Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-06 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD MINUTES VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET, RYE BROOK,NY 10573 April 6, 2006 ROLL CALL: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing regarding the application by Cobble Creek Builders, Inc for site plan approval and a Permit to Perform Regulated Activities in a Wetland for building and site alterations at 11 Loch Lane, Rye Brook, New York, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 136.21, Block 1, Lot 4 in the R-20 zoning district. Special note: This public heaving will be adjourned due to a recently enacted moratorium on development affecting this project. 2. Public Hearing regarding a Site Plan application by Grace Associates 11, LLC for a 2 - lot subdivision and a new single family home proposed on newly developed lot at the current property of 13 Beechwood Boulevard, Rye Brook, NY designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 136.21 Block 1 Lot 38. Special note: This public hearing will be adjourned due to a recently enacted moratorium on development affecting this project. NEW BUSINESS: 3. Reviewing a Site Plan application by Lee Sosin for the addition of a new (2) car garage and interior alterations at 15 Milestone Road in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone, Rye Brook, New York, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 124.65, Blockl, Lot 66. 4. Review of proposed legislation for a Storm Water Management Local Law for comments and recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees RESOLUTIONS: 5. Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustee's regarding a Site Plan application by Lee Sosin for the addition of a new (2) car garage and interior Planning Board 1 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 alterations at 15 Milestone Road in the Planned Unit Development(PUD) zone. 6. Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustee's regarding a Storm Water Management Local Law DISCUSSION ITEMS: MINUTES: 7. Approving minutes from February 23, 2006 Meeting ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS: Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS April 27, 2006 and May 11, 2006 PRESENT BOARD Mr. Domenic Accurso Mrs. Michele Fredman Mr. John Grzan Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Jim Winter Chairman Warren Agatston EXCUSED Mr. Gary Zuckerman STAFF Mrs. Marilyn Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant Mr. Edward Beane, Village Counsel Mr. Mike Nowak, Jr. Village Engineer Ms. Shari Melillo, Planning Board Secretary Chairman Agatston asked everyone to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. He introduced the Board members and staff to the public and explained the rules of procedure for the meeting. Chairman Agatston introduced and welcomed Mrs. Schoen to the Planning Board and noted that she is replacing Mrs. Pat Romano. Planning Board 2 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 Mr. Beane, Village Counsel, addressed the Board and introduced Mrs. Amanda Kandel who will eventually be new liaison between the Planning Board and Keane & Beane. Mr. Beane noted that he will continue to assist the Board as well when needed. Chairman Agatston noted that there is a short agenda tonight due to the moratorium and that pending matters are held in abeyance. Chairman Agatston called for the first item on the agenda. 1. Public Hearing regarding the application by Cobble Creek Builders, Inc for site plan approval and a Permit to Perform Regulated Activities in a Wetland for building and site alterations at 11 Loch Lane, Rye Brook, New York, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 136.21, Block 1, Lot 4 in the R-20 zoning district. Chairman Agatston asked for a motion to adjourn the Public hearing to a future date. Motion was made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mrs. Fredman. Mr. Grzan asked how long we can adjourn a Public Hearing and Mr. Beane responded that the law says the Planning Board has no authority to proceed due to the moratorium and the Board can adjourn until moratorium is over or waiver is granted. Mr. Grzan asked if the Board can just let it stand instead of vote and Mr. Beane responded that the Board cannot consider this matter any further. The law takes precedent and it is not necessary to vote Mrs. Fredman stated that in order to adjourn a Public Hearing, would you have to open it first. Mr. Beane responded that you open it when you start, this would just be a continuation and there is no need to vote to reopen each time. Interim development law supercedes all previous and everything is frozen in time now until moratorium expires. Vote on adjournment of Public Hearing Mr. Domenic Accurso Yes Mrs. Michele Fredman Yes Mr. John Grzan Yes Mrs. Amy Schoen Yes Mr. Jim Winter Yes Chairman Warren Agatston Yes Chairman Agatston called for the second item on the agenda. 