if fully set forth and resolved herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, and upon review of the EAF and all other application materials that were prepared for this action, hereby adopts a Negative Declaration since the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts since only one (1) new building lot will be created, visual impacts will be minimal, and any disturbance associated with the Project will be controlled through the proper implementation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, pursuant to Section 219-34 A of the Village's Subdivision Regulations, a proper case does not exist for requiring additional parklands be suitably located for playground and other recreational purposes within the Village of Rye Brook and that neither the dedication of land nor a fee in lieu of land will be required; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of 6 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Trustees grants the requested Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Final Plat shall include a note and label for Lot 2 stating "A minimum of 2,400 square feet of usable open space area is required to be maintained in accordance with Section 250-25 H of the Rye Brook Zoning Code." 2. The proposed residence shall. be designed and located so as to be in keeping with the general character of the immediate area. A copy of the final plans, as approved by the Architectural Review Board, shall be submitted to the Building Inspector for inclusion in the file. 3. The applicant shall preserve as many of the mature trees as practical, using acceptable tree preservation techniques, and shall submit a Tree Preservation Plan in accordance with Section 235-5 B of the Rye Brook Code. 4. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a detailed Sediment and Erosion Control Plan for review by the Planning Board in conjunction with the application for Final Subdivision Plat approval. 5. The Owner shall endorse a copy of this resolution and submit it to the Village for its files. 6. The Applicant shall prepare a Final Subdivision Plat in accordance with Section 219-21 of the Village of Rye Brook Subdivision Regulations and shall submit an application for final plat approval, or a written request for an extension of preliminary plat approval, within six (6) months of the date of this resolution. Maureen Kocher, Property Owner Jay Kocher, Property Owner A discussion regarding several minor changes to the Resolution took place. David Stolman, Village Consultant, noted that Conditions 1 and 3 of the Resolution have already been satisfied. At the conclusion of the brief discussion, Mayor Filipowski asked for a motion on the amended Resolution. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, 7 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 the Resolution was approved. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Mayor Filipowski returned to the Agenda, and called for the second Public Hearing. 2. CONSIDERING A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS IN THE R-12, R-15, R-20 BONING DISTRICTS AND THE LINCOLN AVENUE CORRIDOR Ed Beane, Esq., gave a brief summary of the Local Law. He noted that at this time the Village was on target with the County. He stated that the proposed Moratorium came about as a result of the upswing in the regional economy that brought with it a significant increase in permit applications for new buildings, major additions, and the replacement of existing homes with larger buildings. Many of the larger buildings have been built out of scale, out of character for the Village of Rye Brook, and have been identified as having a negative impact on the immediate neighborhood in which they are located, and the community in general. This proposed law will basically impact all applications for variances, subdivisions and site plans, and new building permits within the R-12, R-15, R-20 Zones and the Lincoln Avenue Corridor. There is a threshold with respect to building permits which will be subject to the Moratorium. It does not apply to any building permit application to repair or for reconstruction, or building permit applications that have already been issued. There is a penalty,provision and a hardship provision to enable any impacted owner to make application to the Village for an exemption from the Moratorium. The Public Hearing was opened, and Mayor Filipowski called for comments from members of the public. Mrs. Gail Giorgi, of 2 Edgewood Drive, a resident in the R-20 District, addressed the Board. She stated that she was in favor of the Moratorium. Having lived in the area 8 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 for 11 years, she noted that there have been several other subdivisions approved over the years. These subdivisions have affected the character of the neighborhood, along with bringing with them water runoff problems. There has been excessive building in the Village, and this Moratorium would give the Board of Trustees an opportunity, and the time, to look at the area. Mr, Peter Murray of 752 King Street addressed the Board. He responded to the proposed legislation. He noted that he served on the Vision 2000 Committee. One of the central, recurring themes, was to create a comprehensive master plan to address the issue of future development within the Village. He felt that it was a good idea in 2000, and that it was still a good idea today. Unfortunately, be felt that the Board has not yet followed the recommendations made in the Vision Plan. Instead it is doing exactly what the committee was concerned about — and that is quickly reacting to a few applications for subdivision and thus shutting down the orderly process of development in the Village. This proposed legislation actually goes one step further by prohibiting homeowners from improving their property by limiting expansions of more than 500 feet. Currently there is a plan in place— and that is the current zoning. Homeowners know what they can and cannot do with their property as a result of this zoning. This is fair and just. But, saying that for six months we are not going to allow you to do anything with your property, is unfair. The Board's job is to guide the growth of the Village, not cause undue hardship. This Moratorium is planning at its worst. Les Maron, Esq. addressed the Board as the representative for applicants whose applications are currently before the Board. He felt that the Board could face constitutional and legal problems in pursuing this moratorium. He asked for clarification on what effect this Moratorium would have on applications that have been referred out by the Board of Trustees to the Planning Board. Mr. Beane responded that the stage that the Board is at is the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing is being held so that input from the public can be considered. If an application is in process at this time, it will not be impacted by this local law. He also stated that the way the proposed law is written at this time, it would only affect any application that involves the property within the listed districts. Noting that exceptions to this Moratorium could be made with regard to hardships, Trustee Brackman asked Mr. Beane to explain to the public what a legitimate hardship would be. NIr. Beane responded that it would be something other than just a delay. A hardship could be losing financing if an exception is not granted. All applications need to be reviewed on a case-to-case basis. 