Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-26 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday April 26, 2007 - 8:00 p.m. ......................................................................... ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continued Public Hearing regarding Bowman Avenue Development- Review of an Application for Steep Slopes and Wetlands permitting submitted by John Meyer Consulting, P.C. on behalf of Kip Konigsberg (K&M Realty) for property on Bowman Avenue, Rye Brook, NY, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 141.26, Block 1, Lot 1 and Lot 1.1 in the C-1 Zoning District. NEW BUSINESS 2. Sketch Plan review of an Application for a proposed change of use from a single family dwelling to a 2 family dwelling for property on 52 Hillcrest Avenue, Rye Brook, NY, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 135.76, Block 1, Lot 11 in the R-2F Zoning District. MINUTES DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Planning Board Rules and Procedures. ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS May 10, 2007 &May 24, 2007 Village Hall is fully accessible to the handicapped. Those who need special arrangements should contact the Village Administrator's Office ONE-WEEK IN ADVANCE OF A MEETING AT (914) 939-1121 Page 1 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved Present Board Mrs. Michele Fredman Mr. John Grzan Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Bill Laufer Mr. Warren Agatston Mr. Dominick Accurso Chairman Gary Zuckerman Staff Mrs. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed, Village Consultant Mrs. Amanda Kandel, Village Counsel Mr. Victor G. Carosi, P.E. Village Engineer Mr. Michal Nowak, Jr. Village Engineer Ms. Shari Melillo, Meeting Secretary Trustee Joan Feinstein, Village Board Liaison Chairman Zuckerman 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 Zuckerman explained his new role and pointed out that the new seating arrangement is based on seniority. The Chair again thanked former Chairman Agatston on his accomplishments during his term. Chairman Zuckerman called for the first item on the agenda: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Continued Public Hearing regarding Bowman Avenue Development - Review of an Application for Steep Slopes and Wetlands permitting submitted by John Meyer Consulting, P.C. on behalf of Kip Konigsberg (K&M Realty) for property on Bowman Avenue, Rye Brook, NY, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 141.26, Block 1, Lot 1 and Lot 1.1 in the C-1 Zoning District. Chairman Zuckerman asked Village Engineer, Victor Carosi, to address the Board and fill us in regarding this past storm and its effects on this project site. Mr. Carosi addressed the Board and noted that the Village did pay particular attention to the peninsula and strip portion. He noted that theoretically we have not had this much of an intense storm in our lifetime and indeed this was the 100 year storm. At the end of the storm the Village had over 8 inches of rain. The 100-year flood elevation for this project, which is documented on the plans as a dotted line, rose to that level. The strip portion of the project was underwater, more so than in the March rain event. The peninsula was dry, there was no flooding and it was accessible. Mr. Carosi noted that he was there at various times throughout the storm with his last visit being at 6:30 pm. Page 2 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved Mr. Agatston addressed the memo received from Village Engineering Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld, where he discussed the riprap issue and his final comment being that"design and installation should be subject to change when brook flow measurements show a higher velocity." Mr. Agatston asked if that measurement was done. Mr. Carosi responded that on April 12th, with more downpour occurring, measurements were taken with a velocity meter at the East Branch and the highest measured was 6.5 feet. The measurements were forwarded to Mr. Jim Ryan, Consultant for K & M and they were asked to reevaluate the riprap because of possible erosion. Chairman Zuckerman asked if the proposed construction on the peninsula will make matters worse in terms of the flood. Mr. Carosi responded that the applicant does demonstrate that the units would be able to detain various storm frequencies — 1 year, 10 year and 100-year storm events. He added that they are reducing the rate of runoff from the storm with the containment system proposed. Our consultant has no further comments as far as the storm water report. All the questions have been addressed adequately. Mr. Laufer asked how far the strip was underwater and Mr. Carosi responded that it varied but a foot to a foot and a half at most. Mr. Laufer asked if Mr. Carosi felt the plan would mitigate the condition or would the proposed storm water plan worsen the condition. Mr. Carosi answered that with the proposed development for the strip portion the only concern would be the parking area, the passive park part would not have a significant impact. Mr. Accurso asked what year storm the storm water management system was designed for and Mr. Carosi responded, 1 year, 2 year, 10 year and 100 year storm. Mr. Accurso asked if the detention system is a controlled outlet, is it releasing water downstream. Mr. Carosi responded there is a water quality structure — there will always be some flow coming out of it, there is run off currently and the end result would also have it but with reduced velocity. Mr. Accurso asked if a net zero runoff was something feasible and Mr. Carosi responded that theoretically, it is possible. Mr. Accurso asked, "If there was less development it would be possible, is that correct?" Chairman Zuckerman noted that we cannot force the applicant to reduce below the current level. Mrs. Kandel noted that according to the SWPP the applicant is complying with the code requirements by causing no net increase in stormwater runoff. Mr. Accurso asked why we can't do one better by having a net zero affect—we were just deemed a federal disaster area? Mr. Carosi responded that in theory it can be done, our code requires a reduction or no net increase and that is what the applicant