2. Public Hearing regarding a Site Plan application by Grace Associates II, LLC for a 2 - lot subdivision and a new single family home proposed on newly developed lot at the current property of 13 Beechwood Boulevard, Rye Brook, NY designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 136.21 Block 1 Lot 38. Chairman Agatston asked for a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing due to moratorium Planning Board 3 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 On a motion made by Mrs. Fredman and seconded by Mrs. Schoen, the roll was called: Mr. Domenic Accurso Yes Mrs. Michele Fredman Yes Mr. John Grzan Yes Mrs. Amy Schoen Yes Mr. Jim Winter Yes Chairman Warren Agatston Yes NEW BUSINESS: 3. Reviewing a Site Plan application by Lee Sosin for the addition of a new (2) car garage and interior alterations at 15 Milestone Road in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone, Rye Brook, New York, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 124.65, Blockl, Lot 66. Chairman Agatston explained that the Planning board can only review and make recommendations to Board of Trustees on this application. Joseph Segal of Design Collaborative,representing the applicant addressed the Board and gave a brief overview of the project. This application is for a new garage with deck over it totaling about 484 square feet of additional footage. This application exceeded beyond the building envelope per Village Planner Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed. He explained that the building envelope consisted of 2700 square feet, the existing footprint is 1496 square feet and the deck brings it to 1951 square feet. Chairman Agatston asked for clarification of building envelope on the drawings. Mr. Segal depicted the existing and new addition and noted that the deck goes out about 30ft in length and 22 feet in width. He also explained that the applicant is increasing the size of the playroom and needs additional room. The existing deck is within the envelope but the new deck exceeds the envelope and didn't think it was a problem because there is 175ft of open space between the new deck and King Street. Mr. Segal noted that there is 28 ft from the deck to the property line. Mrs. Fredman asked what is behind it and Mr. Segal responded it is open land that can't be built on and beyond that is King Street. Mrs. Fredman asked if the buffer was something this Board should be concerned about and Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed responded that it was not a problem. Chairman Agatston asked Counsel to speak about the restrictions at Bellefair. Mr. Ed Beane stated that the problem is that there is a subdivision wide restriction on the actual subdivision site plan map of Bellefair. The applicable provision is that all future building additions and modifications cannot exceed the envelope. Basically it is a prohibition of any building extending beyond the building envelope that applies to every resident in Bellefair. Mr. Beane went on to stated that if this Board makes the recommendation and if the Board of Trustees agrees, that would create a precedent Mr. Beane went on to state that the way around it was to design something that stays in the envelope and if that is done, this Board could make a recommendation to approve and it can be done without changing anything. The problem is the Board of Trustees would Planning Board 4 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 have to look at this and do something to change restriction to allow this type of site plan modification. Mr. Beane suggested that this Board not make a recommendation that would require a change to the original plan; it would create a lot of problems all the way around. The Board can make a general recommendation that the Board of Trustees make a determination as to how to handle lot restrictions. Mr. Beane again suggested that Mr. Segal try and get this structure inside the building envelope so this could move right ahead. Chairman Agatston asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mrs. Fredman asked how much can be covered and Mr. Beane replied that it was irrelevant because a deck can extend beyond the envelope 10 feet but the building is there and that is the problem. Unless the applicant is prepared to take the building down—there is a problem. Mrs. Fredman asked who would amend the PUD and Mr. Beane responded that the Board of Trustees created the PUD and therefore can amend it as well. Mrs. Fredman asked if the Homeowners Association had any authority and Mr. Beane responded that he didn't know the rules and it was not a Village issue. He would however like to get their views. Mr. Segal stated that the Homeowners Association had met with them before preparing the site and they have approved what we proposed. Chairman Agatston stated that the reason for building envelopes is to keep homes in certain order and certain shape. Mr. Beane stated he can address that but am sure that was the point. This is a different problem — what they didn't want is to create a free for all and have whatever they did nullified by people putting additions that take away what they created. There are dimensions for each lot — site plan approvals for each lot — if we were starting from scratch they could do this — but we are not and that's the problem— if they do it— others will want to. Chairman Agatston asked Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed for her comments. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed responded that the Board of Trustees is aware and anticipating applications such as this and the Board of Trustees asked her to search out history of Bellefair and find something to use for zoning in Bellefair. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed stated that she had called Christian miller and asked about these possible applications — his response was the dotted line on each property was to set up area in which building could be placed and give builder discretion to move it around if wanted. Thought was to try to give some order— they structured the restrictions on subdivision to make clear that line is the line in which you could build a building and that one could not encroach the building beyond that in any way except for a deck— can go 10 feet beyond. This Board doesn't have the ability to approve an application such as this that requires revision of restrictions that are development wide — can redesign to remain inside the envelope and then we can approve the plan. It would necessitate on applicants part to have a rear entrance instead of a side entrance — could have a two car garage but not the interior space they are looking for. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed expressed concerned because we don't know what ramifications of altering would be. Until we determine what changes in restrictions we can entertain—we would have to look further and deeper. Planning Board 5 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 Chairman Agatston asked, assuming that there was a home directly behind the applicants and assume that this Board grants approval to go beyond envelope, in affect they could be on top of another property — so there are indirectly — setbacks — that was possibly the intent. Chairman Agatston asked for comments or questions from the Board. Mrs. Fredman asked who pays for the review and Mr. Segal responded that the applicant would. Mrs. Fredman asked why this applicant was before this Board and Mr. Beane responded that this Board has jurisdiction to recommend. This is a modification of a site plan— issue is what to do about the PUD and what kind of recommendation to issue. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed suggested another alternative in waiting to see what happens with the village and their regulations. Mr. Grzan asked if the applicant a single homeowner or does it have to be the Homeowners Association. Mr. Beane responded that that was an interesting question and stated that if there is a letter from the Homeowners Association, then it becomes mute. The Village Board could change the PUD because they designed it — they created it — problem is in order to do this you have to amend the entire PUD not just this site plan. Mr. Beane went on to say that this board could recommend that in the event this building were shifted or changed to stay inside the envelope — it could be approved by the Board of Trustees or if Mr. Segal can't do that —my recommendation is to make the recommendation in the alternative. Chairman Agatston stated that based on the restrictions, this Board is not prepared to move on this and suggests that Mr. Segal go back to his client and see if they can amend plans. This Board is not prepared to approve this site plan and then be subject to the Board of Trustees making a decision. Mr. Beane recommends that if it goes outside envelope, this Board takes no position — it goes to Board of Trustees. If it is changed to inside the envelope — then we can recommend that. Chairman stated that if the applicant desired a vote at this time we can do that. Mr. Segal responded that they knew what the vote would be. Chairman Agatston stated that this Board could make a recommendation by vote and than send you back to them for their decision or they can take next step and hold in abeyance until it can be looked into amending current restrictions. Mr. Grzan asked if this Board could make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees without voting on it and Chairman Agatston asked if he was making a motion and on that a motion was made by Mr. Grzan and seconded by Mrs. Schoen. Mrs. Fredman asked for an explanation. Mr. Grzan explained that this application escaped the review process — shouldn't have come before this Board in the first place. This Board can't take action because it exceeds building envelope —now it goes back to Board of Trustees that we cant do anything with this. Mrs. Schoen noted that the motion was for the Planning Board to refer this back to the Board of Trustees where they will have to decide to review the PUD restrictions before this persons site plan approval can be recommended by this Board because of the existing law and the existing issues surrounding that. The roll was called: Planning Board 6 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver I Mr. Domenic Accurso Yes Mrs. Michele Fredman No Mr. John Grzan Yes Mrs. Amy Schoen Yes Mr. Jim Winter Yes Chairman Warren Agatston Yes Chairman Agatston asked Mrs. Fredman if she wanted another motion on this. Mrs. Fredman asked if it is cleaner to just say denied and Mr. Bean responded that this Board is making this recommendation because of the restrictions. Mrs. Fredman asked if it wasn't easier to just deny and Mr. Beane responded that this Board could deny it and recommend that the Board of Trustees review it. Chairman Agatston asked for read back of the motion Secretary read the motion back and another vote was taken. Mr. Domenic Accurso Yes Mrs. Michele Fredman Yes Mr. John Grzan Yes Mrs. Amy Schoen Yes Mr. Jim Winter Yes Chairman Warren Agatston Yes Motion Carries. Chairman Agatston called for the next item on the agenda. 