Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-06-23 - Board of Trustees Meeting Documents VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2015 7:00 P.M. —EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7:30 P.M. —REGULAR MEETING: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: REPORT/PRESENTATIONS: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) Considering a rezoning petition for property located at 80 Bowman Avenue (adjourned from May 26, 2015) 2) Considering a Local Law to Establish a Community Choice Aggregation Energy Program in the Village of Rye Brook RESOLUTIONS: 1) Considering a rezoning petition for property located at 80 Bowman Avenue 2) Considering a Local Law to Establish a Community Choice Aggregation Energy Program in the Village of Rye Brook 3) Supporting a County-wide effort to ban single use plastic bags and expanded polystyrene container 4) Considering the probationary period for the position of Recreation Supervisor 5) Setting a public hearing regarding Sun Homes conceptual plan and zoning amendments 6) Considering the appointment of a Police Officer 7) Considering a resolution to enter into the Public Employer Risk Management Association Workers' Compensation Program Agreement(PERMA) 8) Considering a bid award for contract#15-13 Traffic Signal and Street Light Maintenance 9) Considering an application for the removal of a significant tree at 30 Lincoln Avenue 10)Considering the approval of minutes from the meeting of May 26, 2015 11)Considering an agreement with the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services for use of the New York State Accreditation Program Logo ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEMS 1) Comprehensive Plan Implementation ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE CONSENT OF THE TRUSTEES PRESENT AT THE MEETING THE NEXT SPECIAL AND REGULAR TRUSTEES MEETINGS July 14 and July 28, 2015 BR O WCV VV�J� 19t}2 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914) 939-1121 Fax(914) 939-0242 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES Susan R. Epstein David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein Jeffrey B. Rednick PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:30pm, at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook,New York to consider an application to rezone property located at 80 Bowman Ave. Christopher J. Bradbury Village of Rye Brook, New York Westchester Referral Review govxom Pursuant to Section 239 L.M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code Robert P.Astorino County Executive County Planning Board May 12, 2015 Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Consulting Planner Frederick P. Clark Associates Rye Brook Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573-1226 Subject: Referral File No. RYB 15-001 —Bowman Plaza Zoning Map Amendment and Site Plan Approvals Dear Ms. Timpone-Mohamed: The Westchester County Planning Board has received site plans (dated revised April 30, 2015) and related materials for the above referenced application. The application proposes the construction of a market-rate 16-unit, three-story mixed use building that would have 2,400 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. Two single-family residences now located on the site would be removed. The proposed site is a 0.5-acre lot located on the southwest corner of Bowman Avenue (CR 104) and Barber Place within the C-1 zoning district with an overlay of the Village's Fair and Affordable Housing Overlay District (FAH). The overlay was applied when a previous proposal for the site was being considered for 16 units of affordable affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). The applicant is petitioning the Village to remove the FAH overlay so that a new development proposal can be considered without any affordable AFFH -units. The plans show the proposed building to be located in the center of the site, with parking in the front and rear of the building as well as underneath the building. Nine parking spaces would be provided in the front of the building where the retail space would be located. Vehicles would enter from Bowman Avenue and exit onto Barber Place. Thirty parking spaces would be provided in the rear and under the building, primarily for the residential units. Access to those spaces is only provided via Barber Place. The entrance to the residential units is located at the parking level. In addition to the proposed removal of the FAH Overlay Zone and site plan approval, the application will require variance from the Zoning Ordinance with respect to minimum front yard and minimum usable open space on the lot. We have reviewed this matter under the provisions of Section 239 L, M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code. With respect to the zoning area variances, we point out that the variance for minimum usable open space is outside of the County Planning Board's jurisdiction. With respect to the front yard variance, we find that there are no County or 132 Nlichaelian Office Building 1.18 Martine Avenue White Nains,New York 10601 Telephone: (91-1)995-1.100 Website- Nk-estchcstei-go\-.coni Referral File No.RYB 15-401—Bowman Plaza May 12, 2015 Page 2 intermunicipal planning issues of concern to the County Planning Board and that this action is a matter for local determination in accordance with your community's planning and zoning policies. With respect to the proposed zoning map amendment and site plan review, we offer the following comments: 1. Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). We are disappointed that the current proposal seeks to remove a zoning designation from the site which would have set the foundation for the consideration of development of 16 affordable AFFH units, While the County's Model Ordinance Provisions recommend the establishment of a 10% set-aside for affordable AFFH units in all residential developments, Rye Brook chose a different method which we supported based on the concept that it could create higher amounts of affordable AFFH units on certain developable sites in the village. However, if the current application moves forward as proposed, the subject site would no longer be available for establishment of AFFH units. Therefore, we respectfully recommend that the Village maintain the FAH overlay zoning designation on the site. 2. Consistency with Coup ix Planninp- Board policies. While the concept of the proposed development as a mixed-use building within the downtown area of the village is generally consistent with the County Planning Board's long-range planning policies and strategies set forth in Westchester 2025—Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning, adopted by the County Planning Board on May 6, 2008 and amended January 5, 2010, the design of the proposed building is not consistent with those policies. The project design features a front yard along Bowman Avenue that consists of parking spaces, creating an auto-dominated retail storefront that would not contribute to a pedestrian-scaled environment. We recommend the applicant consider moving the front of the building toward the street, with parking provided in the rear. 3. County road. Bowman Avenue is a County Road (CR 104). Because of the site's frontage with Bowman Avenue, approval for this project from the County Department of Public Works and Transportation under Section 239 F of the General Municipal Law is required. Pertinent drainage, utility, erosion control and curb cut details need to be provided at the time of Section 239 F submittal. 4. County sewer impacts. The proposed development will increase sewage flows from this site into the existing infrastructure. The increased flow will add to the volume of sewage flow requiring treatment at one of the treatment plants operated by Westchester County. As a matter of County Department of Environmental Facilities' policy, we recommend that the Village implement or require the developer to implement measures that will offset the projected increase in flow. The best means to do so is through reductions in inflow/infiltration(1&1) at a ratio of three for one. 5. Provisions for recyclina. While the site plans show a proposed waste and recycling enclosure, we recommend that the Village require the applicant to verify that there is sufficient space within the project to accommodate the expanded County recycling program that includes plastics with numbers I through 7. County regulations for plastic recycling may be found at: http://environment.westchestergov.com. Referral File No.RYB 15-001—Bowman Plaza May 12, 2015 Page 3 6. Stormwater management. The site plans indicate that storrnwater runoff will be treated with subsurface stortriwater management devices. We recommend that the applicant also consider adding additional, above-ground treatment measures with the goal of treating and retaining as much stormwater on-site as possible. This can be accomplished through permeable paving surfaces or rain gardens placed throughout the site. If the applicant can only rely on subsurface storrawater treatment, then we recommend the Village require the applicant to submit an enforceable maintenance plan to ensure this infrastructure does not fill up with sediment, and remains operable into the future. 7. Green building technology and bicycleRad"n . We encourage the applicant to consider using as much green building technology as possible in the proposed development. We also encourage the applicant to consider providing a bicycle storage area for residents. This would be a low cost way of promoting non-motorized transportation in the immediate area, particularly since there are a number of businesses and services within close biking distance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Respectfully, WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD -21 Edward Buroughs, AICP Commissioner EEB LH cc: Michael Dispenza,Contract Administrator,County Department of Public Works and Transportation Kevin Roseman,Traffic Engineer,County Department of Public Works and Transportation THIS AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMS THAT I,FRANK MADONNA, OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 80 BOWMAN AVENUE, HAVE MAILED OUT TODAY, MAY 15, 2015, THE LETTER GIVEN TO ME BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR "PUBLIC NOTICE" PERTAINING TO THE VILLAGE BOARD MEETING PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, MAY 26,2015 AT 7:30 PM AT THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK OFFICES LOCATED AT 938 KING STREET, RYE BROOK,NY 10573 TO ALL THE ADDRESSES LISTED (MAILING LIST(ATTACHED) ON THE VILLAGE MAP(ENCLOSED) THAT ARE, WITHIN A 250 FT. RADIUS OF THE SITE VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL DIRECTLY THRU THE US POSTAL SERVICE. WE HAVE ALSO POSTED TWO LAWN SIGNS ON THE PROPERTY REGARDING THIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FRANK C. MADONNA MAY 15,2015 DAVID ROBERT CRANWELL, Notary Public- State of New York No. 01 CR6297106 Qualified in Putnam County My Commission Expires February 18, 2018 DR �- 44..V tip 4.J Jv V Cty VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook,N.Y. 1 D573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914)939-1121 Fax(914) 939-D242 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES Susan R. Epstein David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein Jeffrey B. Rednick PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 7:30pm, at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook,New York to consider an application to rezone property located at 80 Bowman Ave. Christopher J. Bradbury Village of Rye Brook, New York Mailing Labels for Property Addresses.Created from Municipal Tax Parcel Viewer. http://Q­iswww.wastchastercov.com Bow Ridge Associates LLC, Vilato,Michael & Langworth,Robert S Ridge St Kimberly 11 Division St PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 505 Franklin St PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Kolok,Geraldine Valenti Communications Corp, Borchetta,Michael R. 493 Franklin St 109-111 S Ridge St 501 Franklin St PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Ferraro,Luigi Meads,Randolph Chasnov,Mare 495 Franklin St 9 Barber PI 63 Bowman Ave PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 Lagana,Pietro Szerejko,Dariusz T. 66 Bowman Avenue Realty Corp, 9A Barber PI 11 Barber PI 66 Bowman Ave PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 491 Franklin St.LLC, Meyer,Joyce M. Steilman,Eric 491 Franklin St 71 Bowman Ave 70 Bowman Ave PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Win Ridge Shopping Ctr De-LLC, Capizzano,Vannio & Gjelaj,Lewis S Ridge St Mary 71-75 S Ridge St PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 72 Bowman Ave PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Sound Federal Savings & Wells,Eugene A. 107 RIDGEST, Loan, 15 Division St 107 S Ridge St 121-125 S Ridge PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Bowridge Realty,LLC, Klein,Steven M. Traynor,Sarah-Anne E. 14 Barber PI 81 Bowman Ave 67 Bowman Ave PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER,NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Bowridge Realty,LLC, Bowridge Reatty LLC, Ran Oil East Rye Brook, 80 Bowman Ave 12 Barber PI 79 S Ridge St PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Bucci,Joseph Grippo,Frank V. Ran Oil East Rye Brook, 8 Division St 10 Division St 89 Bowman Ave PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Created on: 4/29/2015 Page 1 of 2 Mailing Labels forPronertvAddresses.Created from Municipal Tax Parcel Viewer. httv://aiswww.westchesteraov.com Conklin,Joan Vinci,Jennie D. Sound Shore Properties LLC, 75 Bowman Ave 497 Franklin St 62 Bowman Ave PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 PORT CHESTER, NY 10573 Created on: 4/29/2015 Page 2 of 2 Westchester County GIS :: Tax Parcel Maps http://giswww.westchestergov.com/taxmapsilayout.aspx?r=RYK188818 Tax Parcel Maps Address: 80 Bowman Ave Print Key: 141.27-1-26 SBL: 14102700010260000000 Rye Brook '. e' ^'" •..'• a R Ytsrook y4 �i Disclaimer: This tax parcel map is provided as a public service to Westchester County residents for general information and planning purposes only, and should not be relied upon as a sole informational source. The County of Westchester hereby disclaims any liability from the use of this GIS mapping system by any person or entity. Tax parcel boundaries represent approximate property line location and should NOT be interpreted as or used in lieu of a survey or property boundary description. Property 1 of 2 4/29/201.5 10:27 AM LOCAL LAW NO. —2015 A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM IN THE Be it enacted by the of the County of Westchester as follows: Section 1. The Code of the is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter entitled "COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM," to read as follows: ARTICLE I §1. Legislative Findings; Intent and Purpose; Authority. A. It is the policy of both the and the State of New York to reduce costs and provide cost certainty for the purpose of economic development, to promote deeper penetration of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources such as wind and solar, and wider deployment of distributed energy resources as well as to examine the retail energy markets and increase participation of and benefits for residential and Small Commercial customers in those markets. Among the policies and models that may offer benefits in New York is community choice aggregation, which allows local governments to determine the default supplier of electricity and natural gas on behalf of its residential and Small Commercial customers. B. The purpose of this CCA Program is to allow participating local governments including the to procure energy supply service for their residential and Small Commercial customers, who will have the opportunity to opt out of the procurement, while maintaining transmission and distribution service from the existing Distribution Utility. This Chapter establishes a program that will allow the to put out for bid the total amount of natural gas and/or electricity being purchased by local residential and Small Commercial customers. Bundled Customers will have the opportunity to have more control to lower their overall energy costs, to spur clean energy innovation and investment, to improve customer choice and value, and to protect the environment; thereby, fulfilling the purposes of this Chapter and fulfilling an important public purpose. C. The is authorized to implement this COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM pursuant to Section 10(1)(11)(a)(12) of the New York Municipal Home Rule Law; and State of New York Public Service Commission Case No. 14-M-0564, Petition of Sustainable Westchester for Expedited Approval for the Implementation of a Pilot Community Choice Aggregation Program within the County of Westchester, Order Granting Petition in Part (issued February 26, 2015) as may be amended, including subsequent orders of the Public Service Commission issued in connection with or related to Case No. 14-M-0564 (collectively, the "Order"). Order shall also mean orders of the Public Service Commission related to State of New York Public Service Commission Case No. 14-M-0224, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Enable Community Choice Aggregation Programs (issued December 15, 2104) to the extent that orders related to Case No. 14-M-0224 enable actions by the C&F:2785410.2 not otherwise permitted pursuant to orders related to Case 14-M-0564; provided, however, that in the event of any conflict between orders from Case No. 14-M- 0564 and orders from Case No 14-M-0224, orders from Case No 14-M-0564 shall govern the CCA Program. D. This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM Law of the ". §2. Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, and unless otherwise expressly stated or unless the context otherwise requires, the terms in this Chapter shall have the meanings employed in the State of New York Public Service Commission's Uniform Business Practices or, if not so defined there, as indicated below: Bundled Customers — Residential and Small Commercial customers of electricity or natural gas ("fuels") who are purchasing the fuels from the Distribution Utility. Small Commercial-Non-residential customers as permitted by the Order. Community Choice Aggregation Program or CCA Program— A municipal energy procurement program, which replaces the incumbent utility as the default Supplier for all Bundled Customers within the Distribution Utility — Owner or controller of the means of distribution of the natural gas or electricity that is regulated by the Public Service Commission. Public Service Commission—New York State Public Service Commission. Suppliers — Energy service companies (ESCOs) that procure electric power and natural gas for Bundled Customers in connection with this Chapter or, alternatively, generators of electricity and natural gas or other entities who procure and resell electricity or natural gas. Sustainable Westchester — A not-for-profit organization comprised of member municipalities in Westchester County, New York. §3. Establishment of a COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) Program. A. A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM is hereby established by the , whereby the shall work together with Sustainable Westchester to implement the CCA Program to the full extent permitted by the Order, as set forth more fully herein. The 's role under the CCA Program involves the aggregating of the energy and/or gas supply of its residents and the entering into a contract with one or more Suppliers for supply and services. Under the CCA Program, the operation and ownership of the utility service shall remain with the Distribution Utility. B. The 's purchase of energy supply through a CCA Program constitutes neither the purchase of a public utility system, nor the furnishing of utility service. The will not take over any part of the electric or gas transmission or C&F:2785410.2 2 distribution system and will not furnish any type of utility service, but will instead negotiate with Suppliers on behalf of participating residential and Small Commercial customers. C. The Public Service Commission supervises retail markets and participants in these markets through legislative and regulatory authority and the Uniform Business Practices, which includes rules relating to the eligibility of participating ESCOs, the operation by which ESCOs provide energy services, and the terms on which customers may be enrolled with ESCOs. §4. Procedures for Eligibility; Customer Data Sharing. A. As permitted by the Order, the may request from the Distribution Utilities aggregated customer information by fuel type and service classification on a rolling basis. B. Sustainable Westchester, on behalf of the , shall issue one or more requests for proposals to Suppliers to provide energy to participants and may then award a contract in accordance with the CCA Program. C. Sustainable Westchester or the if the so chooses, will then request individual customer data from the Distribution Utility in accordance with the CCA Program. D. Sustainable Westchester or the if the so chooses, and the selected Supplier will then notify Bundled Customers of the contract terms and their opportunity to opt out of the CCA Program. E. In accordance with and for purposes of the Order, the existing Distribution Utility, [Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and/or New York State Electric & Gas Corporation] will provide to Sustainable Westchester aggregate and customer-specific data (including usage data, capacity tag obligations, account numbers, and service addresses) of all Bundled Customers in the not currently enrolled with an ESCO. F. Sustainable Westchester and the , will protect customer information as required by law, subject to the Order and the limitations of the New York State Freedom of Information Law. §5. Choice of Energy Supplier; Opt-Out Notice and Procedure. A. The or in conjunction with the ESCO will notify its residential and Small Commercial customers, by letter notice, of the 's decision to establish the CCA Program, of the contract terms with an ESCO, and of the opportunity to opt out of the CCA Program. B. The letter notice will be sent to each customer at the address provided by the Distribution Utility and explain the CCA Program and the material provisions of the ESCO contract, identify the methods by which the customer can opt out of the CCA Program, and provide information on how the customer can access additional information about the CCA Program. C. The opt-out period shall be twenty(20) days. C&F:2785410.2 3 D. CCA Program Bundled Customers, upon enrollment, will receive a welcome letter that will explain the customers' options for canceling the enrollment if they believe they were enrolled incorrectly or otherwise decide to withdraw from the CCA Program in favor of another Supplier. The welcome letter also will explain that residential customers are entitled to the added protection of the mandated Three (3) Day rescission period as detailed in Section 5(B)(3) of the Uniform Business Practices. §6. Verification and Reporting. A. Sustainable Westchester shall be responsible for filing an annual report with the Public Service Commission, which identifies the number of customers enrolled in the CCA Program by municipality and customer class, the number of customers who returned to utility service or service with another Supplier during the reporting period, and the average cost of commodity supply by month for the reporting period. Section 2. This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. C&F:2785410.2 4 BR O WCV VV�J� 19t}2 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914) 939-1121 Fax(914) 939-0242 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES Susan R. Epstein David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein Jeffrey B. Rednick PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook shall hold a public heating on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 7:30pm, at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook,New York to consider a Local Law to Establish a Community Choice Aggregation Energy Program in the Village of Rye Brook. Christopher J. Bradbury Village of Rye Brook, New York We-Achester Referral Review govcom Pursuant to Section 239 L.M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Ad"nistrative Code Robert P.Astorino County Executive County Planning Board May 12, 2015 Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Consulting Planner Frederick P. Clark Associates Rye Brook Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573-1226 Subject: Referral File No. RYB 15-001 —Bowman Plaza Zoning Map Amendment and Site Plan Approvals Dear Ms. Timpone-Mohamed: The Westchester County Planning Board has received site plans (dated revised April 30, 2015) and related materials for the above referenced application. The application proposes the construction of a market-rate 16-unit, three-story mixed use building that would have 2,400 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. Two single-family residences now located on the site would be removed. The proposed site is a 0.5-acre lot located on the southwest corner of Bowman Avenue (CR 104) and Barber Place within the C-1 zoning district with an overlay of the Village's Fair and Affordable Housing Overlay District (FAH). The overlay was applied when a previous proposal for the site was being considered for 16 units of affordable affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). The applicant is petitioning the Village to remove the FAH overlay so that a new development proposal can be considered without any affordable AFFH units. The plans show the proposed building to be located in the center of the site, with parking in the front and rear of the building as well as underneath the building. Nine parking spaces would be provided in the front of the building where the retail space would be located. Vehicles would enter from Bowman Avenue and exit onto Barber Place. Thirty parking spaces would be provided in the rear and under the building, primarily for the residential units. Access to those spaces is only provided via Barber Place. The entrance to the residential units is located at the parking level. In addition to the proposed removal of the FAH Overlay Zone and site plan approval, the application will require variance from the Zoning Ordinance with respect to minimum front yard and minimum usable open space on the lot. We have reviewed this matter under the provisions of Section 239 L, M, and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code. With respect to the zoning area variances, we point out that the variance for minimum usable open space is outside of the County Planning Board's jurisdiction. With respect to the front yard variance, we find that there are no County or 132 Nlichaelian Office 11tulding 118 Martine Avenue While ftum�.New York 10601 Telephone: (911)995-1100 Welisite- Nvestchestei,govxoni Referral File No. RYB 15-001—Bowman Plaza May 12, 2015 Page 2 intermunicipal planning issues of concern to the County Planning Board and that this action is a matter for local determination in accordance with your community's planning and zoning policies. With respect to the proposed zoning map amendment and site plan review, we offer the following comments* 1. Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). We are disappointed that the current proposal seeks to remove a zoning designation from the site which would have set the foundation for the consideration of development of 16 affordable AFFH units, While the County's Model Ordinance Provisions recommend the establishment of a 100o set-aside for affordable AFFH units in all residential developments, Rye Brook chose a different method which we supported based on the concept that it could create higher amounts of affordable AFFH units on certain developable sites in the village. However, if the current application moves forward as proposed, the subject site would no longer be available for establishment of AFFH units. Therefore, we respectfully recommend that the Village maintain the FAH overlay zoning designation on the site. 2. Consistency with Counly Planning Board policies, While the concept of the proposed development as a mixed-use building within the downtown area of the village is generally consistent with the County Planning Board's long-range planning policies and strategies set forth in Westchester 2025—Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning, adopted by the County Planning Board on May 6, 2008 and amended January 5, 2010, the design of the proposed building is not consistent with those policies. The project design features a front yard along Bowman Avenue that consists of parking spaces, creating an auto-dominated retail storefront that would not contribute to a pedestrian-scaled environment. We recommend the applicant consider moving the front of the building toward the street, with parking provided in the rear. 3. County road. Bowman Avenue is a County Road (CR 104). Because of the site's frontage with Bowman Avenue, approval for this project from the County Department of Public Works and Transportation under Section 239 F of the General Municipal Law is required. Pertinent drainage, utility, erosion control and curb cut details need to be provided at the time of Section 239 F submittal. 4. County sewer impacts. The proposed development will increase sewage flows from this site into the existing infrastructure. The increased flow will add to the volume of sewage flow requiring treatment at one of the treatment plants operated by Westchester County. As a matter of County Department of Environmental Facilities' policy, we recommend that the Village implement or require the developer to implement measures that will offset the projected increase in flow. The best means to do so is through reductions in inflow/infiltration(1&1) at a ratio of three for one. 5. Provisions for recycling. While the site plans show a proposed waste and recycling enclosure, we recommend that the Village require the applicant to verify that there is sufficient space within the project to accommodate the expanded County recycling program that includes plastics with numbers I through 7. County regulations for plastic recycling may be found at: http://environment.westchesteLgov.com. Referral File No.RYB 15-001—Bowman Plaza May 12, 2015 Page 3 6. Stormwater management. The site plans indicate that stormwater runoff will be treated with subsurface stormwater management devices. We recommend that the applicant also consider adding additional, above-ground treatment measures with the goal of treating and retaining as much stormwater on-site as possible. This can be accomplished through permeable paving surfaces or rain gardens placed throughout the site. If the applicant can only rely on subsurface storrnwater treatment, then we recommend the Village require the applicant to submit an enforceable maintenance plan to ensure this infrastructure does not fill up with sediment, and remains operable into the future. 7. Green building technolozy and bicycle parking. We encourage the applicant to consider using as much green building technology as possible in the proposed development. We also encourage the applicant to consider providing a bicycle storage area for residents. This would be a low cost way of promoting non-motorized transportation in the immediate area, particularly since there are a number of businesses and services within close biking distance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Respectfully, WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD -2t Edward Buroughs, AICP Commissioner EEB LH cc: Michael Dispenza,Contract Administrator,County Department of Public Works and Transportation Kevin Roseman,Traffic Engineer,County Department of Public Works and Transportation Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 -Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not,or may,result in a significant adverse environmental impact. Based on the analysis in Part 3,the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assess the proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page,the lead agency can complete its determination of significance. Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section: • Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity, size or extent of an impact. • Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope,duration,probability of the impact occurring,number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur. • The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes. • Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not,or may,result in a significant adverse environmental impact. • Provide the reason(s)why the impact may,or will not,result in a significant adverse environmental impact • For Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s)imposed that will modify the proposed action so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result. • Attach additional sheets,as needed. See Attachment,'Reasons Supporting This Determination." Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions SEQR Status: ❑ Type 1 ©Unlisted Identify portions of EAT completed for this Project: ❑✓ Part 1 ❑✓ Part 2 ©Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF,as noted,plus this additional support information the analyses and additional information provided by the Applicant to supplement the Full Environmental Assessment Form,Part 1.dated 10/27/14, including correspondence from the Applicant and its consultants,Village of Rye Brook staff and consultants,and other agencies received by the Village of Rye Brook during the review; and considering both the magnitude and importance of each identified potential impact,it is the conclusion of the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board as lead agency that: ❑✓ A. This project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment,and,therefore,an environmental impact statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. ❑ B. Although this project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment,that impact will be avoided or substantially mitigated because of the following conditions which will be required by the lead agency: There will,therefore,be no significant adverse impacts from the project as conditioned,and,therefore,this conditioned negative declaration is issued. A conditioned negative declaration may be used only for UNLISTED actions(see 6 NYCRR 617.d). ❑ C. This Project may result in one or more significant adverse impacts on the environment,and an environmental impact statement must be prepared to further assess the impact(s)and possible mitigation and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts. Accordingly,this positive declaration is issued. Name of Action: Bowman Plaza Name of Lead Agency: Village of Rye Brook Planning Board Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Gary J.Zuckerman Title of Responsible Officer: Planning Board Chairman Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency: Date: June 11,2015 Signature of Preparer(if different from Responsible Officer) Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, FP Clark Associates Date: June 11,2015 For Further Information: Contact Person: Christopher J. Bradbury Address: Rye Brook Village Hall,938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 Telephone Number: (914)939-1121 E-mail: cbradbury@ryebrook.org For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations,a copy of this Notice is sent to: Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located(e.g.,Town/City/Village of) Other involved agencies(if any) Applicant(if any) Environmental Notice Bulletin: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/enb.html Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 2- Identification of Potential Project Impacts Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency's reviewer(s)will not necessarily be environmental professionals. So,the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2,the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed,the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area,complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. Tips for completing Part 2: • Review all of the information provided in Part 1. • Review any application,maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook. • Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2. • If you answer"Yes"to a numbered question,please complete all the questions that follow in that section. • If you answer"No"to a numbered question,move on to the next numbered question. • Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact. • Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agency checking the box"Moderate to large impact may occur." • The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis. • If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general question and consult the workbook. • When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity,that is,the"whole action". • Consider the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts. • Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project. 