is proposing. Page 3 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved Mr. Grzan stated his concern is more downstream flooding than the peninsula. He stated that the pond is a series of ponds that controls the water flow to the sound, if we use the strip as part of the mitigation plan we are reducing the retention capacity of the pond and he is not convinced that we have fully evaluated the impact of the project as far as downstream flooding. Mr. Carosi responded that all the neighboring communities have to look at this on a macro scale. Mr. Grzan asked how we can consider the strip as mitigation if it was flooded. Mr. Carosi responded that with the addition of the wetland plantings into the riprap area the applicant is giving an improvement over what is there currently. Wetland plantings for stabilization chosen with our planning consultant, the strip portion is a separate aspect of it; we are looking at mainly the peninsula area. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant, stated she doesn't believe it is quite correct to characterize the proposed removal on the strip as mitigation— it would be better to put mitigation for what is being constructed on the peninsula. On the peninsula there are other ways to mitigate flooding downstream, the control needs to be a comprehensive plan — its making sure the ponds are dredged — that there is enough tree cover upstream. The riprap is being used as stabilization and to help preserve the water quality of the pond during rain events and extreme rain events. The strip is really not mitigation for the peninsula. Mr. Laufer, referring to Mr. Rotfeld's memo, wanted clarification regarding the velocity measurement of 1'/z to 2 feet per second was correct and that it had tripled and Mr. Carosi confirmed that was correct. Mr. Carosi went on to explain the outfall from the detention system proposed would minimize velocity. The flow from the onsite structure would not be a significant one. Mr. Ryan, Planning Consultant for the applicant, K & M Realty touched on the velocity issue and stated that the proposed is .07 cubic feet per second. He explained that they had taken another look at the size of the riprap to accommodate the higher flow and had forwarded the results for review to Mr. Rotfeld and Mr. Carosi. He went on to discuss the memo from Frederick P. Clark Associates and stated that there are 6 or 7 items left and of those, 3 were already with Mr. Caroli's office. Mr. Ryan believes they have all the information needed to complete the review. The new drawings they have with them tonight will be submitted to Mr. Caroli's office tomorrow. Chairman Zuckerman asked about exactly what was provided and what is pending. Mr. Carosi responded that both the DEIS and FEIS had been accepted. Storm water management system, site specific pipes and sanitary lines are all addressed on the site plan. Currently outstanding is how they are bringing drinking water to the site and believes the applicant is working with Aquarion Water. Mr. Carosi explained the approval authority rests with the County Department of Health and that there are some final approvals that rest outside of the Village. "Mr. Rotfeld is expected back the second week of May and Mr. Carosi will work with him to finalize any outstanding items". Page 4 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed addressed the Board and noted they are still looking for a final tree preservation and protection plan for the strip—final steep slopes planting plan around the rip rap area of the peninsula—a final landscape plan—provision of a final storm water management plan — erosion and sediment control plan — monitoring and maintenance plans for the wetland buffer and steep slopes area and a final construction management plan. The maintenance and monitoring plans cannot be provided in their final form at this time but the Village had received draft copies. Mr. Agatston noted that the site plan has not yet been approved by the Board of Trustees and felt it is difficult until they see a final approved site plan. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed responded that unless the Board of Trustees was to significantly alter one of the plans, we do have a conceptual plan. In terms of the strip it is possible to approve a landscape plan. Chairman Zuckerman asked the applicant when he can expect to file the new plans and the applicant responded that they had them tonight and they would just be waiting for final comments from Mr. Carosi and Mr. Rotfeld. Chairman Zuckerman then asked Mr. Carosi and Mrs. Mohamed how long they expected it would take to review the new plans and they responded they could be prepared for the next meeting. Mr. Grzan stated he is still not sure where are we heading with this in terms of the approval and asked how this Board can take any action on the steep slopes if the site plan is not approved. He believes this Board has made the recommendation to the Board of Trustees and feels the Planning Board should wait for the site plan to be approved and then act on everything else. Chairman Zuckerman stated there is an overlap between the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board. We have an independent authority to move forward with the steep slopes and wetlands permit and our Mayor is expecting us to move forward with it. The fact that most of the documents requested have been submitted, we can adjourn this to the second meeting in May. The Board of Trustees will meet on the site plan on May Stn Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed also noted that the Planning Board should consider the planting plan — the plan that is before us for the wetland and steep slopes — this Board should decide if it is sufficient to mitigate the loss of buffer. The Planning Board can say it is sufficient or that there needs to be additional plantings to further mitigate. Mrs. Schoen stated that her concern has always been to err on the side of more over less mitigation. She believes that there has been a good attempt to do the job and generally overall the mitigation issues have been pretty well addressed. Mr. Agatston agrees and adds that he is more concerned with the strip portion of the project and would like to see some of the plantings planned for the riprap. Mrs. Fredman is interested in the runoff aspects in terms of pollutants. She asked about the fertilizers and pesticides that would be used on whatever grass area there is and asked if we had any control over those issues. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed discussed integrated Page 5 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved pest management and how she believes it should be practiced by all people — it means integrating a planting design and a fertilizer management plan...it needs to be designed together to work. The concept is keeping down the chemicals to the minimum amount required. Mrs. Mohamed believes it is a stipulation that can be added to the Homeowners Association requirements for maintenance. Mr. Accurso discussed his concerns in the area of density of plantings and believes it has not been minimized. He believes it can be minimized by reducing the number of units proposed and noted that this Board has previously denied applicants because of improvements in wetland buffers and is concerned about what type of precedent this will set for the future. "I would like to propose minimizing the loss of buffer by reducing the number of units, the Board of Trustees has not approved the site plan yet so I would like counsel to opine on that. Chairman Zuckerman stated Mr. Accurso was out of order and continued, "it is not going to happen at this level and you are out of order to keep bringing this up." Mr. Accurso wanted it on record that the Chairman was refusing his request to have counsel opine on his statement. Chairman Zuckerman asked if there were any comments from the public. Ms. Carolina Johnson, City of Rye resident addressed the Board and thanked them for their thorough review and stated that due to the excessive flooding she does not believe this project should be allowed to move forward. County Executive Spano said that flooding doesn't stop at municipal boundaries. There have been two collapsed bridges, damages to sewer system, high school athletic field, Rye YMCA, Rye Free Reading Room, scores of private homes and many families still out of their homes. She stated, "We know you are trying to contain the runoff, but when you add impervious surface to an area... we feel that this development limits rye flood mitigation service." Every municipality should be taking care of their neighbors and believes we may be seeing a new norm with these storms. "I beg you to reconsider this project so we can have a win win situation and get the two municipalities to work together to help the applicant and the Rye residents." Chairman Zuckerman responded that this Board totally sympathizes and agrees that the question of flood control is county wide in nature. He assured her that this Board is endeavoring to make sure that this construction does not make the potential flood situation below Rye Brook any worse and added that the Village relies on our professionals for this. Chairman Zuckerman assured her that this Board will try to make sure that this situation is not made worse and is hopefully made better. Mrs. Johnson asked, "what if the calculations are wrong and things get worse...please reconsider." Page 6 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved Mr. David Meister, City of Rye resident addressed the Board. "I hear what you have said and I understand that you are trying not to make the situation worse but it seems to me that given the last two storms, you should step back and really look at this, I don't think it is being sufficiently considered." Mr. Meister went on to say that a hundred year storm does not necessarily happen every hundred years and if the strip was underwater at 6:30, it would have been nice if someone looked at it at 10:30 during high tide. "I am not suggesting that you would do the wrong thing,just make sure the evidence you are seeing is really properly presented in a very thorough and thoughtful way. I am not a civil engineer and don't have experience, I am just someone who lives in a house listening to you. I don't know personally what the impact of water velocity is, but maybe we ought to study it a little harder. If net zero is theoretically possible, you should seriously consider it." Chairman Zuckerman assured him again that this Board is carefully examining every issue. Mr. Miester added that if they were to have more time, he would provide an Engineer to look at the plans for them. Mr. Agatston stated that this project has been here since 1996, it is not a new project. This Board/Village has been considering it and reviewing it and has limited it substantially since the original project. We are all concerned about the loss of impervious surface and this Board is careful to review it to make sure it does not have a big impact— there are hundreds and hundreds of documents on this project with storm water management and impervious surface. Mr. Agatston added that he too believes this is a County problem. Mr. Meister stated"now that you know how devastating this water could be, is this going to make it worse? I am asking for some time to have a study done, is there something else we could do now to make the situation better downstream. You are supposed to think in those terms, what is the best use of the land." Chairman Zuckerman answered that "it is not our function to determine the best use of the land, it has to be developed according to the laws and zoning of the community and we have strict laws to follow. The original project had homes on the strip and a restaurant on the peninsula; it has been considerably whittled down." Mrs. Schoen added that the hundred-year storm is becoming the norm, the storms seem to be increasing in number and intensity and she agrees that we need an intermunicipal plan. Chairman Zuckerman also agrees and believes it will be looked at. Chairman Zuckerman asked for motion to adjourn this matter and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mrs. Fredman, the roll was called: Mr. Laufer Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mr. Agatston Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Page 7 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved Mrs. Schoen Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Chairman