9 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Trustee Brackman questioned the law as it stands now. She asked if the proposed Moratorium could be amended to exempt current applications — the ones that are in process. Mr. Beane responded that this proposed law is a work in progress. It could be limited to exclude projects in progress. The Board has the ability to limit the impact. Trustee Rand noted that there were several things that bothered him about the concept of this Moratorium. He questioned how, if this Board enacts this law, or a similar law, a member of this administration planned to go ahead in enacting the actual work and who will be charged with implementing a possible amendment of the Zoning Law and Village Code. He questioned if it would be a joint effort between the Zoning Board and Planning or will the administration be charged with it. Who would draw up the amendments? Nlr. Beane responded that he felt that it was possible to enact an amendment within six months, if that was the will of the Board. The Board's Planners and Village Attorney are prepared to help. Mr. Beane noted that he had the privilege of serving as Village Attorney during the Hawthorne moratorium. The Board can make this more user friendly if they chose to do so. He noted that this proposed law, in this form, has been used by other Municipalities. Mayor Filipowski asked if it was possible to make the Moratorium a shorter period of time. Mr. Beane stated that six months is an appropriate period. The necessary changes can be made in that length of time. Ms. Adrienne Wesley of Beechwood Boulevard addressed the Board. She noted that the schools in Rye Brook are overcrowded. This problem is not increased by people improving their homes, but subdividing properties does increase the burden on the school system. The schools were not designed to keep up with the increase of children. She felt that there needed to be balance of developing and preserving the character of the Village. She tried to impress upon the Village Board that a review of current guidelines is necessary to protect the residents. She also noted that there are other problems that need to be considered, i.e.: drainage impacts and traffic problems. She asked that the Trustees amend the existing Zoning Laws. Rebecca Albrecht of 2 Hillandale Road addressed the Board. She stated that, in her opinion, there were four points that need to be addressed by the Village, She began with responsibility. She felt that the Moratorium, the only responsible direction, would give the Board the time to consider what is going on within the Village. The 10 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 overall development plan of the area needs to be reviewed. The next point is the consideration of rights of the residents. She felt that the Moratorium is not what is unfair, but rather it is the development that causes an unfairness. The over-development of our area puts a strain on the school system, increases the storm water runoff which contributes to the drainage problems, and change the character of the area. In essence, the character of the area is being destroyed. The next point that needs to be addressed is vision. There is a vision plan that was put in place by the Village. This plan was the result of a substantial amount of research, searching for what is best for the Village as a whole. In the Vision Plan it was noted that the larger lots, such as those in the Hillandale area, make Rye Brook a nicer place. The final point that she discussed was trust. She felt that the residents need to trust the Planning Board and the Board of Trustees. This is not spot zoning but rather shows an earnest need to look at what is going on. Mrs. Mary Bellantoni of Ridge Street addressed the Board. She felt that the proposed Moratorium was unfair to the homeowners. If a homeowner decides, for whatever reason, that they would like or need to expand their home this Moratorium places an unfair burden upon them. A decision to add an addition to a home takes much consideration that to work through that process and then be told that they must wait another six months is very unfair. Mr. Beane reiterated that this proposed local law is a starting point. It will give the Village the opportunity to look at the development. Mr. Ken Heller of Lincoln Avenue addressed the Board. He noted that there are local laws in existence so that the Code can be enforced. He felt that the big problems was that property in Rye Town is taxed at its maximum use value. This entices people to' subdivide, and re-subdivide, their property. All the larger properties have been taxed off the map, and there is no relief for anyone who owns property. A tax relief to people to entice them to keep their properties in tact would help. People cannot afford to stay here as they get older because the taxes keep going up and up. The Village needs to review their tax programs. Mrs. Barbara Murray addressed the Board. She felt that the Village does need to look at where the Village is going. But, in her opinion, they also must consider the 11 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 residents who are already here, and the ones that are looking to move into Rye Brook. Sometimes people find a great house but it might be too small. They buy it, and then look to add on. Not having that option is unfair. Our residents, and future residents should be given the option of coming into our community. Linda Whitehead, Esq. addressed the Board. She noted that her firm represents the Rosens, the owner of the property at 48 Lincoln Avenue. There is a pending application for a subdivision of their property. This subdivision will allow the Rosens to sell off a portion of their property and stay in their home. A substantial amount of money has already been expended by the Rosens. Having this application held up for six months could mean the lost of the sale of their property. This Village should look at their zoning but adopting a moratorium is unfair to its residents. A Moratorium is considered an extreme action because it affects people's property rights. Ms. Whitehead stated that in order to adopt a.Moratorium you have to have a defined problem because you are stopping people from exercising their property rights, There must be a plan, with specific steps that will be taken. There must be a relationship between the actions which are affected by the Moratorium and the problem and the pian. The Village has identified one of the problems, and that is the size of the new homes. She stated that subdividing property does not affect the size of the home. The size of the home is governed by FAR. provisions, setbacks, floor area coverage, etc. The Board needs to review these types of issues. Construction activities bring money into a community as construction supplies and materials are often bought within the Village. The Planners have not been given direction as to what they should look at. She felt that it would definitely take more than six months to review the zoning code. Mrs. Whitehead stated that her clients have a pending application that needs to be addressed. In addition, she noted that there are only three to four applications that will be affected by this Moratorium. These individuals have started the process without knowing that this would be taking place. Mrs. Whitehead presented the Board with a memorandum from her fun regarding this Moratorium. A1ix Prince, a member of the Rye Brook community for over 22 years, addressed the Board. She felt that the Moratorium on additions to homes was unfair. Most homes in Rye Brook are older, smaller homes. This Moratorium would cause a hardship to people looking to sell their homes. There should not be a limit to what people can do to their homes. 