Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-16 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD MINUTES VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET, RYE BROOK,NY 10573 August 16, 2006— 8:00 pm ROLL CALL: SPECIAL MEETING 5:00 PM: CONTINUES BUSINESS 1) Discuss the Byram Ridge study and possible new legislation with respect to the R-20 Zone PRESENT BOARD Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Dominick Accurso Mrs. Michele Fredman Mr. Bill Laufer Mr. Gary Zuckerman Mr. John Grzan Chairman Agatston STAFF Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Consultant Mrs. Amanda Kandel, Village Counsel Mr. Victor G. Carosi, P.E., Village Engineer Ms. Shari Melillo, Planning Board Secretary Chairman Agatston addressed the Board and asked on which direction the Board wanted to proceed for the evening. Mr. Grzan wants to understand exactly what we are trying to achieve. Mr. Zuckerman believes we need to separate the 2 areas by making Byram Ridge separate, R-20 and R-20A possibly. There are numerous developments in the Byram Ridge area and Mr. Zuckerman believes we should concentrate on that and any decision should be exclusively for that area. Planning Board Special Meeting 1 of 6 August 16, 2006 Mr. Laufer stated that this is a Byram Ridge study and somewhere along the line, it got expanded. Mr. Laufer now believes there are 2 issues; I is to keep the character and the 2 d is to have some type of controls as far as the tear downs. Mr. Accurso would like to focus on the Byram Ridge area and believes that up zoning will not deliver what we are trying to achieve. Mr. Accurso would like to see increased side yard setbacks, reduction in impervious surface, gross floor area, etc. Chairman Agatston stated that the Board is under a time constraint and we are not able to make decisions on those issues for now. Mr. Zuckerman stated whatever decisions we make; we should also make recommendations to the Board of Trustees on the other issues that Mr. Accurso addressed. Mrs. Fredman echoes Mr. Accurso and believes that in addition to whatever we are about to do, we need to address regulating bulk, runoff, etc. Mrs. Schoen stated that she agrees with Mr. Zuckerman and Mr. Accurso in that we need to focus on Byram Ridge. Trustee Pat Romano who is also in attendance was asked what she believes the purpose of this meeting is. Mrs. Romano stated that she believed it was to focus on the Byram Ridge area but during the process, the task force found that maybe it should be expanded. Mrs. Romano stated that they made major code changes 3 years ago and now they have to be looked at to see if they are doing the job the way they were meant to. Mr. Grzan asked if we only look at part of the R-20, are we spot zoning? Mrs. Mohamed answered that from a planning perspective. It is very clear that the lot configurations of Byram Ridge are peculiar to that neighborhood. There is actually a benefit to doing this for that particular neighborhood. Mrs. Amanda Kandel stated that if you carve out the Byram Ridge section and the Board has a planning reason and not just an arbitrary decision. In that case, it is not spot zoning. Mrs. Schoen stated that we need to be concerned that what we do here may affect the market in Rye Brook and questioned if we are helping or hurting ourselves. Mr. Laufer stated that the uniqueness of Byram Ridge is what has helped keep the value up. Chairman Agatston agreed that is what seems to be the opinion of the applicants that come before us; the character of the neighborhood is what attracted them there. Mr. Grzan asked if changing the zoning requirements will affect the size of the homes. It may preclude some subdivision but it will not affect the size of the home. Mr. Zuckerman stated there are two questions, the tear down situation and the size of the home, up zoning will not address those things, and it will prevent Planning Board Special Meeting 2 of 6 August 16, 2006 subdivisions. Then you will have land that is not subject to a major reconstruction, the most impact on a neighborhood is building a house, especially a large one, on a lot where it would not normally be. The third problem is that you don't want to prevent the homeowner from making normal improvements. Chairman Agatston suggested the Board look at the recommendations of the task force. Mrs. Mohamed explained that the lots were counted by if the majority of the property was in Rye Brook and added you have to consider the size of the lot and the amount of frontage it has. They are sub-dividable on paper but may need a variance to do that. Mrs. Mohamed went on to say there are always the pro and the con. You are doing something for some community service, in this case, preserving character. You want to up zone only the minimum amount to prevent the least amount of potential problems. Mr. Grzan asked, since the Village has been created, have any new zoning district been made? Mrs. Mohamed answered yes, R15A, the Hawthorne Avenue District. It was very similar to Byram Ridge in that it was an area with uncharacteristic lots. It was clear that the special character was going to be lost unless special zoning was applied. Chairman Agatston stated that to try and keep the character of the neighborhood, one answer is to up zone somewhere between over 20,000 and up to 25,000 and asked if everyone was in agreement with that and would consider it for the next meeting. The response from the Board members was yes. Chairman Agatston addressed the next issue that is teardowns. Mr. Zuckerman stated part of what we are considering is increasing the front yard setback, at 20% with a 40 foot set back, you have 1500 square feet. If you increase to 50 feet and 20%, you get 1250 square feet, if we increase the front yard set backs, you will get more impervious surface. Mr. Grzan is upset because he believes we are singling out this area and it is not fair. Mr. Zuckerinan