Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-24 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes January 24, 2008 Planning Board Minutes Approved VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday January 24, 2008 - 8:00 p.m. ......................................................................... ROLL CALL NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of a Site Plan Application by Brian & Lorrie Funtleyder for the teardown of an existing single family dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling on the property listed as 13 Beechwood Boulevard, Rye Brook, NY, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 136.21, Block 1, Lot 38 in the R-25 Zoning District. • Considering a Resolution to schedule a Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS RESOLUTIONS MINUTES 2. Approval of the January 10, 2008 minutes. DISCUSSION ITEMS ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting. THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS February 14, 2008 and February 28, 2008 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 1 of 6 January 24, 2008 Planning Board Minutes Approved PRESENT BOARD Mr. John Grzan Mr. Warren Agatston Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Bill Laufer Mr. Domenic Accurso Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mrs. Michele Fredman STAFF Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant Mr. Victor G. Carosi, P.E.; Village Engineer Mr. Mike Nowak, Jr. Village Engineer Chairman Zuckerman opened the meeting by asking everyone to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. He then introduced the Board members and the Village Staff to the audience and explained the rules of procedure for the meeting and made note for the public that the complete set of Planning Board Rules and Procedures can be found on the Village web site. Chairman Zuckerman called for the first item on the agenda: Mr. Laufer recused himself for this application, as his property is adjacent to the 13 Beechwood property. NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of a Site Plan Application by Brian & Lorrie Funtleyder for the teardown of an existing single family dwelling and construction of a new single family dwelling on the property listed as 13 Beechwood Boulevard, Rye Brook, NY, designated on the Tax Assessor's Map as Section 136.21, Block 1, Lot 38 in the R-25 Zoning District. • Considering a Resolution to schedule a Public Hearing Mr. Brad DeMotte, Architect for the applicant, addressed the Board, giving an overview of the project. The property is a 1.1-acre corner lot located on Beechwood circle and Beechwood Blvd. The property was before the Board two years ago to review an application for subdivision that was not pursued by the previous applicant. The existing home is a 1'/z-story cape on a 150-foot deep property. Mr. DeMotte noted that adjacent lots are 300 feet deep. The proposed site plan includes a two-story home with a terrace in the rear, a pool in the northeast corner of the lot and a new driveway that would require an additional curb cut. 2 of 6 January 24, 2008 Planning Board Minutes Approved The architect stated that the proposed site plan would require relief from the required 79- foot front setback. According to Mr. DeMotte the house, as designed, meets the required building height; however, it does not meet the front height/setback ratio. In an effort to try to meet the required height/setback ratio alternatives were explored, including changing from a gable roof to a hip roof. Another option would be to keep the gables but lower the pitch of the roof Another issue is parking in the front yard. The architect stated he has an alternate scheme that eliminates the circular driveway. Mr. DeMotte went over the alternates and discussed areas of concern with the Board. He stated that the current proposed plan would require variances. Mr. Carosi addressed the Board, discussing the difference between a wetland and a flood zone. He stated that the stormwater management, plan was reviewed and there is more work to be done. He said the applicant and the consultant have shown a willingness to alter the plan to better suit the particulars of the project. He remarked that the new flood zone map does indicate that a portion of this property is in the AE flood zone. This map shows a portion of the property included within the area that does have a potential for flooding during a 1% storm recurrence interval. If a building were to be built in the flood zone certain special construction methods and placement of utilities above the water line would be required. However, the 13 Beechwood structure, as currently proposed, is located completely outside of the flood zone so no special construction would be required. Mr. Carosi added that there are no wetland issues associated with this property. Mr. Carosi also discussed the new storm drainage system under construction on Loch Lane. It replaces some of the aging infrastructure in that area. He expects that localized flooding at King Street and Comely Avenue and at the intersection of Beechwood Boulevard and Loch Lane should be eliminated for most storms. Meeting interrupted by afire alarm and evacuation of Village Hall. The meeting was reconvened. Mrs. Mohamed addressed the Board, saying the project site is one the Board is very familiar with. She stated that the Building Inspector has verified that the project, as designed, would require variances. The applicant has submitted their preferred plan and an alternate plan to receive feedback. After the Board provides direction to the applicant, a new plan will be submitted. The new residence would have a gross floor area of 6,400 square feet, making it one of the biggest homes on this street. To clarify the front yard requirement for the project, Mrs. Mohamed stated that in the R- 25 Zone, a new subdivision on vacant land would require 45-foot front yards. However, in a developed area of the zone, such as Byram Ridge, the front yard requirement takes into consideration the front yards of surrounding properties, calculating the required yard by averaging the existing adjacent front yards. In this case, because of the configuration of the lot, and the fact that it has two frontages, the applicant will require relief from the 3 of 6 January 24, 2008 Planning Board Minutes Approved minimum 79.15-foot front yard setback. The Board should decide how much