12 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Mr. Bernard Abel of Edgewood Drive addressed the Board. He noted that he has lived in this community for 46 years. In his opinion this Moratorium is an attempt by the Village Board to take deliberate action to save the character of the Village. The residents would like to maintain the character of the area, and believe that the existing problems in the community need to be addressed before further subdivisions are done. The owners of the homes in this area have a lot of money invested in their property and they are asking the Village Board to protect them. Mr. Able asked that the Board take the time to study the problem. Mr. Rosen addressed the Board. He stated that he has been a resident of Harrison for 14 years. He noted that, as Mr. Heller pointed out earlier, for 14 years he has been paying school taxes on his empty property. The application currently before the Board will help him stay in his home. Mr. Paul Montagna of 36 Woodland Drive addressed the Board. Although not against change, he felt that what is really important here is the deep shared moral values of the community. The rights of individuals need to be respected. Also to be respected are the deed restrictions which everyone in the area accepted when they purchased their homes. The Board needs to very seriously consider these matters. Trustee Santon asked to respond to comments from the public. He noted that the Village has a Vision Plan that is a 30+ page document. This document was submitted to the Board in December of 2000, and accepted in February 2001. He felt that the preservation of community character is stressed in the Vision Plan, and now is the time for the Village to take a pause to review the Zoning Code. This issue warrants further study. This Public Hearing is gust a start. The Board needs to take stock of where we are and what we want for our community. Trustee Braclana.n noted that she has considered this proposed law and moratorium for many weeks. There are many issues to be considered here, one of which is drainage problems. She felt, unfortunately, that some of the supporters of the Moratorium were trying to prevent specific subdivisions from occurring. It is unfair to stop people from developing a piece of property where they have already started the process. It is also, in her opinion, unfair to stop people from making alternations to their homes. This issue needs to be studied. A moratorium that would not impact current applications would be in the best interest of the residents. Adrienne Wesley addressed the Board for a second time. She stated that no one is looking to prevent people fiom developing their land. There have been mistakes made such as with Red Roof Farm and the homes on Little Kings Way. She felt that 13 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 the Village needed to look at the zoning and make improvements to the existing zoning laws so mistakes like these don.'t happen again, Trustee Rand questioned where things go from this point. Mr. Beane responded that the Public Hearing could be closed and the Board could take what was heard and superimpose it on the proposed Moratorium. Or the Public Hearing could be closed and, at a subsequent meeting, a Resolution that takes into consideration the pending applications and issues could be adopted. If the Public Hearing is closed then a Resolution must be drafted. Trustee Santon felt that the Public Hearing should be left open as this is an issue that needs to be discussed in public. Mayor Filipowski asked for a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing, keeping it open for the next meeting. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Santon, the Public Hearing will remain open and placed on the agenda for October 9th. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE A brief break was taken. Upon the Board's return, Mayor Filipowski moved to the Resolution portion of the agenda. RESOLUTIONS 2. BELLEFAIR RETAINING WALL RELOCATION — BELLEFAIR BOULEVARD BELLEFAIR P.U.D. AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SECTION 1, BLOCK 3 Mrs. Bent-Richards read the following Resolution: 14 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 RESOLUTION BELLEFAIR RETAINING WALL RELOCATION BELLEFAIRE BOULEVARD BELLEFAIR P.U.D. AMENDED SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 19 BLOCK 3 WHEREAS, Bellefair Home and Land Company has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting Amended Site Plan Approval for the relocation of approximately 800 feet of retaining wall located in the rear yards of Lots 6374 as shown on the approved Site Plan for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as BelleFair, such project to consist of relocating the entire retaining wall between nine (9) feet to twelve (12) feet to the north and east behind Lots 65 through 71 and to construct an additional retaining wall, creating tiered walls behind Lots 63, 64, 72, 73, and 74; and WHEREAS, the retaining wall is located on the east side of the lower potion of BelleFair Boulevard, within the P.U.D., Planned Unit Development District, Tax Parcel Section No. 1, Block 3; and WHEREAS, all conditions and stipulations of the previously granted Site Development Plan Approval are hereby incorporated and made conditions of this approval; and WHEREAS, the Applicant stated in said application that the proposed retaining wall relocation is, in its opinion, minor in nature and requested that the Village Board of Trustees and the Village Planning Board concur with such conclusion and waive the full procedure requirements of the Zoning Code; WHEREAS, Section 250-7E. (4)(c) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code permits the Village Board of Trustees to waive the full amendment procedure requirements with concurrence of the Village Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees has reviewed the following information submitted by the applicant in support of the application: 1. Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF); and 15 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 2. Memo dated August 31, 2001 from Berrie Ruf of Spectrum Skanska; and 3. Letter dated September 4, 2001 from Lars J. Cooley, P.E. of Tectonic Engineering; and 4. Sheet LA-1 of 2, "Units 63 to 75," dated 5/17/01, last revised 8/30/01, prepared by Studer Design Associates, Ridgefield, Connecticut; and 5. Sheet LA-2 of 2, "Units 63 to 75 Planting Plan," dated 5117/01, last revised 9/4/01, prepared by Studer Design Associates, Ridgefield, Connecticut; and 6. Sheet 1 of 1, "Bellefair Retaining Wall Design," dated 5/21/98, last revised 6/15/98, prepared by Spectrum Skanska, Valhalla, New York (the original Site Plans); and 7. Engineering analysis of the proposed wall, titled Bellefair Retaining Wall Relocation, AASHTO Design Method, dated June 19, 2001, prepared by Palumbo Block Company, Dover Plains, New York; and 8. A report titled "Calculations Prepared for Belle Fair" dated 9/6/01, prepared by Dunne & Markis Consulting Structural Engineers, Carmel, New York; and 9. Sheet 1 of 1, "Bellefair, Profile and Sections," dated 9/6/01, prepared by Dunne & Markis Consulting Structural Engineers, Carmel, New York; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees referred the application to the Village Planning Board, and the Village Planning Board submitted comments and recommendations to the Village Board of Trustees by resolution dated September 12, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Village Planning Board in its resolution dated September 12, 2001 determined the