Zuckerman called for the second matter on the agenda: NEW BUSINESS 2. Sketch Plan review of an Application for a proposed change of use from a single family dwelling to a 2-family dwelling for property on 52 Hillcrest Avenue, Rye Brook, NY, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 135.76, Block 1, Lot 11 in the R-2F Zoning District. Chairman Zuckerman explained that this is a sketch plan review where the applicant shows their proposed project, states his concerns and the Board gives their opinion and helps the applicant decide if he/she should move forward or not. Mr. Carosi gave a quick summary of this proposal and discussed some of the considerations. The Building Inspector has reviewed it; it is in an R2F zone. Applicant is proposing to change the existing use from a single family to a 2-family, which is allowed by code. He will be adding additional parking to the property by increasing the paved surfaces, which would require zoning variances. The gross floor area, the actual size of the home, the additional impervious surface is over the code — a variance for the rear of the property is required and there is an existing matter with the front setbacks. Chairman Zuckerman asked if aside from variances, the only reason this project is here is because of the addition of 2 parking spaces and Mr. Carosi responded, that, the conversion of use and the increase required for parking. Mr. Dave Roback, Architect for the applicant addressed the Board. He stated that this would be a small project, 450sf footprint, parking, oak tree that is not well are some of the concerns they have. The FAR calculation includes the garage and is only 10% over the requirement. The project is only over 100 square feet on the impervious surface. There was brief discussion on these issues with Mr. Zuckerman closing by telling the applicant "you have heard the comments from the Board, we will not vote on this tonight but I think it is safe to say that we favor projects that require minimum variances, that save as many trees and open space as possible. If you can do that, then we welcome you. Applicant thanked the Board for their time and input. Page 8 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved Chairman Zuckerman called for the last item on the agenda: DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Planning Board Rules and Procedures. Mrs. Kandel, Village Counsel, addressed the Board and explained that they took the changes sent out by Mr. Zuckerman to the committee, reviewed them and made some changes. The main addition regarded the recording of meetings, it cannot be prohibited but the individual would have to request permission. A question was asked regarding the voting required by the Planning Board and whether a super majority can be imposed. It should be the majority or in this case— 4 votes. An abstention or if a member didn't vote would be counted as a positive. As for written comments, if someone could not be here, written comments could be read into the minutes. Chairman Zuckerman asked if this Board should allow written comments after the close of the public hearing or before the close of the public hearing. Mr. Agatston stated that he believed when the public hearing is closed, it's closed,period. Mrs. Schoen disagreed with that and believes if someone can't be here but it is important to them, this Board should take it into consideration and they should be heard. Mrs. Fredman added that she had no problem reading what someone has to say on a project before the Board. Mr. Grzan believes one the hearing is closed, it's closed. Mrs. Kandel noted that a public hearing gives the opportunity for applicant to respond. It is an opinion of the public and the board can take it or leave it for what it is. Mr. Laufer stated that it is the spirit of the board to get as much information as possible and the Board can at least read the information. To completely eliminate it is not necessary." Chairman Zuckerman noted that the majority of the Board seems to think we should do this, maybe give the applicant a few days to respond. Mrs. Kandel added that there are rules to follow but there is no black and white rule to follow with this. Mrs. Kandel noted that these meetings are noticed and the public is given plenty of time, if a member of the public wants to make comments they need to show up at the meeting. You wouldn't allow someone to come five days after the public hearing is closed to make comments. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed added that the board should not be approving or disapproving an application based on public comment. Opinions should not influence a vote one way or another, if it is technical information that would be a different matter because that is Page 9 of 10 April 26, 2007 Planning Board Approved what your decisions should be based on. The public is encouraged to comment but your decision is not based on their comments. Chairman Zuckerman asked what happens if after the Board closed the public hearing gets technical information that contradicts everything that we just did? Mrs. Kandel responded that would be a limited instance in which the Planning Board would reopen the public hearing. Mrs. Schoen now feels better knowing that we have the option to reopen if we receive technical information. Mr. Grzan feels that public hearing means that you don't have to speak—you can give it to the Secretary to be written into the minutes—then you keep the meeting open Chairman Zuckerman decided that the feeling of the Board is that we accept written comments and we keep the public hearing open if necessary. He added that Mrs. Kandel would put everything into final form and circulate it and if anyone has further comments they can respond by email and hopefully we can vote on it at the next meeting. Mr. Laufer asked about site visits and if you want to look at a site by yourself, can you do that. Mrs. Kandel responded the Planning Board feels a site visit is appropriate then the Planning Board should go as a group. Chairman Zuckerman thanked the committee for their hard work on this and asked for a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mrs. Fredman, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15pm. Page 10 of 10