4. Review of proposed legislation for a Storm Water Management Local Law for comments and recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees Mr. Carosi addressed the Board and gave a brief overview. Storm water management has been a topic since July 2003. The Board of Trustees issued to the Planning Board a proposed local law. Since that time the law has been redrafted and is now model legislation from DEC as part of the larger regulations that regulate municipality's storm water. One of aspects is that they require us to adopt legislation. What is before you is the model legislation that the DEC requires the Village to agree to and incorporate into our code. This law makes reference to the intent to improve water quality — the goal is to increase the quality of storm water to ultimately increase the usability of the surrounding streams, Hudson River and so on. We can approve or add items to it so this is an opportunity for modification but the DEC is looking for us to adopt. Chairman Agatston asked to what extent will this Board be involved in reviewing an applicant that may come before us and using this law. Mr. Carosi responded that this requires specific steps. It must be enacted, designed and maintained by the applicant— this board must see if there is a storm water pollution plan — is it done by an engineer— does it follow guidelines— is it appropriately located—many aspects of program you can review—technical matters—are they there. Planning Board 7 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 Chairman Agatston stated that the definition of land development issue—mentions 1 acre — difficult for lay person to understand. Chairman asked Mr. Carosi if after having reviewed this legislation if he had any recommendations because he sees some issues that may be fine for the state but are not geared for our village. Mr. Carosi answered in regard to the definition of land development, it is a central definition for this law— shows what projects can be caught up in this law. One acre is the minimum— that's the smallest they go — they allow municipality to lower threshold even further — varies in various communities. It all depends on our comfort and this Board should recognize that other aspects come into play — talk about how certain features will be maintained and explained that what is done today will be carried out in the future. Chairman Agatston stated that it seems that there is so much in here that needs to be changed and suggested that maybe the changes should come from Mr. Caroli's department first. Rather then wasting time it might be simpler and easier if someone like Mr. Carosi or Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed went through and re-drafted and kept it more in line with our village. Mr. Grzan is concerned that currently there is a village code and adopting this law would require a deep look at the village code regarding many issues making it more difficult for applicants. He also noted that a lot of this law is during the construction and this Board is predominately residential. Mr. Carosi stated that this is in addition to our current legislation. This is all about storm water management. Mr. Grzan asked for a clarification on what is storm water. Mr. Carosi explained that on a large project where they have to contain pollutants. We have to balance what we are looking for in a singe family home to what they are looking for. This is geared toward larger projects but an important aspect to have. Chairman Agatston asked if there are portions that are applicable to a 1 or 2 lot subdivision or to even a single site plan. Mr. Carosi stated that it depends on size, maybe 4 or 5 lot subdivision. Over an acre would definitely apply—less then an acre—it is up to the community to decide. Chairman Agatston asked if we should consider implementing for less then an acre and Mr. Carosi responded that there are definite advantages to adopting even on a smaller scale from a water quality aspect Mr. Winter asked about water coming off impermeable surface with no erosion but water going on adjacent grounds—what law governs that? Mr. Carosi responded that was not specifically listed but there is a common standard. He suggested that if we take this law in its form and accept it, we can add a section to codify and reinforce our Westchester County best management practices. Mr. Grzan stated that this is law for DEC and the State — 1 acre or larger — unless we have our own regulations we must conform to this law — so we would have to have applicant comply also. Mr. Carosi stated that other communities advise that we examine — pass and add supplemental without changing format. Mrs. Schoen agreed that this Board cannot make a more stringent law for Village — we must accept this and then modify with our existing chapters. Mr. Carosi added that we have to adopt this law — we can add sections to make it more applicable to our Village of Rye Brook Planning Board 8 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 Mrs. Mohamed noted that the Village has a requirement to put a Storm Water Management Plan in effect by January 2008. There are two issues— 1 —the DEC wants to see this in everyone's code — especially important for larger commercial properties — this law is good for that. Since village is primarily residential—best practice is that the storm water gets handled on your own lot. One of the possibilities is for this board to do something with this tonight telling the Board of Trustees that they like this law but that we need to add to it on the village level. Mr. Winter asked if there was any issue of conflict between this and our