Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-22 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday May 22, 2008 - 8:00 p.m. ......................................................................... ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS 1. Review of a Site Plan Application by Brian & Lorrie Funtleyder, Brad DeMotte, Architect for the teardown of an existing single-family dwelling and construction of a new single-family dwelling at 13 Beechwood Boulevard, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel I.D. 136.21-1-38. • Considering a resolution to reopen the Public Hearing. NEW BUSINESS 2. Presentation by Certilman Bailin Attorneys on behalf of KF (Rye Brook), LLC for a proposed residential development known as "Kingswood" on Anderson Hill Road, Rye Brook,NY, Parcel I.D. 129.35-1-13 3. Considering amendments to Chapter 250 of the Village Zoning Code. MINUTES 4. Review of the March 27, April 10, April 24, and May 8, 2008 Planning Board minutes DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. Considering amendments to the Planning Board "Rules of Procedure." ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS SUBJECT TO CONSENT OF PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE MEETING THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS June 12, 2008, July 10, 2008 and August 14, 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 Page 1 of 9 May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved PRESENT BOARD Mr. Domenic Accurso Mr. Warren Agatston Mrs. Michele Fredman Mr. John Grzan Mr. Bill Laufer Mrs. Amy Schoen Chairman Gary Zuckerman STAFF Mrs. Amanda Kandel, Village Counsel Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant Mr. Victor G. Carosi, P.E., Village Engineer Mr. Mike Nowak, Jr. Village Engineer Mrs. Patricia Sanders Romano, Village Board of Trustees Liaison 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. Additionally, Chairman Zuckerman made note for the public that the compete set of Planning Board Rules of Procedure can be found on the Village website and also announced that the public can now view the Planning Board minutes via streaming video on the Village website. Chairman Zuckerman called for the first item on the agenda: PUBLIC HEARING 1. Review of a Site Plan Application by Brian & Lorrie Funtleyder, Brad DeMotte Architect, for the teardown of an existing single-family dwelling and construction of a new single-family dwelling at 13 Beechwood Boulevard, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel I.D. 136.21-1-38. 0 Considering a resolution to reopen the Public Hearing Planning Board member Laufer, who owns the property adjacent to the rear yard of the subject property, is recused from review of the application and voting on the matter. Mr. Anthony Gioffre of Cuddy & Feder, Attorney for the applicants, addressed the Board stating that at their previous meeting with the Board the Public Hearing was closed. He explained that the applicant then went before the Village Zoning Board of Appeals who adjourned the matter. They are before the Planning Board requesting that the Public Hearing be reopened so they can present a revised proposed plan based on comments from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The original and revised plan requires a variance from the required front yard set back on Beechwood Boulevard. The required set back is 79.15 feet. The new proposal would move the home back 14 feet, reducing the variance required to 12.76 feet. Additionally, he explained, there was an issue with respect to Page 2 of 9 May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved exterior stairs at the rear of the home that would have required an additional variance; therefore, the revised plan relocates the stairs to the side of the home, which would not require a variance. Chairman Zuckerman noted that Mrs. Kandel, Village Counsel, had received and reviewed the revised plan but the Board had not seen the plans yet. He also asked if the landscape plan had been changed as well. Mr. Brad DeMotte, Architect for the applicant, addressed the Board. He explained that they would like to propose an alternate layout for the parking court that includes larger trees to improve screening. The revision also includes a reduction of the length of the parking court from 50 feet to 35 feet. Chairman Zuckerman stated that moving the house further back from Beechwood Boulevard puts the driveway closer to the neighbor on the Loch Lane side and he wants to be sure that the screening is sufficient or perhaps redesign the driveway so that it is not brought closer to the neighbor. Mr. Accurso asked why the geothermal system could not be within the footprint of the driveway and Mr. DeMotte responded that the horizontal system was too big to fit within the extent of the driveway area. Mr. Accurso asked if it could be located within the footprint of the driveway if it was a vertical system, to which Mr. DeMotte responded it could be because the vertical system takes up less horizontal area. Mrs. Kandel read the resolution setting the public hearing into the minutes. After a motion made by Mr. Agatston and seconded by Mrs. Schoen, there was further discussion. Mr. Grzan asked what happened at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. It was explained that the Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned the matter to give the applicant time to revise the plans to reduce the variance required. Chairman Zuckerman explained that the matter may be decided at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in June. Therefore, if a Public Hearing were set now the applicant would not lose any additional time after the Zoning Board of Appeals determination because the Public Hearing would already be scheduled. Mr. Gioffre stated he is confident that the information will be ready for the Zoning Board of Appeals in time for them to be able to render a determination at their June meeting. Chairman Zuckerman reminded the Board of the possibility that the Zoning Board of Appeals could adjourn the matter again and that the Planning Board would decide, in that event, how to handle the Public Hearing if it were already scheduled. Chairman Zuckerman asked Mr. Carosi to call the vote on the motion: Mr. Accurso Yes Mr. Agatston Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Page 3 of 9 May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved Mrs. Schoen Yes Chairman Zuckerman Yes Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 2. Presentation by Certilman Bailin Attorneys on behalf of KF (Rye Brook),Anderson Hill Road, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel I.D. 129.35-1-13 Mr. Wagner of Certilman Bailin addressed the Board stating that the application is before the Board to discuss the latest revised plans for the project. The project was originally proposed as a hotel in 1999. The applicant and the Village, after litigation, reached a stipulation agreement and essentially the plan was changed from a hotel to a residential development. The Board of Trustees accepted the final environmental impact statement. Under the stipulation an application had to be submitted and was done in January 2007. There has been a lot of dialogue between the applicant and the Village and based on that dialogue, the applicant has voluntarily reduced the unit count to 30 from 43 to ensure that the maximum wetlands are preserved on the site. The applicant also has to meet the requirements of the Array Corp of Engineers, which wanted them to reduce the amount of disturbance to the wetlands before they could acquire the nationwide permit. Mr. Wagner also advised the Board that a substantial area at the site, including the land in the Town of Greenwich, will be placed in a Conservation Easement area. He explained that there have been previous plans submitted and again, many comments from the Village staff and consultants, but he now believes the application has met every issue that has been raised to date. Chairman Zuckerman commented that he believed this would be a brief submission tonight and added that this Board does not have a set of paper plans to review. Chairman Zuckerman asked how this plan is different from the previous and Mr. Wagner responded that there have been many changes since the original. Mr. Accurso asked if they had the old plans available tonight so the Board could see the differences in the two plans and the response was they did not bring them here tonight but he could provide them. Mr. Mike Marinis, Site Engineer for this project, addressed the board and gave a brief site description of the project, which sits in New York and Connecticut. All proposed construction is located within the Village of Rye Brook boundaries. Mr. Marinis pointed out that there is 5.2 acres of wetlands on this site. The proposed development consists of 30 semi-attached single-family dwellings with a gatehouse, a gazebo, tennis court associated site improvements, utilities and a storm water detention system. He explained that 5.9 acres will be disturbed during construction as well as less then a '/2 acre of the existing wetlands. Mr. Marmis gave a more detailed description of the storm water management system that was submitted. Since the last submission to the Village in January 2008, some changes have been made in regard to the conveyance system to Page 4 of 9 May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved introduce an inlet control structure, which is a single culvert with a vegetated swale. Site lighting was modified as well as some landscaping changes, which include modifying plantings including the screen plantings of the retention basin. He explained that 5 additional parking stalls were added and that changes were made to accommodate emergency vehicles as well. In addition, at the request of the Village, snow storage areas were included in the new plan. Mrs. Schoen noted that there is still a gatehouse in the plan and is concerned because of this Board expressing its displeasure with that issue. Mr. Accurso asked about the retention ponds and the original discussion on relocating them, combining the two and making it a feature of the site. He also asked about the tennis courts being put in the center of the development. Mr. Marinis explained that the first submission did have one pond and is now currently split by an emergency access road but hydraulically they will function as one. As for the location of the pond it needs to be adjacent to the existing swale so that it can discharge into the Blind Brook. They also did not want to put the pond in the wetlands and added that the ponds were designed in accordance with the Village's