1. Impact on Land Proposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, El No ❑✓YES the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1) If"Yes", answer questions a-J. If`No, move on to Section 2. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is E2d © ❑ less than 3 feet. b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15%or greater. Elf © ❑ c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed,or Eta © ❑ generally within 5 feet of existing ground surface. d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tons D2a © ❑ of natural material. c. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year Dle © ❑ or in multiple phases. f The proposed action may result in increased erosion,whether from physical D2e,D2q © ❑ disturbance or vegetation removal(including from treatment by herbicides). g. The proposed action is,or may be,located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. Bli © ❑ h. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Page 1 of 10 2. Impact on Geological Features The proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, ONO ❑YES minerals,fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g) If "Yes", answer questions a-c. I `No", move on to Section 3. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a.Identify the specific land form(s)attached: E2g ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a E3c ❑ ❑ registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: c. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 3. Impacts on Surface Water The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water ❑✓NO ❑YES bodies (e.g., streams,rivers,ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If"Yes", answer questions a - 1. If`No'; move on to Section 4. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may create a new water body. D2b,Dlh ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10%or more than a D2b ❑ ❑ 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material D2a ❑ ❑ from a wetland or water body. d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or E2h ❑ ❑ tidal wetland,or in the bed or banks of any other water body. e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody,either from upland erosion, D2a,D2h ❑ ❑ runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments. f The proposed action may include construction of one or more intakc(s)for withdrawal D2c ❑ ❑ of water from surface water. g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s)for discharge D2d ❑ ❑ of wastewater to surface watcr(s). h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion,or otherwise create a source of D2c ❑ ❑ stormwatcr discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies. i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or E2h ❑ ❑ downstream of the site of the proposed action. j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or D2q,E2h ❑ ❑ around any water body. k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, Dla,D2d ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities. Page 2 of 10 1. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 4. Impact on groundwater The proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or WINO ❑YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a,D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If"Yes", answer questions a - h. If"No", move on to Section 5. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demand D2c ❑ ❑ on supplies from existing water supply wells. b.Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainable D2c ❑ ❑ withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer. Cite Source: c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water and Dla,D2c ❑ ❑ sewer services. d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater. D2d,E21 ❑ ❑ e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locations D2c,E If, ❑ ❑ where groundwater is,or is suspected to be,contaminated. Elg,Elh f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products D2p,E21 ❑ ❑ over ground water or an aquifer. g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 E2h,D2q, ❑ ❑ feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources. E21,D2c h. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 5. Impact on Flooding The proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. ❑✓ NO ❑YES (See Part 1. E.2) If"Yes", answer questions a - a. If`No'; move on to Section 6. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway. Eli ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain. E2j ❑ ❑ c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain. Elk ❑ ❑ d. The proposed action may result in,or require,modification of existing drainage D2b,D2e ❑ ❑ patterns. e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. D2b,Eli, ❑ ❑ E2j,Elk f.If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action,is the dam in need of repair, E l e ❑ ❑ or upgrade? Page 3 of 10 g. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 6. Impacts on Air The proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. ENO ❑YES (See Part 1. D.2.f.,D,2,h, D.2.g) If "Yes", answer questions a-f If`No", move on to Section 7. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a.If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits,the action may also emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels: i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide(CO2) D2g ❑ ❑ ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide(N20) D2g ❑ ❑ iii.More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons(PFCs) D2g ❑ ❑ iv.More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride(SF6) D2g ❑ ❑ v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of D2g ❑ ❑ hydrochloroflourocarbons(HFCs)emissions vi.43 tons/year or more of methane D2h ❑ ❑ b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designated D2g ❑ ❑ hazardous air pollutant,or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardous air pollutants. c. The proposed action may require a state air registration,or may produce an emissions D2f,D2g ❑ ❑ rate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs.per hour,or may include a heat source capable of producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. d. The proposed action may reach 50%of any of the thresholds in"a"through"c", D2g ❑ ❑ above. e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1 D2s ❑ ❑ ton of refuse per hour. f. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 7. Impact on Plants and Animals The proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) W1 NO ❑YES I "Yes'; answer questions a J. If`No", move on to Section 8. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a.The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of any Ego ❑ ❑ threatened or endangered species,as listed by New York State or the Federal government,that use the site,or are found on,over,or near the site. b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by Ego ❑ ❑ any rare,threatened or endangered species,as listed by New York State or the federal government. c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population,or loss of individuals,of any E2p ❑ ❑ species of special concern or conservation need,as listed by New York State or the Federal government,that use the site,or are found on,over,or near the site. d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by E2p ❑ ❑ any species of special concern and conservation need,as listed by New York State or the Federal government. Page 4 of 10 e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural E3c ❑ ❑ Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect. f. The proposed action may result in the removal of,or ground disturbance in, any E2n ❑ ❑ portion of a designated significant natural community. Source: g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding,foraging,or Elm ❑ ❑ over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, Elb ❑ ❑ grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat. Habitat type&information source: i.Proposed action(commercial, industrial or recreational projects,only) involves use of D2q ❑ ❑ herbicides or pesticides. j. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ S. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) ❑✓NO ❑YES I "Yes", answer questions a- h. If`No", move on to Section 9. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the Etc,E3b ❑ ❑ NYS Land Classification System. b. The proposed action may sever,cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land Ela,Elb ❑ ❑ (includes cropland,hayfields,pasture,vineyard,orchard,etc). c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of E3b ❑ ❑ active agricultural land. d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural Elb,E3a ❑ ❑ uses,either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District,or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District. e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land El a,Elb ❑ ❑ management system. f. The proposed action may result,directly or indirectly,in increased development C2c,C3, ❑ ❑ potential or pressure on farmland. D2c,D2d g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland C2c ❑ ❑ Protection Plan. h. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Page 5 of 10 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in WINO []YES sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.l.a,E.l.b, E.31) U""Yes", answer questions a -g. U—"No", go to Section 10. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a.Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state,or local E3h ❑ ❑ scenic or aesthetic resource. b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction,elimination or significant E3h,C2b ❑ ❑ screening of one or more officially designated scenic views. c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: E3h i. Seasonally(e.g.,screened by summer foliage,but visible during other seasons) ❑ ❑ ii.Year round ❑ ❑ d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed E3h action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work E2q, ❑ ❑ ii.Recreational or tourism based activities Elc ❑ ❑ e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and E3h ❑ ❑ appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource. f There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed Dla,Ela, ❑ ❑ project: Dlf,Dlg 0-1/2 mile '/2-3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile g. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological ❑✓ NO ❑YES resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, £ and g.) If"Yes", answer questions a -e. If "No", go to Section 11. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous E33 ❑ ❑ to,any buildings,archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places. b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous E3f ❑ ❑ to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory. c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous E3 ❑ ❑ to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: Page 6 of 10 d. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ e.If any of the above(a-d)are answered"Yes",continue with the following questions to help support conclusions in Part 3: i. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or part E3e,E3g, ❑ ❑ of the site or property. E3f ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property's setting or E3e,E3f, ❑ ❑ integrity. E3g,Ela, Elb iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which E3e,E3f, ❑ ❑ are out of character with the site or property,or may alter its setting. E3g,E3h, C2,C3 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a F✓ NO ❑YES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adopted municipal open space plan. (See Part 1. C.2.c, E.l.c.,E.2.q.) I "Yes", answer questions a-e. I `No", go to Section 12. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions,or"ecosystem D2e,Elb ❑ ❑ services",provided by an undeveloped area,including but not limited to stormwater E2h, storage,nutrient cycling,wildlife habitat. Elm,Ego, E2n,E2 b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource. C2a,Etc, ❑ ❑ C2c,E2 c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an area C2a,C2c ❑ ❑ with few such resources. Etc,E2q d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used infonnally by the C2c,Etc ❑ ❑ community as an open space resource. e. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas The proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical F✓ NO ❑YES environmental area(CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d) If"Yes", answer questions a -c. If`No'; go to Section 13. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource or E3d ❑ ❑ characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or E3d ❑ ❑ characteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA. c. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Page 7 of 10 13. Impact on Transportation The proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. ❑NO ❑✓ YES (See Part 1. D.2.j) If"Yes", answer questions a-g, I `No", go to Section 14. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a.Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. D2j © ❑ b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 or D2j © ❑ more vehicles. e. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. D2j © ❑ d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. D2j © ❑ e.The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. D2j © ❑ f Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 14. Impact on Energy The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. ❑NO ❑✓ YES (See Part 1. D.2.k) If"Yes", answer questions a -e. If`No'; go to Section 15. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action will require a new,or an upgrade to an existing, substation. D2k © ❑ b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission Dlf, © ❑ or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve a Dlq,D2k commercial or industrial use. c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity. D2k © ❑ d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 square D 1 g © ❑ feet of building area when completed. e.Other Impacts: ❑ ❑ 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light The proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. ❑✓ NO ❑YES (See Part 1. D.2.m.,n., and o.) If"Yes", answer questions a -.f I `No'; go to Section 16. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by local D2m ❑ ❑ regulation. b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence, D2m,Eld ❑ ❑ hospital, school,licensed day care center,or nursing home. c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. D2o ❑ ❑ Page 8 of 10 d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. D2n ❑ ❑ c. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existing D2n,Ela ❑ ❑ area conditions. f. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ 16. Impact on Human Health The proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure ❑NO ❑✓ YES to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.) If "Yes", answer questions a - m. I `No", go to Section 17. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may cccur occur a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school,hospital,licensed day Eld © ❑ care center,group home,nursing home or retirement community. b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. Elg,Elh © ❑ c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation,or a completed environmental site Elg,E 1 h © ❑ remediation on, or adjacent to,the site of the proposed action. d. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the Elg,Elh © ❑ property(e.g.,casement or deed restriction). c. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place Elg,Elh © ❑ to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. f The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future D2t © ❑ generation,treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of the environment and human health. g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid waste D2q,Elf © ❑ management facility. h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. D2q,Elf © ❑ i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal,or processing,of D2r,D2s © ❑ solid waste. j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet of Elf,Elg © ❑ a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. E 1 h k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill Elf,Elg © ❑ site to adjacent off site structures. 1. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the D2s,Elf, © ❑ project site. D2r in. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Page 9 of 10 17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. F_]NO WIYES (See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If"Yes", answer questions a- h. If`No", go to Section 18. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action's land use components may be different from,or in sharp C2,C3,Dla 0 ❑ contrast to,current surrounding land use pattern(s). Ela,Elb b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city,town or village C2 0 ❑ in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%. c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2,C2,C3 0 ❑ d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans,or other regional land use C2,C2 0 ❑ plans. c. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not C3,Dlc, 0 ❑ supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure. D 1 d,D 1 f, D 1 d,Elb f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development C4,D2c,D2d 0 ❑ that will require new or expanded public infrastructure. D21 g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts(e.g.,residential or C2a 0 ❑ commercial development not included in the proposed action) h. Other: ❑ ❑ 18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. ENO YES (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3) If"Yes", answer questions a-g, I `No", proceed to Part 3. Relevant No,or Moderate Part I small to large Question(s) impact impact may may occur occur a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures,or areas E3c,E3f,E3g ❑ ❑ of historic importance to the community. b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services(e.g. C4 schools,police and fire) c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where C2,C3,D If ❑ ❑ there is a shortage of such housing. D 1 g,E t a d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized C2,E3 ❑ ❑ or designated public resources. e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and C2,C3 ❑ ❑ character. f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2,C3 ❑ ❑ Ela,Elb Egg,E2h g. Other impacts: ❑ ❑ PRINT FULL FORM Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT EAF PART 3, NEGATIVE DECLARATION REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION ZONING PETITION, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS BOWMAN PLAZA, 80 BOWMAN AVENUE, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK, N.Y. Description of the Property The 21,982.06 square-foot subject property, located at 80 Bowman Avenue is comprised of three existing building lots, and is located in the FAH District, Section 141.27, Block 1, Lots 26, 31, and 32 on the Town of Rye Tax Map. The property was added to the FAH District when the Rye Brook Board of Trustees received a petition from the property owner, and subdivision and site plan applications to construct a 16-unit development that was approved on November 27, 2012 by the Board of Trustees. The FAH District zoning and development site plan approval remain in effect at this time; however, the subdivision plat combining the lots that comprise the property was not filed with the Westchester County Clerk's Office, so the subdivision approval expired. Tax Lot 26, which is 14,128.19 square feet, was developed, but is currently vacant, and Tax Lots 31 and 32, 4,173.21 square feet and 3,680.07 square feet respectively, are each developed with a one and one-half-story, single-family residence that would be demolished. Each of the lots has an existing curb cut on Barber Place. The corner lot, Lot 26, currently does not have a curb cut on Bowman Avenue. The three lots slope to the west away from the elevation of Bowman Avenue and there are mature landscape plants and naturalized trees and shrubs on all three lots. Description of the Proposed Action Bowman Plaza, LLC (Frank Madonna), property owner, submitted a petition to rezone the property into the C1 District, zoning text amendments, and applications for approval of a subdivision (lot merger) and a site plan to construct a three-story mixed-use retail/residential building. As originally submitted the mixed-use building consisted of 4,100 square feet of ground-floor retail space, and 19 residential apartments, with a total of 44 parking spaces located under the building and in two street-level parking areas on the subject property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bowman Avenue and Barber Place. Construction also would include stormwater management I facilities, site lighting, a curb cuts on Bowman Avenue and Barber Place, pedestrian walkways and public sidewalks, landscaping and other new associated site features. The Applicant revised the Proposed Action to respond to the concerns and comments received from the Planning Board and its consultants, and the Village of Rye Brook staff. The Applicant's finally revised Proposed Action would construct a three-story mixed-use building consisting of 2,400 square feet of ground-floor retail space and a total of 16 apartments, with 38 parking spaces located under the building and in two street-level parking areas. The residential component of the development would include eight one- bedroom and eight two-bedroom apartments. Each apartment includes a 64 square-foot balcony or terrace. The revised Proposed Action also includes a subdivision application to combine the lots that comprise the property required by Section 250-6 A. (2) (a) of the Rye Brook Code, and a petition to the Board of Trustees to amend the Zoning Map of the Village to remove the property from the FAH District and include the property within the C1 District. However, the revised Proposed Action no longer includes a request for zoning text amendments of the C1 District. Instead, the Applicant requests certain variances from the C1 District regulations from the Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals. The revisions to the site plan also include a mountable-curb emergency entrance into the site from Barber Place, which will allow fire engine aerial access to the building. The revised site plan eliminates the vehicular exit from the parking area adjacent to Bowman Avenue onto Barber Place and one parking space to allow cars in the parking area to turn around and exit onto Bowman Avenue using the same curb cut as the entrance to the site from Bowman Avenue. Evaluation of Potential Impacts Review of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and additional information provided by the Applicant, and completion of Part 2 of the EAF demonstrated that there are no potential adverse impacts from the Proposed Action with respect to geologic features, surface water, ground water flooding, air, plants and animals, agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, historic and archeological resources, open space and recreation, a Critical Environmental Area, and consistency with community character, primarily because the Proposed Action is located in a developed neighborhood on already developed lots. Any temporary impacts to air and water during construction will be limited by the implementation of a construction management and logistics plan and use of best practices with respect to demolition, construction and erosion and sediment control. 2 Certain small to moderate potential impacts related to rezoning the subject property and the development plan for the Proposed Action were identified in Part 2 of the EAF. These impacts include: 1. potential impacts to land regarding construction on improved and vacant land, and alteration of storm water run-off regarding the potential for increased run-off from new impervious surfaces; 2. impacts to transportation systems regarding the potential for increased traffic and parking demand; 3. increased energy demand; 4. impacts to public health and safety regarding the potential presence of hazardous subsurface materials; and 5. consistency with community plans. The assessment in Part 2 of the EAF identified that there may be potential adverse impacts from the Proposed Action with respect to land, transportation and parking, energy, and human health and safety as follows: 1. Land. The Proposed Action involves the demolition of existing buildings, the clearing and excavation of land, and the construction of new buildings and site improvements that have the potential to cause erosion. However, a stormwater management plan, and construction management and logistics plan that includes erosion and sediment control will be implemented during construction to limit any minor impacts to land that may occur. Existing vegetation that is removed will be replaced by new landscape material. The property was developed in the past and it is located in a fully developed area of Rye Brook. The new residential/retail building would be landscaped and maintained similarly to other occupied properties in the neighborhood. The site plan includes a landscape plan that would help to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed building and the proposed building height. The tree preservation plan would protect as many existing mature trees as is practical, and the landscape plan includes replacement trees for those trees to be removed. The construction management plan would include best management practices to eliminate or reduce any impacts related to removal of vegetation, grading, and excavation, including erosion and sediment control, traffic control, and creation of noise and airborne dust during construction. Increased run-off from new impervious surfaces will be mitigated by the development and implementation of a post-construction stormwater management plan for the site. 2. Transportation and Parking. Concerns regarding the impact of increased residential and commercial traffic were analyzed by a traffic impact study provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the Planning Board and its consultants. 3 Housing more people on the lot and adding retail space would increase vehicular traffic in the local area, which may impact current local traffic conditions by increasing traffic congestion. However, the increase in traffic may be reduced compared to what it would be in other areas of Rye Brook because the development would be located within walking distance to schools, shopping and public transportation, which reduces the need to use a car for many of residents' daily errands and destinations. Although it is anticipated that the development would generate additional traffic, the level of additional traffic is not expected to have a significant impact on area roads; however, there may be minor increases in the traffic congestion on Barber Place and Franklin Street. A parking demand study and shared parking analysis provided by the Applicant and reviewed by the Planning Board's consultant indicated that the number of parking spaces proposed would be sufficient to accommodate the increased parking demand generated by the Proposed Action. Any temporary impacts to transportation and parking during construction will be limited by the implementation of a construction management and logistics plan and at a minimum compliance with the requirements of the Rye Brook Code with respect to construction scheduling and working hours. 3. Energy. The construction of the mixed-use building would create an increase in the demand for electrical energy; however, the expected increase for 16 new apartments and a 2,400 square-foot retail use would be a relatively small impact to the existing resources of the local utility. 4. Human Health and Safety. All of the building lots that comprise the subject property were developed in the past, and dwellings are currently situated on the two tax lots that front on Barber Place. The buildings on the remaining building lots that comprise the tax lot situated at the corner of Barber Place and Bowman Avenue were demolished some time ago, so this portion of the property is currently vacant. The two existing homes and the home that was demolished may have caused the deposition of unknown hazardous materials on the site. In addition, the property is adjacent to a dry cleaning business and a former automotive service station, two enterprises that are known to use hazardous materials in the conduct of business that could migrate underground to the subject property from leaking storage containers or spills. A Phase 1 Investigation regarding the potential for hazardous materials was performed. The Phase 1 Report indicated there is potential for hazardous materials on the site based on the presence of older homes on the lots and the proximity of 4 the property to sites where there is known hazardous material use and documented spills of hazardous substances. Therefore, a Phase 2 Subsurface Soil Investigation that included soil and ground water sampling and testing for suspected substances was conducted. The Phase 2 Investigation Report indicates that contamination from adjacent sites has not migrated onto the subject property. The Phase 2 Investigation Report was reviewed by the Village's technical engineering consultant, HDR that provided a report dated November 21, 2012. None of the suspected compounds were found on the subject property in any sample tested with the exception of one ground water sample that indicated the presence of acetone. However, the presence of acetone may be a laboratory artifact. The reporting of levels of acetone in samples tested in laboratories is common. As the municipal water supply will provide potable water to the development, the presence of acetone in the water is not considered a significant hazard. Any temporary impacts related to the handling and disposal of hazardous materials during construction will be limited by the implementation of a construction management and logistics plan that includes dust, and air quality monitoring, a Health and Safety Plan for the construction site, and use of best practices with respect to demolition and hazardous materials handling and disposal during construction. The construction management plan will include discussion regarding potential construction impacts and proposed mitigation measures, that will include, but not be limited to, compliance with local regulations, demolition, phasing, estimated construction traffic and construction parking arrangements, noise impacts, air quality protection, materials delivery, storage and staging, hazardous materials handling, a site safety plan, public safety precautions to be implemented, etc. 5. Consistency with Community Plans. The property is located in a fully developed area of Rye Brook and on lots that were developed in the past. The new residential/retail building would be landscaped and maintained similarly to other occupied properties in the neighborhood. The Westchester County Planning Board has determined the Proposed Action to be generally consistent with the Westchester County Planning Board's long range planning policies as set forth in "Westchester 2025." Though the Proposed Action includes a set back and parking along the Bowman Avenue frontage, which are inconsistent with Westchester County policies, in this case, the Proposed Action is located on a lot situated between a residential area and a commercial area that can support a mixed-use commercial/residential building with a similar setback and parking pattern to the surrounding existing commercial and residential buildings, 5 so as to act as a transition between the existing residential properties to the east and the existing commercial properties to the north and west. Although the proposed apartments are larger than recommended, and the building is setback from the street, the Proposed Action is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Rye Brook Comprehensive Plan in that it is a mixed-use building with increased density and height. It has a limited number of parking spaces because the parking spaces are shared between two proposed uses reducing the total number of spaces required. It ties into and improves the public pedestrian circulation system by providing public sidewalks on Barber Place and Bowman Avenue. It complies with the allowable FAR of the Cl District and adds to the available housing choices in Rye Brook. The proposed building was designed to be compatible in appearance and exterior design with other buildings in the surrounding existing neighborhood. 6 June 23, 2015 R- 2 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION(ENERGY)PROGRAM IN THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WHEREAS,a Community Choice Aggregation Energy Program will provide residents of the Village of Rye Brook the opportunity to save money through an alternate energy service company("ESCO")without diminishing the current level of service;and WHEREAS,the Village wishes to partner with Sustainable Westchester to establish a community choice aggregation energy program in the Village of Rye Brook. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby authorizes the proposed legislation to establish a Community Choice Aggregation Energy Program in conjunction with Sustainable Westchester in the Village of Rye Brook. LOCAL LAW NO. —2015 A LOCAL LAW TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM IN THE Be it enacted by the of the County of Westchester as follows: Section 1. The Code of the is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter entitled "COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM," to read as follows: ARTICLE I §1. Legislative Findings; Intent and Purpose; Authority. A. It is the policy of both the and the State of New York to reduce costs and provide cost certainty for the purpose of economic development, to promote deeper penetration of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources such as wind and solar, and wider deployment of distributed energy resources as well as to examine the retail energy markets and increase participation of and benefits for residential and Small Commercial customers in those markets. Among the policies and models that may offer benefits in New York is community choice aggregation, which allows local governments to determine the default supplier of electricity and natural gas on behalf of its residential and Small Commercial customers. B. The purpose of this CCA Program is to allow participating local governments including the to procure energy supply service for their residential and Small Commercial customers, who will have the opportunity to opt out of the procurement, while maintaining transmission and distribution service from the existing Distribution Utility. This Chapter establishes a program that will allow the to put out for bid the total amount of natural gas and/or electricity being purchased by local residential and Small Commercial customers. Bundled Customers will have the opportunity to have more control to lower their overall energy costs, to spur clean energy innovation and investment, to improve customer choice and value, and to protect the environment; thereby, fulfilling the purposes of this Chapter and fulfilling an important public purpose. C. The is authorized to implement this COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM pursuant to Section 10(1)(11)(a)(12) of the New York Municipal Home Rule Law; and State of New York Public Service Commission Case No. 14-M-0564, Petition of Sustainable Westchester for Expedited Approval for the Implementation of a Pilot Community Choice Aggregation Program within the County of Westchester, Order Granting Petition in Part (issued February 26, 2015) as may be amended, including subsequent orders of the Public Service Commission issued in connection with or related to Case No. 14-M-0564 (collectively, the "Order"). Order shall also mean orders of the Public Service Commission related to State of New York Public Service Commission Case No. 14-M-0224, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Enable Community Choice Aggregation Programs (issued December 15, 2104) to the extent that orders related to Case No. 14-M-0224 enable actions by the C&F:2785410.2 not otherwise permitted pursuant to orders related to Case 14-M-0564; provided, however, that in the event of any conflict between orders from Case No. 14-M- 0564 and orders from Case No 14-M-0224, orders from Case No 14-M-0564 shall govern the CCA Program. D. This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM Law of the ". §2. Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, and unless otherwise expressly stated or unless the context otherwise requires, the terms in this Chapter shall have the meanings employed in the State of New York Public Service Commission's Uniform Business Practices or, if not so defined there, as indicated below: Bundled Customers — Residential and Small Commercial customers of electricity or natural gas ("fuels") who are purchasing the fuels from the Distribution Utility. Small Commercial-Non-residential customers as permitted by the Order. Community Choice Aggregation Program or CCA Program— A municipal energy procurement program, which replaces the incumbent utility as the default Supplier for all Bundled Customers within the Distribution Utility — Owner or controller of the means of distribution of the natural gas or electricity that is regulated by the Public Service Commission. Public Service Commission—New York State Public Service Commission. Suppliers — Energy service companies (ESCOs) that procure electric power and natural gas for Bundled Customers in connection with this Chapter or, alternatively, generators of electricity and natural gas or other entities who procure and resell electricity or natural gas. Sustainable Westchester — A not-for-profit organization comprised of member municipalities in Westchester County, New York. §3. Establishment of a COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) Program. A. A COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION (ENERGY) PROGRAM is hereby established by the , whereby the shall work together with Sustainable Westchester to implement the CCA Program to the full extent permitted by the Order, as set forth more fully herein. The 's role under the CCA Program involves the aggregating of the energy and/or gas supply of its residents and the entering into a contract with one or more Suppliers for supply and services. Under the CCA Program, the operation and ownership of the utility service shall remain with the Distribution Utility. B. The 's purchase of energy supply through a CCA Program constitutes neither the purchase of a public utility system, nor the furnishing of utility service. The will not take over any part of the electric or gas transmission or C&F:2785410.2 2 distribution system and will not furnish any type of utility service, but will instead negotiate with Suppliers on behalf of participating residential and Small Commercial customers. C. The Public Service Commission supervises retail markets and participants in these markets through legislative and regulatory authority and the Uniform Business Practices, which includes rules relating to the eligibility of participating ESCOs, the operation by which ESCOs provide energy services, and the terms on which customers may be enrolled with ESCOs. §4. Procedures for Eligibility; Customer Data Sharing. A. As permitted by the Order, the may request from the Distribution Utilities aggregated customer information by fuel type and service classification on a rolling basis. B. Sustainable Westchester, on behalf of the , shall issue one or more requests for proposals to Suppliers to provide energy to participants and may then award a contract in accordance with the CCA Program. C. Sustainable Westchester or the if the so chooses, will then request individual customer data from the Distribution Utility in accordance with the CCA Program. D. Sustainable Westchester or the if the so chooses, and the selected Supplier will then notify Bundled Customers of the contract terms and their opportunity to opt out of the CCA Program. E. In accordance with and for purposes of the Order, the existing Distribution Utility, [Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and/or New York State Electric & Gas Corporation] will provide to Sustainable Westchester aggregate and customer-specific data (including usage data, capacity tag obligations, account numbers, and service addresses) of all Bundled Customers in the not currently enrolled with an ESCO. F. Sustainable Westchester and the , will protect customer information as required by law, subject to the Order and the limitations of the New York State Freedom of Information Law. §5. Choice of Energy Supplier; Opt-Out Notice and Procedure. A. The or in conjunction with the ESCO will notify its residential and Small Commercial customers, by letter notice, of the 's decision to establish the CCA Program, of the contract terms with an ESCO, and of the opportunity to opt out of the CCA Program. B. The letter notice will be sent to each customer at the address provided by the Distribution Utility and explain the CCA Program and the material provisions of the ESCO contract, identify the methods by which the customer can opt out of the CCA Program, and provide information on how the customer can access additional information about the CCA Program. C. The opt-out period shall be twenty(20) days. C&F:2785410.2 3 D. CCA Program Bundled Customers, upon enrollment, will receive a welcome letter that will explain the customers' options for canceling the enrollment if they believe they were enrolled incorrectly or otherwise decide to withdraw from the CCA Program in favor of another Supplier. The welcome letter also will explain that residential customers are entitled to the added protection of the mandated Three (3) Day rescission period as detailed in Section 5(B)(3) of the Uniform Business Practices. §6. Verification and Reporting. A. Sustainable Westchester shall be responsible for filing an annual report with the Public Service Commission, which identifies the number of customers enrolled in the CCA Program by municipality and customer class, the number of customers who returned to utility service or service with another Supplier during the reporting period, and the average cost of commodity supply by month for the reporting period. Section 2. This local law shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. C&F:2785410.2 4 RES. 2015 SUPPORT OF COUNTY-WIDE EFFORT TO BAN SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAGS AND EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE CONTAINERS WHEREAS, plastic bags often are discarded into the environment and end up polluting our waterways, clogging sewers, endangering marine life and causing unsightly litter that last hundreds of years and are a potential source of harmful chemicals when they do break down; and WHEREAS, the [City/Town or Village of ] has a proud history of environmental stewardship, [insert relevant environmental legislative action]; and WHEREAS, the Westchester County Board of Legislators is considering an ordinance prohibiting the use of single-use plastic bags at the point of sale as well as expanded polystyrene containers throughout the entire county and encourages the utilization of re- usable bags and other recyclable and bio-degradable products; and WHEREAS, it will be most effective to have a county wide policy regulating plastic bag distribution at the point of sale and expanded polystyrene containers rather than a piecemeal approach that would be different in each municipality. This will be less costly to local governments and less confusing for residents; and WHEREAS, while all county residents would realize the environmental benefits of such a program, [downstream/coastaUriverine] communities such as the [City/Town or Village of ] would realize benefits of reduced debris in its streams and rivers as well as improved water quality in [insert relevant body of water: Long Island Sound, Hudson River, etc]; and WHEREAS, that efforts undertaken on a regional level that will have positive impacts for the region as a whole and for the [City/Town or Village of ] individually; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the [City/Town or Village of ] urges Westchester County to adopt a law which would ban the use of single-use plastic bags at the point of sale and expanded polystyrene containers. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the [City/Town or Village of ] requests that the [City/Town or Village Manager or Clerk] forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Clerk of the Westchester County Board of Legislators and the Westchester County Executive Robert P. Astorino. Christopher Bradbury From: Jason Klein <mainetype@aol.com> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 SA7 PM To: Christopher Bradbury Subject: Fwd: Meeting Thursday at 7:30 Minutes and Agenda to come Attachments: FinalTemplate Resolution to support Countywide Plastic Bag Ban (2).docx; ATTOOOOLhtm; Bill Memo-Plastic Bag Ban.docx; ATT00002.htm Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Completed Another item for the next board meeting that I'd like to add. We had looked into this issue in the past but wanted to let it play out in other municipalities to see where it was going. The county BOL has now taken up the issue. See draft legislation in email below. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Ashley Welde <ashley@wefaturecycle.com> Date: June 1, 2015 at 1:42:19 PM EDT To: Jason Klein<mainetype@aol.com> Subject: Fwd: Meeting Thursday at 7:30 Minutes and Agenda to come Hello Jason, I wanted to follow up with you on Stephanie's note about Rye Brook signing the resolution for the County plastic bag ban. Catherine Parker contacted me last week(and again today) about encouraging Rye Brook to sign the resolution, as I have been working with her on the legislation. So far the Town of Mamaroneck has signed, and the Village of Mamaroneck, Larchmont, Bedford, and Mount Kisco are slated to sign in the next two weeks. I will discuss the resolution at the Thursday Sustainability Committee meeting, but I was wondering about getting it on the agenda of an upcoming Village Board meeting. I know that one issue that prevented Rye Brook from passing a Village-wide ban was the proximity of our businesses to Port Chester's, but that there were additional circumstances which you and I were going to discuss but never connected on. Do you have time to discuss those before Thursday? Thank you! Ashley Ashley Welde We Future Cycle in. 917.733.3710 ashley@wefLiturecycle.com www.wefuturecycle.com i x❑ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephanie Fischer STEP <stephanie@stepvisual.com> Date: Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Meeting Thursday at 7:30 Minutes and Agenda to come To: Stephanie Fischer<stephanie@stepvisual.com> Cc: Ashley Welde <ashley@wefuturecycle.com>, Ryan Prime <Ryan.Prime@skanska.com>, Jason Klein<mainetype@aol.com>, "mvh4@verizon.net Veith-Heib" <mvh4@verizon.net>, Zach Schneider<sethschneider2000@yahoo.com>, "dhbacchioni@optonline.net Bacchioni" <dhbacchioni@optonline.net>, "robinwilligS@gmail.com" <robmwillig8@gmail.com>, Mickey Marks <mmarks e,lma-inc.com>, Michael Siegel<MSiegel(�eliasgroup.com> HI, Please let me know if you can not make our meeting this Thursday. Ashley Welde is going to come and give us an update on the County wide plastic bag ban movement. Please see attached documents from Ashley for an update. Looking forward to seeing everyone. Thank you Stephanie Stephanie Fischer STEP Visual Communications Traditional Printing +Untraditional Options Office: 800-306-0398 Cell: 917-282-3684 stephanie@stepvisual.com http://stepvisual.com/ 2 DRAFT WESTCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF LEGISLATORS MEMORANDUM OF LEGISLATION 4 DATE: October 17,2014 TITLE: Westchester County Plastic Bag& Styrofoam SPONSOR: Legislator: Parker PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: Prohibi the distribution and sale of plastic s at retail stores and Styrofoam containers at food service establishments distribution ounty. INTENT OF BILL: This bill shall restrict all retail establishments estchester County from selling or providing plastic bags to a customer at the point of sale. Plastic produ e ba", lastic bags measuring 28 inches by 36 inches or larger in size and garment bags that are made of plastic material with a single opening used to transport clothing from a dry cleaner will be exempt. Paper bags shall contain no old-growth fiber,be a 100%recyclable overall, contain a minimum of 40% post-consumer recycled content and display the words `Reusable" and"Recyclable" on the outside of the bag. AAL I AL * No food service establishments shall sell or provide containers that consist of expanded polystyrene. This will not apply to prepackaged food that has been filled and sealed prior to receipt by the retailer and any containR' aw sed to store raw meats, fish or poultry sold from a butcher case. This neis to be enfor ed by theestch ster County Department of Consumer Protection. Penalty for the first violation shall be $250, $500 fine for second and subsequent violations. JUSTIFICATI Plastics and Styrofoam live forever. These bags and containers are a significant source of pollution throughout our country and cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars each year in clean up. It is widely known that their toxic chemicals are destroying our oceans and killing marine life. However these toxins are also ingested by land wildlife and poison our food chain. This legislation will allow us to take an important step towards a healthier and cleaner environment by encourage consumers to use canvass bags and recyclable paper bags. PRESENT LAW: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: Positive. June 23,2015 R-4 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR THE POSTION OF RECREATION SUPERVISOR WHEREAS,Kyle P.Thornton of 611 Palmer Road,Unit 4-0,Yonkers,New York 10701 was promoted to Recreation Supervisor on September 24,2014;and WHEREAS, the probationary period for this position is no less than 12 weeks and no more than 52 weeks from the date of appointment;and WHEREAS, Kyle P. Thornton has successfully met the obligations of the probationary period NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby appoints Kyle P. Thornton of 611 Palmer Road,Unit 4-0, Yonkers, New York 10701 as a Permanent employee in the title of Recreation Supervisor with the Village of Rye Brook,subject to the Civil Service procedures of the State of New York. June 23, 2015 R-5 RESOLUTION TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION FOR A PUD CONCEPT PLAN, ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT IN CONNECTION WITH A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is considering an application by Buckingham Partners/Sun Homes (the "Applicant") seeking PUD Concept Plan approval, a zone change and zoning text amendment in connection with the proposed construction of a residential community consisting of 110 single-family dwelling units on real property located at 1100 King Street, further identified as Section 129.25, Block 1 and Lot 1 on the Town of Rye Tax Map; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2015, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution declaring the application an Unlisted Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), authorizing the circulation of a Notice of Intent to declare itself Lead Agency for purposes of a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA and referring the application to the Rye Brook Planning Board for a report and recommendation thereon pursuant to Section 250-7.E.(4)(a)[3] of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, more than thirty (30) days have elapsed since circulation of the Board of Trustees' Notice of Intent, and no challenge has been filed; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2015, the Rye Brook Planning Board approved the submission of a positive report and recommendation to the Board of Trustees in favor of the application. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board herby declares itself Lead Agency for purposes of a coordinated environmental review of the application pursuant to SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees shall hold a Public Hearing on the application on July 28, 2015 at 7:30 p.m., at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York, to consider the application for approval; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant is directed to comply with Section 250-40 of the Village Code regarding notification. June 11, 2015 APPROVED 7-0 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY BUCKINGHAM PARTNERS/SUN HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN, ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rye Brook Planning Board hereby submits the attached Report and Recommendation, as amended, to the Rye Brook Board of Trustees on an application by Buckingham Partners/Sun Homes for approval of a Concept Plan, zone change and zoning text amendment for a residential community of 110 single- family dwelling units on real property located at 1100 King Street. On a motion by Ms. Schoen, second by Mr. Goodman, Mr. Michael Nowak, Village Engineer, called the roll: APPROVING THE REFERRAL RESOLUTION: Ayes: ACCURSO, GOODMAN, GRZAN, MORLINO, SCHOEN, TARTAGLIA, ZUCKERMAN Nays: Abstain: Excused: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY BUCKINGHAM PARTNERS/SUN HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN, ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET I. APPLICATION OVERVIEW The Rye Brook Board of Trustees is currently considering an application by Buckingham Partners/Sun Homes ("Applicant") for approval of a PUD Concept Plan, zone change and zoning text amendment for a residential community consisting of 110 dwelling units on real property located at 1100 King Street (the "Property"). Specifically, the Applicant seeks approval of a Concept Plan for the construction a residential community on Parcel 129.25-1-1, located directly behind the Reckson Executive Park (the "REP") on King Street, currently in the OB-1 Zoning District. The development will include 100 attached and detached market rate dwellings, 10 affordable housing units as well as a pool, club house, streets, on-street parking areas, communal open space and storm water retention areas. The Applicant has also mentioned the possibility of a local trail network as part of the project. To facilitate the project, the Applicant requests that the Board of Trustees re-zone the Property from the OB-1 to the PUD Zoning District and that the PUD zoning regulations be amended to allow the Board of Trustees to alter or waive certain floor area and buffer zone requirements to permit larger units than would otherwise be permitted in the PUD development. Proposed text changes were submitted to the Village on pages 4- 5 of the letter from William S. Null, Esq., dated February 10, 2015. On February 24, 2015, the Board of Trustees referred the application to the Planning Board for consideration and for a report and recommendation thereon pursuant to Section 209-3 of the Village Code. The Planning Board reviewed the application at its meetings on March 12, 2015; April 9, 2015; May 14, 2015, and June 11, 2015. In addition, the Planning Board members met with the Applicant for a site visit on April 25, 2015, at the Applicant's residential development in Darien, Connecticut, to observe the Applicant's work first-hand. IL MATERIALS REVIEWED The Planning Board reviewed the following printed materials in connection with its review of the application and preparation of the within Report and Recommendation: 1. Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 and EAF Mapper Summary 2. Traffic Impact Study by Maser Consulting, P.A., Hawthorne, N.Y., dated January 14, 2015 3. ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey prepared by Joseph Link, Mahopac, N.Y., dated as of January 26, 2015, signed February 9, 2015 4. Letter and Petition to the Mayor Rosenberg and the Board of Trustees prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated February 10, 2015 5. Memorandum to the Village Engineer and the Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering , P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. dated March 3, 2015 6. Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated March 9, 2015 7. Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated March 31, 2015 8. Letter to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated May 7, 2015 9. School Aged Children, Sun Homes, Rye Brook prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. no date 10.Revised Rendered Illustrative Plan, Affordable Home Plans and Elevations, illustrative plan prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., no date 11.Rendered Illustrative Plan, Home Plans and Elevations, illustrative plan prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., no date -2- 12.Memorandum and Revised Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Maser Consulting, P.A., Hawthorne, N.Y. dated April 15, 2015 13.Letter to Chairman and Planning Board prepared by Cuddy& Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated May 7, 2015 14.Rye Brook Emergency Service Task Force Review Memorandum to William Null, Esq. prepared by the Rye Brook Building and Fire Inspector, dated May 7, 2015 15.Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated May 13, 2015 16.Memorandum to the Village Engineer, Chairman and Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y., dated May 14, 2015 17.Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated May 19, 2015 18.Memorandum to Planning Board and Village Planning Consultant prepared by Maser Consulting, P.A., Hawthorne, N.Y., dated May 26, 2015 19.Letter to Chairman and Planning Board prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated May 27, 2015 20.Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated May 29, 2015 21.Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., date June 1, 2015 22.Engineer's Plans, prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Date SP-0.1 Illustrative Plan Undated SP-1.0 Conceptual Site Plan 02/09/15, revised 5/7/15, 5/13/15, 5/27/15 SP-2.0 Conceptual Grading &Utility Plan 02/09/15, revised 5/13/15 No Number Misc. site cross-sections and Undated, revised 5/13/15, floor plans 5/27/15 III. DISCUSSION The Planning Board, upon review of the aforementioned materials and based upon discussions at its March 12, April 9, May 14 and June 11, 2015 meetings, and the Darien site visit on April 25, 2015, makes the following observations, comments and recommendations with respect to the application: -3- A. General Comments The Planning Board notes that the scope of the Report and Recommendation is limited to review of the PUD Concept Plan, proposed re-zoning and zoning text amendments requested by the Applicant. Review at this stage is considered Phase 1 of the two-phased review for all Planned Unit Developments in the Village pursuant to Section 250-7(E)(4) of the Village Code. Phase II shall include subdivision approval (if applicable) and detailed site plan review, which shall include all necessary drawings, specifications and such details concerning covenants, easements, conditions and performance bonds. B. Affordable Housing Units 1. Configuration The proposal includes ten (10) affordable housing units clustered together near the northeast corner of the site. As currently proposed, these units will be architecturally indistinguishable and, like the market rate units, will feature full-length (i.e. 20 foot) driveways and garages located beneath the homes. They will also have screened and landscaped rear yards similar to those of the market rate units. They will also be the largest affordable housing units in the County to date. Originally, these units did not feature attached garages or driveways. Rather, attached garages were located across the street from the proposed units. In addition, the units stood out from the market rate units in that they were attached in groupings of five (split between two buildings) rather than being detached or grouped together in buildings of two or three units apiece. The Planning Board also noted that the units were clustered -4- together in the northeast corner of the property rather than being interspersed among the market rate units. Overall, the Planning Board favors the proposed design of the affordable units and commends the Applicant on developing a creative design that will make the units visually indistinguishable from the rest of the development. The changes made to these units so far will greatly enhance their cohesion with the rest of the proposal. However, the Planning Board continues to express concern over the clustering of the units in a single location. The Village Code requires: AFFH Units shall be physically integrated into the design of the development and shall be distributed among the various housing unit sizes ... in the same proportion as market-rate units in the development. The AFFH Units shall not be distinguishable from the market-rate units from the outside or building exteriors. Interior finishes and furnishings may differ in quality from those of the market-rate units. Village Code § 250-26.IF(4)(b). The Planning Board feels that clustering the units in a single area might violate this section of the Village Code and engender social separation between families residing in the affordable housing units and those residing in the rest of the development. Therefore, the Planning Board recommends that the Applicant give further consideration to the placement of the affordable housing units. 2. Maintenance Costs and Amenities The Planning Board asked the Applicant how the owners of the affordable units will be charged for maintenance of common improvements, such as landscaping and -5- access roads, and for use of recreational amenities, including the club house and pool. The Board cautioned the Applicant that excluding the owners of the affordable housing units from using the amenities may be viewed as discriminatory. The Board expressed doubt that the Applicant will be able to set up an organizational structure which creates two separate homeowners associations (one for the market rate unit owners and one for the affordable housing unit owners), or in the alternative, provide the affordable unit owners an a la carte option to purchase membership to use the amenities, without inviting discrimination claims. The Applicant explained that if the affordable housing unit owners are required to pay the same charges as the market rate unit owners, the cost will likely be more than the affordable unit owners can afford. Conversely, allowing the affordable housing units owners to pay less for the same amenities would require the market rate unit owners to subsidize the affordable housing units. An acceptable resolution of this issue still needs to be determined, but is more appropriately addressed during the Phase II site plan review. Regardless of the outcome, the Planning Board urges the Board of Trustees to seek a resolution which is consistent with the requirements for affordable housing units established by the Monitor appointed pursuant to the affordable housing settlement with the County and best achieves the Village's goal of fully-integrated affordable housing. -6- C. Traffic The Applicant provided a Traffic Impact Study by Maser Consulting, P.A., dated January 14, 2015, concerning the predicted traffic impacts associated with the Project. This study was later supplemented by memoranda from Maser dated April 15, 2015 and May 26, 2015. The Village Planning Consultant, Michael Galante, of F.P. Clark Associates, provided responsive comments to each of these documents in a series of memoranda dated March 31, 2015, May 19, 2015 and June 1, 2015. At the conclusion of his review of the Applicant's supplemented traffic study, Mr. Galante was satisfied that, with adjustment to traffic signal timing, the proposal will not cause significant adverse traffic impacts. The traffic signal timing adjustments would need to be approved by both the NYS DOT and the Connecticut DOT, which has jurisdiction over the intersection of Anderson Hill Road and King Street. The only outstanding comment from Mr. Galante is his recommendation that two dead ends located within the development be converted to turnabouts. Mr. Galante accepts the Applicant's representation that turnabouts at these locations are not feasible due to lack of available space, but noted that he will investigate the matter further during formal site plan review. Several Planning Board members continue to express concern about the scope of the Maser Study. It has been noted that the Study covers only two intersections: (i) Anderson Hill Road and King Street and (ii) International Drive and King Street. However, based on the size of the proposed development, the Planning Board members question whether there may be significant impacts on other intersections and roads as -7- well. The Planning Board observes that cumulative traffic impacts are slowly congesting many of the Village's heavily trafficked roadways and intersections, a condition which may worsen as a direct result of this development. Therefore, the Planning Board members feel that consideration should be given to expanding the scope of the Traffic Impact Study to determine if mitigation measures may be needed elsewhere than at the two intersections noted above. D. School Children The Applicant provided an undated analysis by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, entitled "School Aged Children, Sun Homes, Rve Brook" (the "Divney Analysis") concerning the estimated number of school aged children that will enter the Blind Brook/Rye Union Free School District if the Project is built as currently proposed. The Divney Analysis concluded that, depending on the methodology, either 39, 46 or 72 school aged children are expected to attend Blind Brook schools in connection with this Project. On review, the Village Planning Consultant, Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed of F.P. Clark Associates, concluded that the Divney Analysis was based on accepted methodology and assumptions used in calculating school aged children and, in fact, was based on more reliable assumptions than would have been used under the Rutgers Study standard, which is often used as a metric for the calculation of school aged children. However, at the Planning Board meeting on May 14, 2015, Chairman Zuckerman noted that the number of school aged children from the Bellefair development was significantly -8- greater than the number of school aged children estimated for that project. Doubt was also expressed regarding these numbers at a recent meeting of the Blind Brook School Board and at a joint meeting of the School Board and the Rye Brook Board of Trustees on June 8, 2015, during which it was claimed that more than 100 children could attend Blind Brook schools from the development. The Board members also noted that an increase in school aged children could also have an indirect impact on traffic in certain areas of the Village. Therefore, the Board of Trustees may wish to collect additional information on this subject to further assess the potential impact associated with school aged children generated by the development. E. Buffering The Board expressed concern over the level of screening separating the development and the REP parking lot to the north/northeast of the project site. In particular, the Planning Board felt that the buffer between the affordable housing units and the REP parking lot might not be sufficient to sufficiently screen the rear of those units from the parking lot. In response to these comments, the Applicant has increased the proposed buffer on this side of the project site from 30 feet to 50 feet. The Board remains concerned about the buffer, however, and has suggested that the Applicant contact the owner of the REP and explore whether the REP owner is be willing to give up or reduce some of the parking lot to increase the width of the buffer. In its letter of May 27, 2015, the Applicant stated that it contacted the owner of the REP concerning this issue and is awaiting a response. -9- F. Emergency Services The Applicant was provided with a Memorandum prepared by the Rye Brook Emergency Services Task Force (the "ESTF") concerning the Project. Although the Applicant has since addressed several of the comments set forth in the ESTF's memo, the Applicant deferred several items to the formal site plan review stage (Phase II). These items include: 1. Updating the site plan to reflect minimum 26 foot wide streets for 20 feet in length at each fire hydrant throughout the Project site; 2. Review of the road naming and numbering scheme with the ESTF; 3. Preparation of an emergency vehicle routing and turning radius plan; and 4. Line of sight calculations for the traffic signal at the intersection of International Drive and King Street. These items should be addressed at the appropriate time if this application moves forward under the current proposal. G. Zoning Text Amendment The proposed amendments to the PUD regulations would allow the Board of Trustees to waive dimensional requirements under the Village Zoning Ordinance to allow greater development within PUD developments. The proposed amendment mentions specifically the Board of Trustees' ability to waive the 9,000 square foot gross floor area limit prescribed for housing units in a PUD development if the applicant proposed affordable housing units equal to 10 percent of the market rate units proposed. The -10- amendment would also allow the Board of Trustees to reduce the mandatory buffer, as determined under Section 250-7(E)(2)(e) of the Village Code. The proposed amendment to Section 750-7.E.(3) reads: Authority. The Village Board shall be the municipal authority designated to grant approval for rezoning to a PUD District, as well as the PUD concept plan, after recommendation of the Planning Board. The Village Board shall retain the jurisdiction to waive dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for flexibility of design in the site plan, including but not limited to: La) The standards and requirements set forth in Section 250-7.E.(2)(d)f 11 may be waived to permit additional floor area to be developed in such PUD development, beyond the 9,000 square foot limit, if the development provides Affordable Housing equivalent to ten (10) percent in number of the market-rate dwelling units in such development, provided that such Affordable Housing is restricted for a fifty (50) year term consistent with the Westchester County settlement and is marketed in accordance with the terms of such settlement. tW The buffer areas set forth in Section 250-7.E.