proposed retaining wall relocation constitutes a minor modification to the approved Site Plan in accordance with Section 250-7E (4)(c) of the Rye Brook Zoning Code and recommends that the full review requirements be waived; and WHEREAS, the Village's Planning Consultant submitted comments and recommendations to the Village Board of Trustees by memorandum dated August 1, August 17, and September 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees is familiar with the Site and all aspects of the Project and has been satisfied that the Project will 16 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 comply with the Site Development Plan standards and requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Code, except as otherwise noted; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees determined that the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 for which the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees is the Lead Agency and the only Involved Agency for the environmental review with respect to the approval of said Amended Site Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby adopts and incorporates as findings and determinations the recitations and statements set forth above as if fully set forth and resolved herein; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 61.7, and upon review of the EAS' and all other application materials that were prepared for this action, hereby adopts a Negative Declaration since the Project will result in only minor physical changes to the site, visual impacts will be minimal, and any disturbance associated with the Project will be controlled through the proper implementation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees concurs with the Applicant and the Village Planning Board that the proposed retaining wall relocation constitutes a minor modification to the approved Site Plan and therefore waives, the full procedural requirements of the Zoning Code in accordance with Section 250-7E (4)(c) of the Rye Brook Zoning Code, and be it further RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees grants the requested Amended Site Plan Approval, subject to the following conditions: 1, The Applicant shall submit a bond in an amount and form to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer, Village Building Inspector, and Village Attorney. 2. The Applicant shall submit written documentation that all necessary 17 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 County approvals have been obtained, or that no such approvals were required, prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. The Applicant shall design, implement, and maintain sediment and erosion controls, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and Village Building Inspector. The Amended Site Plan shall be revised to include a note stating that sediment and erosion controls will be designed, implemented and maintained in accordance with standard industry practices and guidelines as described in publications such as the Westchester County Best Management Practices for Urban Runoff. 4. An as-built drawing, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and Village Building Inspector, of the relocated wall and of the appropriate fencing at or about the top of the wall shall be submitted for the Village file. Mr. Scott Kaufman of 48 Bellefair Road addressed the Board, He expressed concern regarding the change of the landscape and how it will affect the flow of water onto his property. He felt that this matter deserves some investigation. He was afraid that there would be repercussions faced when moving the wall in regard to the flooding of his property. He noted that, to- date, his basement has not had any water problems, and he asked that the Village protect him by ensuring that this change will not affect his property. Mr. Beane noted that the issue of protecting the homeowners from the developer is beyond the purview of the Board. This issue should be addressed between the property owner and the developer. Mr. Victor Carosiresponded by reviewing the process. He stated that this change was proposed to the Building Department and moved through the Planning process. Comments were received from the Planning Board and the Planning Consultants. The impacts of construction vehicles, erosion controls, drainage, etc. were reviewed. Solutions were discussed during this planning process. He understood the concerns of the homeowners, and stated that they were valid concerns. He reminded the Board that there is a bond in place to protect the homeowners and the Village during the construction of the project. The bond is the guarantee by the developer that the wall will be completed according to the plan. 18 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Mr. Beane noted that the bond is there to guarantee that the wall is completed, and it will not be released until the project is finished. Mr. De Luca of Spectrum Skanska addressed the Board. He stated that'he could give the guarantee that Mr. Kau- nan was looking for. Erosion control and run off had been discussed in length during the planning process. There are 11 homeowners who are in favor of the construction of this retaining wall. This work is an additional cost to Spectrum, and they have no legal obligation to do this. This proposed construction came about because the homeowners believed that they would have a larger back yard. This retaining wall will add an additional ten feet to each of the affected property owners' rear yards. The other residents of Bellefair Road who were in attendance at the meeting noted that they had no opposition to this application, Trustee Santon asked if there was anything on the plan that addressed drainage. He felt that the residents should be assured that there would be no drainage problems. Mr. De Luca stated that the Village Consultants have reviewed this issue. Mr. Kvinge, Mr. Carosi and the Planning Board discussed this issue and the applicant has agreed to abide by their decisions. Trustee Degling questioned whether or not a retaining wall over 4' in height required the construction of a fence. Mr. Deluca noted that if the Village Code calls for this fence and it would be constructed. Mr. Gerety stated that there was a height restriction for this type of retaining wall, He noted that within the Bellefair subdivision, those walls constructed by the developer, have fences on walls over 4'. Mr. Beane made two minor amendments to the Resolutions. He noted that an additional amendment could be made regarding appropriate fencing to be placed on top of the wall. Mayor Filipowski instructed Mr. Gerety to review the issue of retaining walls, the height, the chop distance, and whether or not fences need to be constructed on walls over 4'. Mr. Gerety agreed, and it was noted that he would have a response by the next meeting. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling the Resolution, as amended, was adopted. 19 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 3. 