requirements. Chairman Zuckerman asked about the need for a variance because of the location in the Scenic Roads Overlay District and Mr. Wagner explained that the Village has an obligation to do whatever is necessary to approve the project without the need for variances per the litigation and therefore have asked for a waiver from the Village Board. Beth Evans, Evans Associates, Environmental Consultant, addressed the Board in regard to moving the retention ponds. She explained that the construction of the ponds in another location would constitute a much larger disturbance to the wetlands. They have provided fully detailed landscape plans for these basins with a full planting plan that includes the fluctuation of water levels and they will be an attractive feature as you drive along King Street. Mr. Marinis explained that the gatehouse was on the original plan and there have been several changes made since then. It was moved back to increase the amount of cars that could pull in to the site and because the gatehouse would have been constructed on a utility easement. Mr. Marinis also addressed the question regarding the tennis court, which was supposed to be a clubhouse. It was determined that the clubhouse was not justified or cost effective. They needed to minimize the impacts on the site and the tennis courts are less obtrusive. There was a pool proposed originally but that has been withdrawn. Mr. Accurso asked how big the units were in terms of square footage and what the stipulation was. Mr. Wagner responded the stipulation was for 43 units and 2600 square feet exclusive of attics and cellars— single family dwellings attached or detached. Mr. Accurso asked about affordable dwellings and the response was the stipulation does not provide for affordable housing. Page 5 of 9 May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved Mr. Accurso believes, in his opinion, that the units are too close together and there is very little green space between them. Ms. Michelle Lee, Sullivan Architecture, Architect for the applicant, addressed the Board and explained that there is quite a bit of landscaping in between to buffer the units. The proximity between them, at the closest two, is 18 feet. The units range in size from 2879 to 2940 square feet. The units are all designed for an older population with most of the living space on the first floor with the bedrooms and a loft area on the second floor. There are partial basements in the units and they are meant to be a mechanical space or extra storage and emergency escape if ever needed. She noted that it will be an exercise to keep the basements dry but believes it can be done. There are gas-fired fireplaces and each unit does have patio space. There was further discussion regarding the proposed plans of the project. Mr. Accurso asked about the location of the tennis court and if it could be moved to another location because he believes it is a detraction. Ms. Lee responded that the remaining property is wetlands and there is really no other space for it. Chairman Zuckerman stated this is adjourned until the next meeting and he hopes that the plans are submitted to the Village and ultimately to this Board prior to the meeting. Chairman Zuckerman called for the next item on the agenda: 3. Considering amendments to Chapter 250 of the Village Zoning Code Mrs. Kandel addressed the board and explained that these amendments are before the Board because there were some conflicts and outdated language in Chapter 250 in regards to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition, the amendments are meant to clean up the code by removing everything from Chapter 64 and putting it into Chapter 250. It also updates the standards that are required for area and use variances. The goal is to create more consistency. There was further discussion regarding the wording of the code. Chairman Zuckerman suggested that when there is a site plan application before the Planning Board and it is referred to the Zoning Board for a variance, that the Zoning Board only act upon the matter actually referred. Chairman Zuckerman related that he had a conversation with Mark Harmon, Chair of the Zoning Board, and that there is a meeting planned for June 8 to discuss the matter of the interaction between the two boards and the best way to approach this legislation. The meeting will include the Village Administrator, Village Counsel, the Village Engineer and the Building Inspector, as well as the Board of Trustee liaisons to the two Boards. The matter was adjourned to June 12th- Page 6 of 9 May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved Chairman Zuckerman called for the next item on the agenda: MINUTES 4. Review of the March 27, April 10, April 24, and May 8, 2008 Planning Board Minutes Mr. Laufer asked for a change in the March 27th meeting. On page 3 it shows him being recused from the 13 Beechwood Blvd application but it incorrectly shows that he voted on the motion. In addition, his comments regarding the screening for the parking court at that location came from the landscape architect, not him. Mrs. Kandel advised the Board that if Mr. Laufer was recused, he cannot edit the minutes. Chairman Zuckerman suggested the Board not vote on the March 27th minutes until they can be reviewed and corrected. Chairman Zuckerman asked for a motion