existing codes at which Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed responded that they had looked at the issue and they need to look further but don't see a conflict. This is an addendum to what we have —post construction water management. Chairman Agatston stated that he would be happier to make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees that Chapter 217 be approved but not before we see addendum so that we can approve whole package Mr. Beane stated that we have a law that's a DEC mandated model law — not applicable for small projects and may or may not conflict with other codes. We can pass this law and continue to have same problems and have Mr. Carosi continue to deal with them or I suggest if we can set a reasonable deadline for Mr. Carosi to do his additions and you can enact this law in parts or you can do it all at once — mistake to just send it up to the Village Board. Mr. Carosi stated that ultimately we have until 2008. Every year I have a series of goals to move on and this is my goal for this year. Mr. Carosi requested that this Board move this forward. It is reasonable to tell you that I can have a draft by the next meeting — it is something that I want to keep moving on a forward motion and it would be great to be done by June of this year. Mr. Grzan suggested this should go back to the Board this evening. This is going to have to be tailored to our Village of Rye Brook Mr. Beane suggested that it doesn't have to be adopted word for word. This Board has the right to make it conform to Rye Brook standards — adopt the essence — make it more restrictive to apply to Rye Brook. Chairman Agatston stated that Mrs. Fredman suggests volunteers to work with Mr. Carosi and Mr. Grzan to get this done. Mr. Accurso asked if the DEC has a ground water management program and Mr. Carosi responded that he is not aware of one. Mr. Accurso asked if Mr. Carosi was aware of any jurisdiction that has a ground water management plan at which Mr. Carosi responded that it was not feasible to control ground water. Mr. Accurso responded that Rye Brook has flooding issues and he believes ground water needs to be managed. Mr. Carosi responded that part of the issue can be addressed by managing the discharges into the public right of ways. Mr. Accurso asked about illegal sanitary issues at which Mr. Carosi explained that is a violation— if it is out there we are working with another body to come up with legislation regarding illegal connections like pump sumps into the sewer. Mr. Accurso asked how this would affect outfalls. Mr. Carosi explained this is part of other portions — other aspects — that cover other areas of concern — locate identify and Planning Board 9 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 map our outfalls and monitor them. The DEC is not asking us to start testing but that we monitor the outfalls and know where they are. Multi-year multi-step process. Mr. Accurso questioned section 214-3 purpose— states to establish minimum storm water management requirements and asked Mr. Carosi to expand on concept of minimum. Mr. Beane responded that we can't answer that because we are not involved in making of this — minimum means baseline — this is saying — if you feel you want to get more restrictive, that is for us to do. MINUTES: 7. Approving minutes from February 23, 2006 Meeting Chairman Agatston requested that everyone review the minutes from February 23, 2006 and we can approve them at the next meeting. DISCUSSION Chairman Agatston asked Mr. Bean about site visitations and for verification that it would not be deemed a public meeting if there was no discussion stating that was impossible and asked if there was a site visit that was deemed a public meeting, can it be announced at the next Planning Board meeting and would that be enough notice. Mr. Beane responded that as a practical matter he would be satisfied with announcing it at the meeting and on TV. Chairman Agatston asked if the public could be invited to attend and Mr. Beane stated it was not recommended. Mr. Paul Rosenberg, Board of Trustees Liaison stated that when the Board has site visits, they do discuss, let people bring info. The Board feels they can ask questions but not discuss merits of application —that becomes public meeting. Chairman Agatston respectfully disagrees because his interpretation is "any discussion". Chairman Agatston stated that this board has power to approve steep slopes — wetland — only record of those approvals are within the village — no record to the world that these permits have been granted—purchaser would not have record — should some notation be put on Certificate of Occupancy of what action was taken. If there was a notation on the Certificate of Occupancy, the purchaser would know. Mr. Beane stated there should be no notation on the Certificate of Occupancy. Would like some time to think about it—maybe could just put resolution in the file. Chairman Agatston responded that the purchaser would not know or know to look for it. Mr. Beane stated that if an error is made he doesn't want to create a problem—would like to think about it. Chairman Agatston asked for any further comments and with there being none he requested a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Winter and seconded by Mrs. Schoen, the meeting was adjourned. Planning Board 10 of 11 April 6, 2006 April 6, 2006 Planning Board Draft Minutes—Ver 1 Planning Board 11 of 11 April 6, 2006