Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-10-08 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday, October 8, 2009 ...................................................................................................... ROLL CALL MINUTES 1. Review of Planning Board minutes for September 10,2009; CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Review of a Site Plan Application by Pedro Vilca to replace a previously removed wrap aroundporch for the property at 51 Hawthorne Ave, Rye Brook NY,parcel ID 135.75-1- 83. • Applicant requests Adjournment NEW BUSINESS 3. Review of a Site Plan Application by Mr. Michael Keilman for multiple additions and regrading of property located within a scenic roads overlay district for the property at 17 Berkley Drive, Rye Brook NY, parcel ID 135.43-1-8. • Possible referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals for area variances 4. Review of a Site Plan Application by Douglas Vaggi on behalf of Dr. Stanley Rothman and Harriet Rothman for a subdivision and construction of a new single family dwelling on new lot at 2 Elm Hill Drive, Rye Brook NY,parcel ID 135.51- 1-1. • Possible referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals for area variances //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 5. Considering a resolutions cancelling the November 26, 2009 and December 24, 2009 meetings DISCUSSION ITEMS ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting. THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS October 22, 2009 and November 12, 2009 PRESENT BOARD Mr. Dominick Accurso Mr. Warren Agatston Mr. Robert Goodman Mr. John Grzan Mrs. Amy Schoen Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mr. Bill Laufer STAFF Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant Ms. Jennifer Reinke, Village Counsel Mr. Mike Nowak, Acting Village Engineer Mrs. Pat Romano, 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 and Procedures 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. The Chairman called for the first item on the agenda: MINUTES 1. Review of Planning Board minutes for September 10,2009; There being no comment or discussion from the Board, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to approve the minutes and on a motion made by Mr. Agatston and seconded by Mr. Goodman, a voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 Motion carried. The Chairman requested that the Board advance to the last item on the agenda: 5. Considering a resolutions cancelling the November 26, 2009 and December 245 2009 meetings Chairman Zuckerman explained that these meetings were being cancelled due to November 26th being Thanksgiving and December 24th being Christmas Eve. There being no discussion or further comment from the Board, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, a voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Motion carried. October 8, 2009 _APPROVED RESOLUTION CANCELING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BE IT RESOLVED,that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby cancels the November 26, 2009 and December 24, 2009 planning board meetings The Chairman called for the next item on the agenda: CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Review of a Site Plan Application by Pedro Vilca to replace a previously removed wrap around porch for the property at 51 Hawthorne Ave,Rye Brook NY,parcel ID 135.75-1-83. •Applicant requests Adjournment Chairman Zuckerman asked Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant, to explain the delay with the application. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed responded that the applicant had provided revised landscape plans but there are technical adjustments to be made that are required for approval. //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 Ms. Jen Reinke, Village Attorney, added that the applicant is also preparing a submission to the Village for preservation of the buffer area through either a Conservation Easement or a restrictive covenant and is awaiting a survey showing the metes and bounds of the area they intend to preserve. As there were no further comments or questions, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Agatston, the roll was called: MR ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. AGATSTON YES CHARIMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Motion carried. The Chairman called for the next item on the agenda: NEW BUSINESS 3. Review of a Site Plan Application by Mr. Michael Keilman for multiple additions and regrading of property located within a scenic roads overlay district for the property at 17 Berkley Drive, Rye Brook NY, parcel ID 135.43-1-8. • Possible referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals for area variances Chairman Zuckerman explained that this application requires 3 variances, 2 for the Scenic Roads Overlay District and 1 for gross floor area. He also explained the applicant should understand that approval of any variance by the ZBA does not constitute an as of right approval of the Site Plan. ZBA approval only gives the Planning Board the authority to approve a site plan with the area dimensions varied as set forth in the ZBA resolution. All other planning considerations remain pertinent to the application. Mr. Mike Finan, Engineer for the applicant, addressed the Board and gave a brief overview of the project which includes several additions to the residence. They are in receipt of Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed's letter advising of the variances