relief from the front yard setback is appropriate so that the new development is in character with the rest of the neighborhood. The existing house has an approximately 54-foot front yard. As currently proposed, the front yard of the new residence would be 37.7 feet. This is less than the 45-foot minimum for the zone. The variance for the pool equipment can be eliminated because the equipment can be easily moved to a complying location. Regarding the 0.12 variance from the required front height/setback ratio, increasing the depth of the front yard may eliminate that variance as well, without changing the roof line of the building. Increasing the front yard to 52-54 feet should eliminate the variance all together. There was an issue with the amount of impervious surface in the front yard but, after speaking to the Building Inspector, she understood that he believes the applicant's calculations were incorrect and a front yard impervious surface variance would not be required for the proposed site plan. Finally, Mrs. Mohamed said that a tree preservation plan should be provided along with a landscaping plan to help the Board determine how much mitigation would be necessary to compensate for mature trees to be removed for the project. Mrs. Schoen asked about the geothermal heating system proposed and the applicant's consultant explained that vertical loops are being proposed and the engineer will determine the square footage. The system must be installed under open ground covered by grass only. Chairman Zuckerman stated that he feels that a lovely home could be designed without any variances whatsoever, except for relief from the 79 foot requirement in the front yard, and, by moving the house to approximately where it is now in the front, any question of the front yard setback and the height setback ratio can be eliminated. By doing something with the driveway the need for that variance can be eliminated as well. Mr. Agatston thanked the applicant for presenting alternate plans because it shows a willingness to cooperate and work with the Board. He also suggested that if the house could be moved back a little bit there may be something that could be done in the rear of the home to compensate for the move. There is a very large patio in the rear yard that could be reduced in size to resolve some issues and help the site plan to more closely conform to the front yard requirements. Mr. Accurso stated that it is his position that a tear down starts with a clean slate; therefore, the site plan should be designed so no variances are required. However, Mr. Accurso believes there is an issue with the front yard set back and he agrees that pushing the house back to 52-54 feet would be more appropriate to the neighborhood. Mr. Accurso agreed that there is too much impervious surface coverage proposed, which should be addressed by reconsidering the circular driveway. He added that the residence would be a large structure and the ceiling height of nine or ten feet may be part of the problem. He suggested, because the house is close to the maximum allowable size, the applicant may want to consider reducing the bulk of the home. 4 of 6 January 24, 2008 Planning Board Minutes Approved Mr. Grzan agreed there should be some relief from the front yard setback requirement, but, he believes because it is a teardown, the project should be built to comply with the code. The amount of impervious surface coverage, although in compliance, should be looked at again. Mr. Grzan was also concerned about the geothermal system and the circular driveway. Mrs. Schoen agreed with the comments made and she was concerned about the geothermal system but understands it will be reviewed as the plan progresses. Chairman Zuckerman summarized the comments of the Board, stating the Board wants the variance from the height/setback ratio requirement eliminated and he is confident the architect will be able to redesign the house plan so that the owner will have a beautiful home. Chairman Zuckerman added that he is concerned about the number of trees being removed as well. Fewer trees would be removed if, as the Board directs, the circular driveway is eliminated. Mrs. Schoen stated she is in favor of as many trees and screen plantings as possible on the lot, but was not prepared to make any further comments until she reviews the landscape plan. Mr. Agatston commented that he wants the site plan revised to indicate the closest distances between this property and the homes on all adjacent properties. Chairman Zuckerman thanked the applicant and adjourned the application to the meeting of February 28, 2008. Mr. Funtleyder, the homeowner, addressed the Board, stating his family is moving to Rye Brook because they love the area and the school system. He added that he does not like removing trees from his property. He said the geothermal heating/cooling system would use 70% less fossil fuel and help reduce home heating and cooling costs. He believes the property can be a beautiful addition to the area and he welcomes any comments the Board or anyone else has regarding the landscape plan and would like to make the property a special place for his family as well as the public. Chairman Zuckerman thanked Mr. Funtleyder for his comments, welcoming him to the community and stating he was confident issues with the site plan could be resolved. Mr. Laufer rejoined the Board. Chairman Zuckerman called for the next item on the agenda: MINUTES 2. Approval of the January 10, 2008 minutes. 5 of 6 January 24, 2008 Planning Board Minutes Approved Chairman Zuckerman asked for a motion to accept the minutes and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Agatston, the roll was called: Mr. Accurso Yes Mr. Agatston Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Mr. Laufer Yes Mrs. Schoen Yes DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Agatston noted that at the last Westchester Municipal Planning Federation meeting it was announced that the Westchester County Planning Department is developing a planning-related website that is now online. He believes it will be very helpful for all residents, professional planners and planning board members. It has maps and other information that are excellent tools for everyone to use. The website is www.westchestergov.com/2025. Chairman Zuckerman asked for a motion to adjourn and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, the meeting was adjourned. 6 of 6