to approve the minutes from April 10th, April 24th and May 8th and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mrs. Fredman, the roll was called: Mr. Accurso Yes Mr. Agatston Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Mr. Laufer Yes Mrs. Schoen Yes Chairman Zuckerman Yes Motion carried. Chairman Zuckerman called for the next item on the agenda: DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. Considering amendments to the Planning Board "Rules of Procedure" Proposed changes in the rules and procedures: The first change discussed was in regard to electronic submission of plans. Mrs. Fredman stated that there are already submission requirements set forth in the Village Code and she questioned the need to add additional requirements to the Planning Board Rules of Procedure. She believes is should be part of Building Department procedure to request an electronic copy along with the paper copies of plans required for submission of an application. Page 7 of 9 May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved Mr. Agatston asked whether the Board would be required to use computers to review plans, which is a situation he did not think was practical. Chairman Zuckerman stated that an electronic copy is not so much for the Planning Board as it is for the planner, counsel and staff to save time when sending revised plans back and forth between them during review. Mr. Grzan stated that the Board should consider the impact of such a requirement on an applicant. He believes it would be an imposition on the applicant and also believes it would be impractical to review drawings by computer. Mrs. Mohamed said whether an individual reviews drawings by computer or on paper is a personal preference; however, there is an advantage to the Village to have a digital copy of plans that are submitted and approved. She believes eventually, perhaps as a result of the comprehensive planning process the Village is about to start, Rye Brook will develop a digital GIS-based data set and map of the Village that could be updated regularly by the digital copies of site plans submitted to the Village. Mr. Grzan stated he supports the creation of the database and map and the use of digital plans to update it; however, he believes the hard copy is a necessity for review by the Board. Mrs. Kandel explained that the digital copy does not replace the hard copies; it supplements it. Mr. Accurso stated his belief that the issue is one for the Building Department and not the Planning Board. Chairman Zuckerman continued by saying that having a digital submission allows the public to view the plans on their computers as well. He noted that the proposed date to implement digital submission is January 2009, which can be changed if the Board so desires. The digital copy would not replace the final approved hard copy version signed by the Chair, it is meant to improve the efficiency of the Board and its staff. Mrs. Fredman and Mrs. Schoen indicated they believe it is a good idea for the Village to pursue; however, they do not belong in the Planning Board Rules of Procedure. Next item discussed was making sketch plan conferences a requirement in the cases of new construction and tear downs. The Board members had differing views and ultimately decided to leave sketch plan conferences with the Board optional, with the addition that it is strongly recommended. Next item discussed was written comments. It was noted that comments from the public are sometimes received at 5 pm on the day of a Planning Board meeting. Mr. Agatston believes no written comments should be considered at a public hearing unless they are received 24 hours in advance of the meeting. He believes the Board should have enough time to review them before they sit for a hearing. The Board agreed that it is important to get as many comments as possible from the public during a public hearing, but written Page 8 of 9 May 22, 2008 Planning Board Approved comments should be given well enough in advance to give the Board time to review them. Mr. Grzan did not agree with the other Board members. He believes comments should be accepted any time up until the public hearing is closed. Mrs. Kandel stated that this position would be consistent with the public hearing process. Chairman Zuckerman noted that since this issue appears to warrant further discussion it should not be amended at this time. Mr. Dean Santon, 39 Hillandale Road, addressed the Board and stated that he believes anyone who submits comments late in the day fully understands that the recipients may not be able to review them before a meeting. If someone goes through the effort to submit a comment, he believes they should be heard. He believes the Board should accept the comment rather than never receive the comment at all. A late comment may come from a resident who can't be at the meeting but still wants to be heard. There was further discussion on how to change the wording regarding submission of written comments. Chairman Zuckerman suggested that Mrs. Kandel draft a few ideas on the issue and the Board would review them at the next meeting. There being no further business, Chairman Zuckerman asked for a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting and on a motion made by Mr. Agatston and seconded by Mr. Grzan, the meeting was adjourned at 10:44 pm. Page 9 of 9