900 DING STREET SPRINT CELLULAR ANTENNAS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SECTION l., BLOCK G, LOT 2A1 Mrs. Bent-Richards read the following resolution; RESOLUTION 900 KING STREET SPRINT CELLULAR ANTENNAS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL SECTION 1,BLOCK G,LOT 2A1 WHEREAS, Sprint Spectrum (Sprint PCS) has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook requesting a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval for the installation of an attached wireless telecommunications facility consisting of nine (9) panel antennas in three (3) sectors to be pipe-mounted on the roof of the existing penthouse together with equipment cabinetry on a building located at 900 King Street (also known as the Atrium or Brickman Office Building), within the P.U.D., Planned Unit Development District, Tax Parcel No. 1-6-2A1; and , WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees has reviewed and accepted as adequate the information submitted by the applicant in support of the application, including a Full Environmental Assessment Form (Parts I and II), a narrative description of the proposed action and nature of the proposed use, and the following plans and reports: 1. An application package including application forms dated November 7, 2000, an engineering analysis demonstrating need for the facility prepared by Sprint PCS, photographic simulations of the proposed antennas dated November 8, 2000 prepared by 20 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, and a Full Environmental Assessment Form dated November 14, 2000; 2, A report entitled "Structural Analysis Design and Evaluation of Existing Structure," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated November 10, 2000; 3. Sheet T-1, "Title Sheet," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 11/9/00, last revised 7/9/01; 4. Sheet Z-1, "Roof Plan," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 11/9/00, last revised 7/9/01; 5. Sheet Z-2, "Elevations and Details," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 11/9/00, last revised 7/9/01; 6. Sheet Z-3, "North and East Section Plan," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 11/9/00, last revised 7/9/01; 7, Sheet S-1, "Structural Details and Notes," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 7/6/01; 8. Sheet S-2, "Structural Details," prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 7/6/01; 9. Sheet S-3, "Structural Details,"prepared by URS Corporation AES, dated 7/6/01; 10. Sheet T144-5, "Compilation Plan,"dated 1101, prepared by URS Corporation AES; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees referred the application to the Village Planning Board on November 28, 2000, and the Village Planning Board, by resolution dated May 10, 2001, recommended granting the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval, subject to certain conditions relating to the appearance of the proposed facility; the Applicant's compliance with requirements of the Village Zoning Code, particularly concerning annual reporting of nonionizing radiation emissions; security for removal of the facility in case of abandonment; and Village access to the facility for testing or removal after abandonment; and WHEREAS, the proposed antennas will emit non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) (radio waves) for which maximum permissible exposure (MPE) criteria are published, and the applicant provided maps of the NEER field strengths of the proposed facility following accepted models for the calculations; and WHEREAS, the Village has retained the services of Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers LLP to review the Structural Analysis report prepared by the applicant and a general review of the application; and 21 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 WHEREAS, Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers LLP verified the calculated results prepared by the Applicant and submitted a report dated April 2, 2001, stating that based on a comparison with published criteria the proposed installation will present a negligible hazard to human exposure and recommending that the structural design for the proposed antennas •be approved, subject to a detailed review of the final structural designs; and WHEREAS, the top of the proposed antennas will be approximately 30.5 feet above the existing roof line, and the equipment cabinets will be approximately 8.5 to 9.0 feet above the existing roof line (5.0 feet to 5.5 feet in height installed upon a platform approximately 3.5 feet above the roof line); and WHEREAS, the Applicant, in response to a request from the Planning Board, constructed a mock-up of the proposed antennas at the site, which mock.-up was in-place and available for viewing from 12.00 noon on Friday, May 4 to 5:00 PM on Saturday, May 5; and WHEREAS, members of the Village Board of Trustees and Village Planning Board conducted an inspection of the mock-up on Saturday, May 5; and WHEREAS, it was discovered after the viewing of the mock-up, that the mock-up height was approximately 30 inches shorter than the proposed antennas; and WHEREAS, neighbors to the proposed antenna facility expressed concern regarding the potential health impacts of the proposed facility and the potential visual impacts of a large number of such antennas on the roof of the subject building, and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees also expressed concerns of the potential visual impacts resulting from the installation of a large number of cellular antenna facilities on the roof of the building and requested that the property owner attend the Public Hearing to discuss the issues of co-location and the possibility of limiting the number of antennas and/or carriers on the rooftop; and WHEREAS, the property owner did not respond to the Village Board of Trustees request, but rather submitted a written statement that the current property owner would consider additional antennas to be installed on the rooftop, but such would be subject to negotiations between the property owner and wireless communications provider; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees stated that each new application for a wireless telecommunications facility will receive the same rigorous scrutiny and thorough analysis concerning all potential impacts including, but not limited to, visual impacts and health-related impacts in accordance with the all the applicable requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has met all of the requirements concerning co-location, including the required affidavits, of Section 250-39 of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code, 22 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 r insofar as the Applicant has certified that no feasible co-location cites are available, and as the proposed facility is to be built on an existing structure; and WHEREAS, this is an unlisted action pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 for which the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees is the Lead Agency and the only Involved Agency for the environmental review with respect to the approval of said Special Use Permit and Site Plan; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing on the application was held on Tune 12, 2001, continued to June 26, 2001, July 10, 2001 and August 14, 2001 in the Rye Brook Village Hall, at which time all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard, and the public hearing was closed on August 14, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees has considered the Environmental Assessment Form and addenda prepared for the proposed action, along with other information presented at the public hearings, as well as its site inspection of the mock-up and the report of Lawler, Matusky& Skelly Engineers LLP; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees has compared the potential impacts of the proposed action with the criteria for determining significance set forth in 6 NYCRR § 617.7(c). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby adopts and incorporates as findings and determinations the recitations and statements set forth above as if fully set forth and resolved herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Board of Trustees finds that discrepancy between the height of the mock-up and the actual height of the proposed antennas is neither material nor significant; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, hereby adopts a Negative Declaration pursuant to its determination that the Project will have no significant impacts, including consideration of the criteria set forth at 6 NYCRR § 617.7(c), as: a) Based upon the Environmental Assessment Form and addenda, and the site inspection of the mock-up, the Village Board of Trustees finds that the proposed antennas will be minimally visible from very limited locations near the facility, and will not effect viewsheds from properties neighboring the facility site, and that therefore the proposed facility's location, height, and appearance, will not be detrimental to neighborhood character and aesthetics and will create no significant visual impacts; and 23 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 b) The proposed antennas will emit non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NEER) (radio waves) for which maximum permissible exposure (MPE) criteria are published, and based on a comparison with such published criteria, the proposed installation will present a negligible hazard to human health; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Board of Trustees hereby waives the requirement for a landscaping plan and determines that the standards for new support structures as described in Section 250-39 E(5) do not apply in this particular instance because the proposed facility will be built on an existing structure; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Village Board of Trustees is familiar with the Site and all aspects of the Project and has been satisfied that the Project will comply with the Special Permit and Site Development Plan standards and requirements of the Village of Rye Brook Code, except as otherwise noted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Village Board of Trustees hereby determines that the proposed installation of a wireless telecommunications facility, consisting of nine (9) panel antennas mounted in three (3) antenna arrays with associated equipment cabinetry and mounting structures, meets the criteria for special permits as stated in Section 254-6(1=1)(2) of the Village of Rye Brook Code, as follows: a) The location and size of the use, the nature and intensity of the operations involved in or conducted in connection with it and its relation to streets giving access to it are such that it will not be hazardous, inconvenient or detrimental to the activities in and character of the neighborhood; b) The location, nature and height of buildings, walls and fences and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site are such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value thereof; C) The proposed use will be provided with off-street parking adequate for its needs, considering the assemblage of persons and vehicles in connection with the use, at least meeting the standards of Article IV, Section 250-6G; d) The siting and design of the proposed facility will minimize adverse visual impacts on surrounding areas, parks, and roadways, and shall incorporate the camouflage required by the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees as a condition of this approval; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Board of Trustees hereby grants the requested Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit final structural designs for the antennas and mounting 24 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 equipment, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and Building Inspector. 2. The antennas, mounting poles and hardware, and all other equipment and hardware associated with the antennas shall be painted light gray (Light Gray-Star Cluster acrylic flat finish manufactured by ICI, 930 GG 72/016), and the mechanical equipment, mounting poles and hardware, and all other equipment and hardware associated with the equipment cabinets shall be painted off-white similar to the color used on the existing roof to minimize the potential visual impacts to surrounding areas. 3. The operation of the proposed antennas shall comply with all requirements of Section 250-39 of the Village's Zoning Code, which regulates wireless telecommunication facilities, including but not limited to the submission of annual reports providing an analysis of nonionizing electrical radiation emitted by the facility. 4. The Applicant shall submit a bond, in form and of sufficient amount to the satisfaction of the Village's Counsel, to ensure the safe and timely removal of the wireless telecommunications facility in case of abandonment in accordance with Section 250-39 F(11) of the Village Code. 5. The Applicant shall submit an access agreement, to the satisfaction of the Village's Counsel, to enable the Village to perform testing of the facility or to remove the facility after abandonment, in accordance with Section 250-39 F(14) of the Village Code. The Applicant shall pay any balance due and owing in the escrow account established pursuant to section 47-2 of the Village Code. Trustee Santon renewed his concezns regarding the underlying zoning and the conflicting site plans of 900 King Street. He stated that lie would be voting against this Resolution, as he was unsure how a building that was non- conforming could be expanded on. He felt that the Resolution from 1998 violated the Village's Zoning Law and he asked for opinion of the Village's Counsel. Mayor Filipowski noted that the Board of Trustees had obtained the opinion of the experts, including Village Counsel, in regard to this application. The public can see the information any time. This information has been available since June. Trustee Rand felt that there were two issues involved with this Resolution. 25 Board) of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 The first issue is the Sprint's application. The second is, now that the Board has reviewed the additional information, clearing up the record on a prior Board's Resolution. Daniel Tartaglia, Esq., representative for the Arbors, addressed the Board. He stated that, in his opinion, the Sprint application and whether the building conformed are not separate issues. He pointed out that when the Board adopted 250-39 of the Telecommunications Law, it made a mistake. It never looked at the P.U.D. It never looked at 250-7(e)2(d) where, under permitted use, it states "...,all uses within a P.U.D. shall be determined by provisions of this sub-section." That would include this use. He pointed out that if one continued to read in this section, they would see that the prior Board amended 250-7. The result is inconsistent provisions on the books. There is a height restriction of 30'. Reading further you find a requirement for an amended site plan application, to amend the P.U.D. site plan application, The Sprint application is an expansion of this use within the P.U.D. zone. He felt that first the Board needed to amend the Code before they could consider this application. Mr. Christopher Fisher from Cuddy Feder & Worby addressed the Board. He noted that this application has been pending since November. He noted that this application is for a. permitted use in this Zone, and asked that the Board take action. Mr. Beane stated that the 1998 Resolution is the valid Resolution until, or when, it is changed. He reminded the Board that he has recused himself from the Sprint application and, therefore, was not able to comment further. Trustee-Santon felt that the Resolution that was approved in 1998 was done so without referral to the Planning Board. Therefore, it was his belief that the Resolution was invalid. Mayor Filipowski noted that Counsel has stated that there is a valid Resolution in place. However, as the question of whether or not to adjourn this Resolution for review by special counsel has been raised, the Board needed to make a decision. Trustee Brackman felt that additional legal opinion was needed in connection with the issues raised by Mr. Tartaglia. She asked that the matter be adjourned so that it could be reviewed further. 