(2)(e) may be reduced where the PUD development abuts commercial office improvements. The Planning Board feels this text should be modified to insert the phrase "in whole or in part" following the word "waive" where it appears in Sections 250-7.E.(3) and 250-7.E.(3)(a). The effect of this additional text is to clarify that, in modifying the PUD bulk zoning requirements, the Board of Trustees retains authority to waive the bulk requirements or reduce them. Also, the legal cite to the County's affordable housing settlement should be inserted into the language in Section 250-7.E.(3)(b) to provide -11- specific reference to that matter. The Applicant heard these suggested changes and consented to them at the Planning Board meeting on June 11, 2015. In addition, as per the Planning Consultant's request, the Applicant should provide gross floor area calculations for all unit models showing what the gross floor area would be (a) if the walk-out basements and attached garages are factored into the gross floor area; and (b) if the walk-out basements are excluded from the gross floor area calculations. This information should be provided during the formal site plan stage (Phase II). H. COVENANTS, EASEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE BONDS Consistent with Section 250-7(E)(4)(b)(2) of the Village Code, the Applicant should provide the Board of Trustees with general information concerning any restrictive covenants, easements, conditions and/or performance bonds it expects will be needed as part of Phase II of the Application, with the understanding that preparation of actual transaction documents will not take place until the latter portion of Phase II of the application. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board hereby recommends to the Board of Trustees that the Application for a PUD Concept Plan, re-zoning and zoning text amendment be GRANTED, provided (i) the zoning text amendment should be revised as discussed herein, (ii) the Applicant should provide the information noted in Section H, -12- above; and (iii) the Applicant should address the following outstanding issues/comments during the formal site plan (Phase I1) of the application: 1. Develop a satisfactory method for charging the owners of the affordable housing units for maintenance of common improvements and use of the on-site amenities without overburdening them. 2. Demonstrate the infeasibility of turnabouts in the locations of the two dead ends depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. 3. Provide an explanation concerning the scope of the Maser Traffic Impact Study and demonstrate to the Board of Trustees that further analysis of roads and intersections beyond those covered in the existing study is not necessary. 4. Explore options for increasing or augmenting the proposed buffer between the affordable housing units and the REP parking lot. 5. Provide the gross floor area information requested by the Village Planning Consultant. 6. Address outstanding ESTF comments. In addition, the Board of Trustees should consider requiring that the Applicant disperse the affordable housing units among the market rate units in accordance with Section 250- 26.1.F.(4)(b) of the Village Code. Dated: Rye Brook, New York June 11, 2015 -13- On motion by Ms. Schoen, seconded by Mr. Goodman, Mr. Michael Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works, called the roll: APPROVED AT THE JUNE 11, 2015 MEETING OF THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF 7- to -0 ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Ayes: ACCURSO, GOODMAN, GRZAN, MORLINO, SCHOEN, TARTAGLIA, ZUCKERMAN Nays: Abstain: Excused: -14- V FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD, CONNECTICUT DAVID H. STOLMAN MEMORANDUM AICP,PP PRESIDENT MICHAEL A. GALANTE To: Gary Zuckerman and the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT Date: June 16, 2015 35o THEO.FREMDAVE. RYE, NEW YORK 10580 914 967-6540 Subject: Additional Traffic-Related Comments — Sun Homes at FAX: 914 967-6615 Reckson Executive Park, Rye Brook, New York (538.662) CONNECTICUT 203 255-3100 As requested, we have reviewed comments submitted by a member of the HUDSON VALLEY Planning Board and included in an email dated June 10, 2015. We offer the 845 297-6056 following responses for consideration by the Planning Board in its LONG ISLAND deliberations regarding the proposed residential development on the subject 5i6 364-4544 www.fpclark.com property: email@fpclark.com 1. Study Area Intersections — The Applicant's Traffic Report included two intersections in its analysis for potential impacts along King Street — the signalized intersections of King Street at International Drive and King Street at Anderson Hill Road. The member's comments suggested that additional intersections should have been included in the Study provided by the Applicant as follows: King Street at Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway ramp intersections/North Ridge Street; King Street at Arbor Drive; and, King Street at Blind Brook High School/Glenville Street. Based on information provided by the Applicant, the proposed development is estimated to generate 52 and 69 vehicle trips to King Street south of Anderson Hill Road during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. In any analysis this level of additional traffic must also be matched to the level of traffic under a future build condition on King Street south of the Anderson Hill Road intersection. For reference purposes, King Street, south of the Anderson Hill Road intersection, will have a two-way traffic volume of 2,146 and 1,936 vehicles during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. The addition of the FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT traffic related to the proposed residential development will result in a 2 and 3.6 percent increase in traffic during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, respectively. While this certainly represents an increase in traffic, as it relates to the current and future level of traffic on King Street, it is our opinion that the increase is insignificant. It is correct that all traffic and cumulative traffic increases result in additional delays; however, this level of traffic added to King Street, between Anderson Hill Road and the Parkway ramps, should not result in a significant increase in delay along King Street, although it may have an impact on motorists exiting side streets from Greenwich along this section of King Street. In reviewing the Traffic Study submitted by the Applicant, our office did not recommend any further Study at the Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway Interchange intersections because past experience and analyses of these intersections indicated there are delays during peak hours. In the past, the analyses completed for other projects resulted in discussions with the Town of Greenwich, Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), which clearly indicated that modifications to these intersections and King Street in the vicinity of the Parkway ramps were generally not feasible. Modification of these ramps and intersections is not the sole responsibility or in the control of the Village of Rye Brook or the NYSDOT. Discussions with the Town of Greenwich and ConnDOT has yielded limited options to modify these ramps, improve or change traffic control or modify pavement markings on the King Street Overpass due to limitations in pavement width and structural concerns regarding vehicles stopped on the bridge. Therefore, it was our opinion during the current review that additional analyses at these intersections would not result in any opportunity to modify traffic controls or improve traffic conditions. We acknowledge that there is traffic congestion at these ramps during peak hours, which is typical of many interchange ramps and intersections along the Hutchinson River Parkway in the immediate area. Any analyses of intersections to the south of the Parkway Interchange along King Street, which would be anticipated to result in smaller volumes than those noted above, may have a minor impact on the intersections. Any modification to these intersections would be limited to changing traffic signal timing. Therefore, the Traffic Analysis provided by the Applicant and the focus of our review on behalf of the Village was limited to the intersections near the subject property, which would receive the greatest impact from the proposed residential development. 2 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT RYE, NEW YORK FAIRFIELD,CONNECTICUT In our review, we also acknowledged that any traffic signal timing change at the intersection of King Street and Anderson Hill Road would be the sole responsibility of the Town of Greenwich, since this intersection is completely within the Town of Greenwich and not in the Village of Rye Brook. Therefore, the Village of Rye Brook and, for that matter, NYSDOT have no control over the traffic signal timing plan in place at this intersection. The findings of the Applicant's Traffic Analysis indicated that the signalized intersections could operate at an improved Level of Service "C," as opposed to Level of Service "D" and "E" with modification of the traffic signal plans. This is typically the first step in a review of any Traffic Study to address potential increases in traffic and increases in delay. As a reference, Level of Service "C" is an average level of delay, which is acceptable. Level of Service "D," which indicates a longer delay, is still acceptable during peak hour conditions. Level of Service `B" is typically described as capacity of an intersection where the motorist experiences long delays, which is not acceptable. Level of Service "F," which is not referenced in the email, is an even longer delay and beyond measurable capacity of an intersection. In summary, it is our opinion that further analyses of the southerly intersections would not provide any benefit to the Village in its review of the Application. The reference to the previously approved office building is, in our opinion, still valid for comparison purposes only. It is our understanding that this approval is still in place. We appreciate the reference that the construction of an office building may no longer be feasible; however, consistent with previous studies for the subject property, this analysis is appropriate for comparison purposes. Michael A. Galante Executive Vice President g:\538.662 sun homes at reckson executive park\word\sun15-001.mag.docx.td:ev 3 June 23, 2015 R-6 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE APPOINTMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER RESOLVED, that Linda Dekonski of 31 Roosevelt Drive, Valhalla,New York is hereby conditionally appointed to the position of Police Officer with the Village of Rye Brook, subject to the results of a medical examination and the Civil Service procedures of the State of New York; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the annual salary is $52,700 with an effective start date to be determined. RESOLUTION TO JOIN MUNICIPAL GROUP SELF-INSURANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Authorized Representative of the Village of Rye Brook desires to secure the Village of Rye Brook's obligation to provide volunteer firefighters' benefit law, volunteer ambulance workers' benefit law and workers' compensation benefits, as applicable, through participation in a group self-insurance program of which the Village of Rye Brook will be a member, The Authorized Representative of the Village of Rye Brook, duly convened in regular session, does hereby resolve, pursuant to, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the New York State Workers Compensation Law and other applicable provisions of law and regulations thereunder, as follows: Section 1. The Authorized Representative (hereinafter "Representative") of the Village of Rye Brook does hereby resolve to secure the Village of Rye Brook's obligation to provide volunteer firefighters' benefit law, volunteer ambulance workers' benefit law and workers' compensation benefits, as applicable, through participation in a group self-insurance plan of which the Village of Rye Brook will be a member; Section 2. The Representative of the Village of Rye Brook does hereby resolve to become a member of Public Employer Risk Management Association, Inc., a workers' compensation group self-insurance program for local governments and other public employers and instrumentalities of the State of New York; Section 3. In order to effect the Village of Rye Brook's membership in said group self- insurance program, the authorized officer of the Village of Rye Brook is hereby authorized to execute and enter into the Public Employer Risk Management Association Workers' Compensation Program Agreement, annexed hereto as Exhibit A, on behalf of the Village of Rye Brook. Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. CERTIFICATION 1 Christopher Bradbury , do hereby certify that i am the Village Administrator Naine Title of the Village of Rye Brook and that the foregoing constitutes a true, correct and complete copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Representative of the Village of Rye Brook at a meeting thereof held on 06/23/2015 Date Dated: Naine and Title Signature [Seal if available] State of New York WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD NOTICE OF ELECTION BY APOLITICAL SUBDIVISION, AMBULANCE OR FIRE DISTRICT TO SECURE COMPENSATION ASA SELF-INSURER (Prepare in duplicate. Mail original and retain duplicate.) To: CHAIR, WORKERS'COMPENSATION BOARD TAKE NOTICE that this political subdivision or fire district has elected to secure compensation to its employees pursuant to subdivision 3 of section 50 of the Workers' Compensation Law and files this completed notice in accordance with subdivision 4-a of said section. 1. ❑ a. A certified copy of the Resolution adopted, re: Self-Insurance, is attached: ❑x b. Other: (explain) Joined PUBLIC EMPLOYER RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Workers'Compensation Program. 2. Election to secure compensation in accordance with subdivision 4-a of section fifty was duly made on 06/23/2015 Enter Date 3. Such election is effective from 07/01/2015 Enter Effective Date 4. Previous to such Effective Date these employees were covered as follows: (If by a policy of insurance, give name of carrier and policy number.) Comp Alliance 5. Do you intend to: ❑ a. Deal directly with your employees in compensation matters, or ❑x b. Through a licensed self-insurers' representative. If you checked "b", give the name and address of the representative PERMA, PO Box 12250, Albany, NY 12212-2250 (518) 220-1111 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street,Rye Brook,NY 10573 Name of Political Subdivision or Fire District Address Signed By Date Signed Official Title Village Administrator Telephone Number (914) 939-1121 Mail original of this form to: Chair, WCB c/o Self-Insurance Office, 328 State Street, Schenectady, NY 12035 SI-26 (04-05) SECTION 50, SUBDIVISION 4-A OF THE NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 61, LAWS OF 1989, EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1989 A county, city, village, town, school district, fire district or other political subdivision of the state may secure compensation to its employees in accordance with subdivision one, two or three-a of this section, and a public corporation as defined in subdivision one of section sixty of this chapter may also secure such compensation in accordance with article five of this chapter. If compensation is not so secured, a county, city, village, town, school district, fire district or other political subdivision shall be deemed to have elected to secure compensation pursuant to subdivision three of this section and, in such case, no proof of financial ability or deposit or securities need be made in compliance with such subdivision. All other requirements prescribed by this chapter for employers so electing shall be complied with and notice of such election shall be filed with the chair. For failure to file such notice of election, prescribed in form by the chair, within ten days after the election was made, the treasurer or other financial officer shall be liable to pay to the chair the sum of one hundred dollars as a penalty, to be transferred to the state treasury. SI-26 (04-05) June 23,2015 R-8 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING A BID AWARD FOR CONTRACT#15-13:TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE WHEREAS,the Village of Rye Brook has solicited bids for Contract#15- 13: Traffic Signal and Street Light Maintenance;and, WHEREAS,on June 16,2016,the Village Administrator opened two(2) sealed bids summarized below; Bidder Base Bid SCHMITT&O'BRIEN ELECTRIC $35,960.00 VERDE ELECTRIC $ 115,181.00 WHEREAS,upon reviewing the bids,the Village Administrator and Village Engineer determined the lowest responsible bidder meeting all the requirements of the bid document is Schmitt&O'Brien Electric for the Bid price of$35,960.00. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that bid 415-13:Traffic Signal and Street Light Maintenance is hereby awarded to Schmitt&O'Brien Electric for the total bid price of$35,960.00;and be it FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Mayor and Administrator are hereby authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purpose of this resolution June 23, 2015 R-9 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING A REQUEST FOR THE REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT TREE AT 30 LINCOLN AVENUE WHEREAS, the property owner of 30 Lincoln Avenue has submitted a tree removal application to the Village of Rye Brook; and WHEREAS, under section 235-21 of the Village of Rye Brook Village Code no Significant Tree over 36" DBH shall be removed without the approval of the Village Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, said tree is considered a Significant Tree. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Trustees hereby [approves/denies] the Tree Removal Permit application made by the property owner of 30 Lincoln Avenue for the removal of the following: One (1) Black Maple Tree approximately 54"in diameter DBH AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the property owner of 30 Lincoln Avenue shall replant four (4) trees as required by code in consultation with the Village Superintendent of Public Works. tct 4.°u�J v GG . 19 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914)939-0753 Fax(914)939-5801 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES VILLAGE ENGINEER Susan R. Epstein DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS David M. Heiser Michal Nowak Jason A. Klein Jeffrey B. Rednick Mr. Luis Blanco May 13, 2015 30 Lincoln Avenue Rye Brook,NY 10573 Re: Tree Removal Application for property located at 30 Lincoln Avenue Dear Mr. Blanco: This letter is in response to your Tree Removal Application of April 30, 2015 to remove one (1) 54" DBH (diameter at base height) Black Maple tree from your property. A visual inspection was performed on May 12, 2015. Due to the size of the Maple tree being over 36" DBH the tree is considered a "Significant Tree", therefore, pursuant to Sections 235-2 and 235-21 of the Village of Rye Brook Code, ...."a "Significant Tree" shall not be removed without the approval of the Village Board of Trustees...". Your request to remove the one (1) maple "Significant Tree" requires additional approval from the Board of Trustees. You must submit a tree replanting schedule and site plan drawing for the Board meeting. Due to the size of the tree to be removed, you will be required to replant four(4) trees. This application will be scheduled for an upcoming Board of Trustees meeting. Our office will inform you of the date. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at the Public Works Office at 939-0753. Sincerely, 0 "14WO4, Superintendent of Public Works/ Engineering /rd Enclosures Rosemarie D'Ascoli From: Rosemarie D'Ascoli Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 4:31 PM To: 'luisblancodds@yahoo.com' Subject: tree letter Attachments: Blanco letter.pdf Mr. Blanco, This is your denial letter. As I had mentioned earlier, submit a site plan of your property, showing where you would plant the required amount of 4 trees you need to replant due to removing that big tree. All persons granted a tree removal permit shall be required to replant native noninvasive 2"to 2 1/2" caliper tree(s) on said property per Village of Rye Brook Code Section 235-18. Species such as, but not limited to, Elms, Oaks, Maples, Zelkovas, Beech, etc., are acceptable. Ornamental trees may not be substituted. If you can get a letter from your arborist,to help support your request to remove the tree,anything would be helpful for you. I would include a photo of the tree with the hole. The next Board of Trustees meeting is May 26 starting at 7:30. If you can get your site plan and arborist letter ready to us by May 19th we can try to get you on the agenda for that meeting. Any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or the village engineer. Rose 937-6566 i CE II '1 E FMI 1 PERMIT No. 15M TREE ' ADR 3 0 2015 i( , PERMIT FILING FEE: $50 f 1 paid _. 'E�CVAL RESTORATION FEE • r98� 'R-C 1 y�c E e� PERMIT EXPIRES Engineering&Pu c Wocks� __-----PERMIT--PERMIT Department REPLANT& 9King Rye Brook 10573 APPLICATION (914)4)939-075353 (fax)(914)939-0242 INSPECT BY ryebrook.org REPLANT TREE(S) INSTRUCTIONS&INFORMATION FOR A PERMIT FOR TREE REMOVAL 1. For further information refer to Village Code Section 235 available at www.ryebrook.org 2. All trees requested for removal shall be marked with ribbon or string,in a non-harming fashion. 3. All persons granted a Tree Removal Permit shall be required to replant a native noninvasive 2"to 2%"caliper tree on said property per code section 235-18. Species such as but not limited to Elm,Oak,Maple,Zelkovas,Beech,etc. Ornamental trees may not be substituted. 4. All stumps shall be removed as per code section 235-18. Location shall be top soiled and seeded with grass. 5. Allow for 10 business days for processing of application. 6. An appeal to a denial may be made in writing as per code section 235-14 within 30 days of decision. PROPERTY OWNER I //�� CONTRACTOR ����,,,,�\\ nn OWNER'S NAME e-Aw cn COMPANY NAM E_�IaOjA leg., i3ue. L C ADDRESS ah Incld Irl kU c SUPERVISOR/SIGNATURE 'r lij (I PHONE NUMBER — ADDRESS CELL PHONE NUMBER PHONE NUMBER ZO CELL E-MAIL E-MAIL SIGNATURE FAX NUMBER CO,ARBORIST CERTIFICATION # CI2T9�. I AGREE TO ASSU E FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH RYE BROOOK TREE I AGREE TO ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE REMOVAL OF SAID TREE(5)AND FOR THE CODE CHAPTER 5,AND WILL REPLACE TREES AS REQUIRED BY THE VILLAGE OF RYE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE COUNTY,STATE,AND LOCAL REGULATIONS REGARDING BROOK TREE 0 INANCE PROPER REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OFTREE(S) LIST TRE (S)TO BE R ED BH=DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT) SPECIES: !4 HEIGHT: 3-0 DBH: LOCATION: L-0✓l-rCr1-i I/IW- � SPECIES: HEIGHT: DBH: LOCATION: TT SPECIES: HEIGHT: DBH: LOCATION: SPECIES: HEIGHT: DBH: LOCATION: SPECIES: HEIGHT: DBH: LOCATION: SPECIES: HEIGHT: DBH: LOCATION: PURPOSE OF REMOVA CIRCLE ONE: Routine Emergency Notes:_,.(,(_ C_C OFFICE USE ONLY _ INSPECTION MADE BY: DATE: f ` REMOVAL AUTHORIZED BY: DATE: REMOVAL DENIED BY: DATE: PERMIT CONDITION: DATE: ` T ` AT REE.REMOVALAPP.3.11.15 FIELD EVALUATION WORKSHEET (THIS SIDE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) CROWN LEADERS AND LIMBS GENERAL APPEARANCE 0-2 BACK 26-50%DIEBACK 51-75%DIEBACK NO GROWTH BROKEN LIMBS LEADERS NONE LITTLE MODERATE SIG NT EXTENSIVE CRACKED LIMBS LEADERS qOy LITTLE MODERATE SIGNIFICANT EXTENSIVE DEAD LIMBS LEADERS Ni'a- LITTLE MODERATE SIGNIFICANT EXTENSIVE INSECT DAMAGE LITTLE MODERATE SIGNIFICANT EXTENSIVE TARGETS ROAD WIRES SIDEWALK OTHER TARGETS HOME ROAD WIRES SIDEWALK OTHER TARGETS HOME ROAD WIRES SIDEWALK OTHER SOIL CONDITIONS NE SOIL COMPACTED NATURAL GRADE OTHER SOIL CONDITIONS NEAR PAVEMENT SOIL COMPACTED NATURAL GRADE OTHER SOIL CONDITIONS NEAR PAVEMENT SOIL COMPACTED NATURAL GRADE OTHER ROOT FLARE BURIED DECAYED/ROTTED MUSHROOMS BARK SEPERATION GIRDLING ROOT FLARE BURIED DECAYED/ROTTED MUSHROOMS BARK SEPERATION GIRDLING ROOT FLARE BURIED DECAYED/ROTTED MUSHROOMS BARK SEPERATION GIRDLING TRUNK SPLIT CRACKED MUSHROOMS CAVITY INSECTS OOZING TRUNK SPLIT CRACKED MUSHROOMS CAVITY INSECTS OOZING TRUNK SPLIT CRACKED MUSHROOMS CAVITY INSECTS OOZING NOTES: THIS FORM IS FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY, NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A TREE HAZARD EVALUATION. ALL INSPECTIONS ARE PREFORMED VISUALLY BY THE INSPECTOR. TREE.REMOVAL.APP.3.11.iS 270 24 HOURS STORM DAMAGE NW TREE C. SUITE S ON ST FULLY INSURED DAVID E.TOVAR/ARBORIST O ' �� GREENWICH,CT.06830 � PHONE 203.622.6650 WOODLANDTREECT@GMAIL.COM �� FAX 203.813.3610 TOVARDNL@AOL.COM CT. LIC.#5-4066 NY. LIC.#CO 810592 B#1510 TREE REMOVAL,PRUNING,CABLING,STUMP GRINDING,INSECT&DISEASE CONTROL TICK CONTROL,DEEP ROOT FEEDING,ROOT ENHANCEMENT May 26, 2015 Dr. Luis Blanco 30 Lincoln Avenue Rye Brook, N.Y. 10573 Dear Mr. Blanco: Re: Black Oak tree in front of property with a 4%feet in diameter: The Oak tree in front of your property has lost about 30%of it main litters during a previous storm. it has left the tree in a very vulnerable state and out of balance. The tree in question presents a major cavity and is now home to various species, presently to a raccoon family. Although it is a painful decision,the Oak tree must be removed as it will damage structure and/or harm humans. All of these variables have lead me Arborist, David E.Tovar to suggest that the Oak tree must be removed to prevent the above explained situation. Should you need to have any further discussions, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 203-622- 6650. Thank you, David E.Tovar Woodland Tree Care, Llc Arborist �- �JUN 18 2015 �.. PUE l .57 70 aaS J'1!7 _ h, „cl, /'/' ""tea V T O h p ' V�q i l i - ...� 11 l �� � I L•v. j lie ti FaN ; r , ,zi u ItIe � cc • rs t o r v O �� tit C �II I p•,d�.o�g 1 �� � �t a �_ ol F ? I{l� t 0 a J O �W.LQ� o2\C lE ee June 23, 2015 R-10 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 26, 2015 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby certifies the approval of the minutes for the meeting held on May 26, 2015 June 23,2015 R-11 RESOLUTION CONSIDERING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCREDITATION COUNCIL FOR THE USE OF ACCREDITATION PROGRAM LOGO WHEREAS,as of June 18,2015,the Village of Rye Brook Police Department is an Accredited Department with the State Division of Criminal Justice Services;and WHEREAS,as an Accredited Agency,the Rye Brook Police Department wishes to use the widely recognized Accreditation Program logo as a tool for publicizing the participation in the Program and that they have successfully implemented a wide range of professional standards; NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Rye Brook Board of Trustees hereby approves the agreement with the State Division of Criminal Justice Services and hereby authorizes the Mayor and Village Administrator to execute and deliver all documents necessary and appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this resolution. State Division of Criminal Justice Services Law Enforcement Accreditation Council USE OF ACCREDITATION PROGRAM LOGO AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK POLICE DEPARTMENT, hereinafter referred to as the "Agency" and the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, hereinafter referred to as the "Division" WHEREAS, enabling legislation established the New York State Law Enforcement Accreditation Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Council") within the Division; WHEREAS, the Council provides overall direction over the New York State Law Enforcement Accreditation Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Accreditation Program"); WHEREAS the Accreditation Program provides formal recognition that an agency meets or exceeds general expectations of quality in the field. The program has four principal goals: • To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of law enforcement agencies utilizing existing personnel, equipment and facilities to the extent possible; • To promote increased cooperation and coordination among law enforcement agencies and other agencies of the criminal justice system; • To ensure the appropriate training of law enforcement personnel; and • To promote public confidence in law enforcement WHEREAS, the Accreditation Program Planning Committee designed an official logo for the Council in 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto as exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as "Logo"); WHEREAS, the Division filed papers with the Library of Congress to copyright the Logo in 1989; i WHEREAS, the Division has both the right and obligation to assure that the Logo is only used for appropriate purposes; WHEREAS, the Agency wishes to use the Logo to let the community know that it participates in the Accreditation Program and has successfully implemented a wide range of professional standards; WHEREAS, the Division has determined that such publicity can be of great value for both the Agency and the Accreditation Program as a whole, and is willing to let the accredited Agency use the Logo for legitimate purposes upon written request; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, the Agency and the Division agree to the provisions and terms set forth in this Agreement and to be bound by them in the execution of the Agreement. Each party agrees as follows: Appropriate Use of Logo The Agency agrees that all uses of the Logo shall be subject to the approval of the Division and that the Logo must be used in its entirety as provided by the Division. The Agency agrees not to use the Logo in a form and/or manner deemed inappropriate by the Division. The Agency further agrees to supply the Division with samples of all uses of the Logo upon request. If at any point during the Agency's period of accreditation, the Agency wishes to use the Logo for a different purpose, the Agency shall submit another written request. The Agency shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations and obtain all appropriate approvals pertaining to the use of the Logo. The Agency will not be authorized to use the Logo on items that are offered for sale (e.g. hats, t-shirts, etc.). Permission to use the Logo will be denied in situations where the name of the accredited Agency does not appear in the immediate vicinity of the Logo since approving the use of a free standing Logo may result in situations where the Logo is presented out of context or in ways which imply that there is an official program endorsement where none actually exists. 2 Term This Agreement shall continue in force and effect during the Agency's period of accreditation and, if reaccredited, the Agency may continue to use Logo as approved by the Division. Termination This Agreement shall terminate if Agency's accredited status expires or is otherwise lost. Effect of Termination Upon termination of this Agreement, Agency agrees to immediately discontinue all use of the Logo and to destroy all Agency materials bearing the Logo. The Division may take steps to confirm that the Logo has been removed. General Provisions This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to Agency's use of the Accreditation Program Logo. The parties signed this Agreement on the day and year appearing opposite their respective signatures. The Agency BY: Date: ------------- ----------- Title: --------------------------- New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services BY: Date: ------------- ----------- Title: ---------------------------- 3 Exhibit A i ' do 4 2-21-90 Revised 3-8-12 POLICY STATEMENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCREDITATION COUNCIL USE OF THE PROGRAM LOGO Statement of Authoritv and Responsibility The Accreditation Program Planning Committee designed an official logo for the New York State Law Enforcement Accreditation Program in 1987. The State Division of Criminal Justice Services filed papers with the Library of Congress to copyright the logo in 1989. DCJS thus has both the right and the obligation to assure that the logo is only used for appropriate purposes. Guiding Philosophy Officials of law enforcement agencies that earn accreditation can take great pride in their accomplishment. Many chief executive officers may thus wish to use the program logo on their stationery, annual reports, public displays, etc. as a way of letting the community know that they have successfully implemented a wide range of professional standards. Such publicity can be of great value for both the agency and the program as a whole. Consequently, DCJS is willing to let accredited agencies use the logo for legitimate purposes. Policy Upon accreditation, the chief law enforcement officer must submit a written request to the Office of Public Safety(OPS) indicating specifically how the logo will be used and/or distributed by his or her agency. Reaccredited agencies that have previously been approved to use the logo may continue that use as approved. However, if at any point in time during an agency's period of accreditation the chief law enforcement officer wishes to use the logo for a different purpose, he or she must submit another written request describing the new use. All chief law enforcement officers of accredited agencies requesting use of the logo or currently using the logo will be required to sign the "Use of Program Logo Agreement" upon their agency's accreditation or reaccreditation. DCJS will approve requests submitted for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The copyright symbol beneath the logo must be included in all instances. The agency may be asked to submit a copy of the document containing the logo to program staff at OPS. Page 1 of 2 DCJS will e-mail several different versions of the logo to the agency whenever a request is approved. The logo must be used in its entirety as provided by DCJS. A cover letter will specify both the purpose for which the logo's use has been authorized and any restrictions that may apply. No agency will be authorized to use the logo on items that are offered for sale (e.g. hats, t-shirts, etc.). Permission to use the logo will be denied in situations where the name of an accredited agency does not appear in the immediate vicinity of the logo since approving the use of a free standing logo may result in situations where it is presented out of context or in ways which imply that there is an official program endorsement where none actually exists. The Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Public Safety, in consultation with agency counsel, will approve or reject requests to use the logo and will confer with the chairman of the council prior to rendering a decision whenever the proposed use is unusually complex or controversial. Since most accredited agencies do submit requests to use the logo, the council will only be made aware of situations in which a specific request could not be approved as submitted. Withdrawal from the Program As outlined in the "Use of Program Logo Agreement", approval to use the logo will be automatically revoked if the agency loses its accredited status. The chief law enforcement officer of any agency that withdraws from the program, voluntarily or otherwise, will be reminded of this requirement through a letter from OPS. The chief elected official of the municipality served by the police department shall be included in any correspondence that OPS staff sends to the agency regarding the withdrawal from the program. This policy was approved by the State Law Enforcement Accreditation Council on February 21, 1990. Revisions approved by the council on March 8,2012. Page 2 of 2