agrees but adds that we can recommend that some of these concerns be looked at in the other zones as well. Mr. Grzan stated that he believes that 20% is ample room to construct a driveway. Mr. Laufer polled the Board members to see if everyone was in agreement with the 20% and the response from the Board was yes. Chairman Agatston stated that now we are at the hard part which is the set backs, the recommendation is from 40 to 50. Planning Board Special Meeting 3 of 6 August 16, 2006 Mr. Zuckerman stated that if you go to 50 you are going to create non- conformities. The averaging method right now is an affective tool and he doesn't believe it should be changed. Mr. Grzan stated that if you do up zone, this is one of the dimensions that you will change, it's a bigger lot so it deserves more frontage. Chairman Agatston stated that it has to be 40 for an R-20. If you look at the community itself, we are saying that the 40 is enough for that R-20 zone. Chairman Agatston asked if everyone agreed to keep it for the moment with the 40-foot set back. The Board members all agreed. Chairman Agatston went on to the next issue which is the side yard and stated to think about them in the size of the lots, long and deep and narrow. We want to keep someone from encroaching on their neighbors. If they want to build back, they have the depth; we are not concerned with the mass. Mrs. Mohamed stated that a lot of these lots in Byram Ridge are non-conforming when it comes to the horizontal circle requirement. These lots were set up for more Victorian style homes, much deeper then they are wide. The side yard setback has enormous potential to change the shape of the home. Chairman Agatston stated we are concerned about the gross floor area, if we accept the task force position by increasing the side yards; do we really want to do that? Mrs. Fredman stated that she didn't think so. We should abet the massive homes so that the neighbors are looking at a massive home right on top of them. Chairman Agatston answered, I hear hat you are saying, but homes with narrow frontage, the R-20 existing side yards, 15 and 25, isn't that restrictive enough, doesn't that give enough space? Mrs. Fredman responded that the thinks the side yard set back is going to be the most difficult to comply with going forward. Mr. Zuckerman said it's not going to prevent the problem that we are trying to prevent. It will stop a homeowner from making a small extension. I think that we are creating a lot more problems; everyone would have to get a variance to push something out to the side. Chairman Agatston responded that if we change the side yards by increasing them, we are making it more difficult to have that type of home built in that community. Mr. Accurso stated one of the things he thinks should be looked at is if the site itself is deficient, then the gross allowable square footage should be discounted. We should consider something to that affect if it is deficient as far as the horizontal circle and set backs. The ultimate goal is to control the mass. Planning Board Special Meeting 4 of 6 August 16, 2006 Mrs. Mohamed answered that gross floor area is based on the size of the lot, not the configuration. What affects configuration is the setbacks, so you are making an argument for increasing the side set backs. Mr. Zuckerman stated what we want to do is look at the ratios. If you have a lot narrow or wide, deep or shallow, you want to build a house that is proportional to that lot that is the real issue here. Mr. Accurso — 38 Woodland Drive, everybody complained about the side elevation, but if you follow my suggestion, you would reduce the square footage and therefore reduce the mass. Chairman Agatston stated that doesn't address just Byram Ridge, it is all of Rye Brook. Mrs. Romano added that the task force was also concerned about streetscape — you allow more green space if you allow more side yards. Of all the recommendations that the task force made, we really need to look at the side yards. What has to be look at is how to do both as well as you possibly can. We looked at the community as it is, looking at ways to preserve the character and look of the community. Mr. Carosi added that the side yard ratios and height set back rations will also address the mass of the home. Mrs. Mohamed stated that what the task force is recommending is that the front and side height/set back be more restrictive. Chairman Agatston asked the Board if we are in agreement that the consensus is at 45 feet. The Board responded yes. Chairman Agatston asked now about the height set back ratio. Mrs. Fredman answered that we should leave it where it is, go with the height set back ratio. That is a kinder way for the community to let them still build and protect the neighbors. Mr. Zuckerman stated that the Board should leave the set back and change the ratios. Mr.Grzan agreed, if you want to preserve the open space and reduce the size of the home, keep the set back and reduce the ratio. Chairman Agatston asked if the Board was in agreement. Chairman Agatston stated, "I would like to see the 20—45 and 1.3 and asked if all were in agreement." The Board responded yes. Planning Board Special Meeting 5 of 6 August 16, 2006 Chairman Agatston thanked everyone for his or her time and input. Mrs. Mohamed asked for clarification of what is wanted to summarize in the resolution and include reasons why. Recommending maximum of 20% front yard impervious surface, set backs—keep at 40 feet but recommend the height/set back ratio be reduced to 1.3 and the yard at a minimum of 20 feet for one and a total of 45 for both And also consider up zoning for Byram Ridge. The other recommendations would be implemented, but recommend that the Board of Trustees look at the Village as a whole...which includes the current R-20 District. Meeting adjourned at 10:40 PM. Planning Board Special Meeting 6 of 6 August 16, 2006