26 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Mr. Fisher stated that the applicant has been very patient during this process. It is however, now almost a year. This use is a permitted use. He felt that was a delay tactic. The issue is whether or not the antennas are permitted-on this building. Mr. Beane suggested that the arguments be raised in writing. He also asked that if there were additional arguments to be raised that they be done in writing as well. He noted that this application could be adjourned until the October 9'h meeting. A motion was made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, to adjourn this Resolution. An executive session will be held to discuss this new issue. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 4. APPROVING USE OF VILLAGE STREETS FOR 19TH ANNUAL WESTCHESTER TRIATHLON. Mrs. Bent-Richards read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF VILLAGE STREETS FOR 19"' ANNUAL WESTCHESTER TRIATHLON RESOLVED, that the Westchester Triathlon, Inc. is authorized to use the Village of Rye Brook streets for the 19'h Annual Westchester Triathlon on September 29, 2001 from 7:00 a.m, to 11:00 a.m. as requested in the letter dated July 31, 2001 and accompanying attachments from Steve Tarpinian, Race Director. 27 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Mr. Fisher stated that the applicant has been very patient during this process. It is however, now almost a year. This use is a permitted use. He felt that was a delay tactic. The issue is whether or not the antennas are permitted'on this building. Mr. Keane suggested that the arguments be raised in writing. He also asked that if there were additional arguments to be raised that they be done in writing as well. He noted that this application could be adjourned until the October 9th meeting. A motion was made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, to adjourn this Resolution. An executive session. will be held to discuss this new issue. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE IIEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 4. APPROVING USE OF VILLAGE STREETS FOR 19TH ANNUAL WESTCHESTER TRIATHLON. Mrs. Bent-Richards read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF VILLAGE STREETS FOR 190' ANNUAL WESTCHESTER TRIATHLON RESOLVED, that the Westchester Triathlon, Inc. is authorized to use the Village of Rye Brook streets for the 19`x' Annual Westchester Triathlon on September 29, 2001 from 7:40 a.m. to 11:44 a.m. as requested in the letter dated July 31, 2001 and accompanying attachments from Steve Tarpinian, Race Director. 27 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling the foregoing Resolution was adopted: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Chief Robert Santoro noted that the route of the Triatholon within Rye Brook would cover Comly Avenue to Glenville Road and then Lincoln to Anderson Hill Road.. 5. REFERRING CAMPO SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION TO PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Mrs, Richards read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION REFERRING CAMPO SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION TO PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS, Joe Campo has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook for a special permit to operate a Tier III Horne Occupation, an insurance office, on the ground floor of a single-family residence located at 55 South Ridge Sheet in an R2-F Two-Family Residential Zoning District, which office will be operated from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p,m.. Monday through Friday and will require modifications to the interior of the residence, the construction of a handicapped accessible ramp, and the construction of six(6) space parking lot; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook declares itself Lead Agency for the review of the subject 28 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 application; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby refers the subject application for a special permit to the Planning Board, Traffic Commission and the Planning Consultant of the Village of Rye Brook for a report and recommendation, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the subject application be referred, by the Planning Consultant of the Village of Rye Brook, to the Planning Board of Westchester County for its review and comment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant, .Toe Campo, shall deposit the sum of $3,000.00, and such additional amounts as may be requested, in the Village of Rye Brook environmental review/professional fees escrow account to defiay the cost of the review of the application. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Santon, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUS'T'EE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE Trustee Degling asked for clarification of the drawings and whether or not the garage will be removed to make room for parking spaces. He also questioned how the sprinkler law would impact this application. Mr. William Gerety, Building Inspector, responded that the garage has already been demolished. With regard to the Sprinkler Law, he would need additional time to look into this matter. Trustee Santon asked that the Village's Planning Consultants review the fact that there have been a number of Special Use Permits issued in this area — Westchester Avenue, Ridge Street and Bowman Avenue over recent years. He felt that the Board of Trustees should look into amending the Zoning versus reviewing it and amending it on a case-by-case basis. Mr. David Stolman responded that this application should be referred to the Planning 29 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 • s Board and the Traffic Commission. On a Resolution made by Trustee Santon, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE BAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 6. AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULE OF BILLS PAYABLE Mrs. Richards read the following Resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE THE SCHEDULE OF BILLS PAYABLE WHEREAS, the enclosed Schedule of Bills Payable representing payment for services rendered, have been submitted to the Treasurer's Office for payment and review, and have been certified by the Village Administrator, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby approves payment of the enclosed claims and authorizes payment thereof, On a motion made by Trustee Degling, and seconded by Trustee Brackman the following Resolution was adopted: TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE 30 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AVE MAYOR FILIPOWSIU VOTING AYE Trustee Santon felt that these bills should be reviewed. He continued that he had no way of evaluating these bills by looking at the check register other than by relying on the Administrator. Mr. Beane stated that the bills were proper and had been checked and verified. He also noted that as a part of his position as Village Administrator, Mr. Bradbury has presented the Board with a list of bills to be paid. Trustee Santon asked for clarification on a contract for tree removal services. Mr. Carosi noted that there is an annual tree contract that has been in place. It is an open-ended contract, which included tree removal services. Mayor Filipowski noted that the bills submitted are for services rendered and it is appropriate to pay these bills. A service was provided and, therefore, the monies are due. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 24, 2001 June 12, 2001 A few typographical errors were noted and accepted. On a motion made by Trustee Santon, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the Summaries were accepted. as amended. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE 31 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Mayor Fihpowski moved to the Discussion section of the agenda and called for the only item on the agenda for discussion. DISCUSSION: 1. VARIOUS BELL]EFAIR SITE PLAN ISSUES Trustee Santon noted that he had requested that this item be placed on the agenda. He reminded the Board that there have been two applications from the developer for sidewalks and the retaining wall relocation. He requested that any other changes be promptly addressed. He stated that he has been informed that there will be forthcoming fixture amendments made to this site plan. He stated that there were issues regarding the walking trail and the curb cut that was changed from Reunion Road to Milestone Road. Trustee Santon noted that the approval for Bellefair occurred with a Resolution on January 26, 1998. Six months later Mayor Filipowski signed the site plan, and the five-page subdivision map. The subdivision map was filed with the County and the site plan was used for construction purposes. Nine months later, on March 9, 1999, the subdivision map was amended. This revised document was signed by the Mayor. It was his assertion that the Village's Zoning Code was not followed because there was no referral to the Planning Board, nor was it discussed publicly. He asked that this matter be referred to Village Counsel for review. Mayor Filipowski responded that the decisions were made on the advice of counsel, and advice of the Village's experts. Everything was done properly. Mr. Beane noted that it was his understanding that the modification to the site plan did not add anything, nor were any structural changes. He stated that what happened was not a modification that needed to go before the Board, Trustee Santon felt that the change was a transfer of 4,766 square feet from open space to the senior living facility. He felt that this was not a minor change. Mayor Filipowski referred this matter to Counsel. 32 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2041 Mayor Filipowski stated that unfinished business would be discussed at the October 9LI, meeting, when Mr. Bradbury would be in attendance. A resident of Rye Brook suggested that a coordinated County-wide fire department and police department be established. He urged the Board, in light of the recent attack in New York, to present this to the County as this would be a great sign of leadership on the part of this Board. Susan Telesca of 3 Red Roof Drive addressed the Board. She noted that the Blind Brook Estates homeowners have expressed their concern regarding the positioning of the baseball field. Safety was not one of the criteria used to make this decision, and she asked that it now be considered. She felt that there was still time to make a change. She asked that the Board consider the safety of the children when constructing this ball field. Trustee Santon asked the opinion of counsel with regard to a Resolution which was tabled at the previous meeting. He noted that during the week a decision was made to hold a work session versus having it on the agenda. He asked if this was proper. He felt that the Resolution was tabled to the September 25th meeting and should have been put on that agenda. Mayor Filipowski noted that a motion to table does not schedule the Resolution that has been tabled for a definite date. He noted that the Board follows the Roberts Rules of Order. He deferred to Mr. Beane for clarification. Mr. Beane stated that Roberts Rules have been incorporated into the Village's Rules, and both have been followed. He stated that he read and reviewed the appropriate sections of Roberts Rules of Order and found that on pages 51 and 52 it discusses the fact that a tabled item postponed by a motion to table and can be taken up at any time. it can be taken up at either at the same, or a future meeting. 33 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 Mayor Filipowski announced that the next Board of Trustee Meetings were scheduled for October 9 and October 23, with a special session scheduled for October 4, 2001. He asked for a motion for an executive session on litigation and personnel. On a motion made by Trustee Brackman, and seconded by Trustee Degling, the executive session was scheduled. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SANTON VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE The Board adjourned into the Conference Room for the Executive Session. Upon their return, Mayor Filipowski noted that a Resolution will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting for the Village's Counsel to deal with litigation. It was noted that Trustee Santon did not return when the meeting was re-convened. Trustee Santon did not attend the Executive Session either. Mr. Beane noted that, as a result of the Executive Session, the following Resolution was discussed: The pending Article 78 proceeding involving Red Roof Farm Subdivision be resolved in the following manner: The developer of Red Roof Farm must deposit $137,000 in cash in an escrow account to be maintained jointly by the developer's counsel and Village Attorney. This $137,000 is to be used for the purpose of performing certain drainage improvements that have been designed by the developer's experts to deal with particular drainage problems involving Lots 27, 28, and Lot 1, In addition, as part of this Resolution, the developer must obtain and produce an easement over a portion of Lot 1 to be signed by the owners of Lot 1. In addition, the developer must produce a complete design for the drainage improvements and it must be submitted to, and approved by, the Village of Rye Brook's experts which include the Village Engineer, 34 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001 as well as outside experts. And none of the monies will be released fi•om this escrow account until the work progresses. Whatever remains will not be released until the work has been concluded and has been certified as being completed by the Village Engineer and the Village's experts. For this, the developer will receive a Certificate of Occupancy on Lots 27 and 28 when he satisfies the conditions...as approved by Village experts and...... Mr. Beane noted that the above constitutes the substance of the Resolution, The Resolution does not include any reduction in the Bond, which remains at the original amount. On a motion made by Trustee Rand, and seconded by Trustee Brackman, the Resolution was adopted. TRUSTEE BRACKMAN VOTING AYE TRUSTEE DEGLING VOTING AYE TRUSTEE RAND VOTING AYE MAYOR FILIPOWSKI VOTING AYE There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11;45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher )adbury Village Clerk 35 Board of Trustee Meeting September 25, 2001