needed and requested that they be allowed to go before the Zoning Board before beginning site plan review with the Planning Board. //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed was asked to review a survey that was just submitted this evening. She explained that the survey is still out of date and either requires a waiver from the Board or a recertification by the surveyor. Chairman Zuckerman explained that the code requires that the survey be dated within one year of the application. The applicant can either have the survey re-certified or formally request a waiver in writing from the Planning Board as they have the authority to do so upon recommendation from the Building Inspector or Village Engineer. Mr. Accurso asked about the increase in the impervious surface and if it is listed somewhere, at which Mr. Finan responded that it is a very minor increase but did not have exact figures. After a brief discussion regarding storm water removal, Mr. Accurso stated that 8 cultec units are being added for the addition of the impervious surface and would like to go on record as requesting that all storm water be collected from the house as currently it is draining on to grade. With the history of flooding in this Village, he believes it is the responsible thing to do to capture storm water from the entire property instead of just the added impervious surface. Mr. Grzan asked, with regard to the elevation, if the height looking at the home from Ridge Street is changing. The response was no.....they are not increasing the height/set back ratio. There being no further comments or questions, Ms. Reinke read the resolution referring the application to the Zoning Board with the addition of the sui Vey in the list of documents and a change in the gross floor area figure. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. AGATSTON YES CHARIMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Motion carried HNOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 October 8, 2009 APPROVED RESOLUTION REFERRING A SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AT 17 BERKLEY LANE TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD APPEALS VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Mr. Michael Keilman, property owner, has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook for approval of a site plan to construct an addition to a single family home in the R-15 zoning district located at 17 Berkley Lane, Section 43, Block 1, Lot 8 on the Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the following plans and application materials: 1. Building Permit Check List and Zoning Analysis 2. Exterior Building Permit Application 3. Site Plan Application 4. Topographic Survey dated January 31, 2008 prepared by Thomas C. Merritts Land Surveyors, P.C., Pleasantville, N.Y. 5. Engineer's Plans,prepared by CMX, White Plains,New York: Drawing Number Sheet Title Dated 1 of 3 Site Plan 1/22/09 2 of 3 Existing Conditions, Slope and Demo 1/22/09 3 of 3 Construction Details 1/22/09 6. Architect's Plans, prepared by Justin F. Minieri, AIA,New Rochelle, New York: Drawing Number Sheet Title Dated A01 Title Sheet 1/23/09 A02 Height/Setback Ratio 1/23/09 A03 Demolition Plan (Basement) 1/23/09 A04 Demolition Plan (First Floor) 1/23/09 //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 A06 Basement Floor Plan 1/23/09 A07 First Floor Plan 1/23/09 A08 Second Floor Plan 1/23/09 A13 Elevations 1/23/09 A14 Elevations 1/23/09 WHEREAS, the Village Planning Consultant, Village staff and the Planning Board reviewed the information, submitted comments and made recommendations to the Applicant regarding the site plan and the construction of the proposed addition; and WHEREAS, the following planning issues are identified by the Planning Board for the Zoning Board of Appeals consideration: 1. Grading plan that disturbs and creates new steep slopes. 2. Potential visual impacts to the North Ridge Scenic Road from the proposed large home; and WHEREAS, the residence and site plan, as proposed, would require the following variances for approval of the site plan pursuant to a zoning analysis conducted by the Village Building Inspector: 1. A variance of 17.09 feet from the minimum required front yard setback in the Scenic Roads Overlay District, §§250-20.F(1), 250-7(F)(6)(b). The required setback is 60 feet. The applicant's existing front yard setback on the Berkley Lane frontage is 42.91 feet. A variance of 17.09 feet is required. 2. A variance of 35 feet from §250-7.F(6)(c) requiring a 35 foot wide vegetative buffer along the Berkley Avenue frontage; 3. A variance from the maximum permitted gross floor area required by §250-20(D). The maximum gross floor area permitted is 4,042.6 square feet, 3,623 square feet is existing and 4,528 square feet is proposed. A variance of 485.4 square feet is required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board believes that pursuant to § 179-12(A) of the Village Code the application should be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a determination on the area variances required before final site plan approval is given; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is familiar with the site and all aspects of the project. //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and after review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared by the Applicant, detennines the proposed action to be a Type II Action requiring no additional review under SEQRA; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, for the reasons stated herein, the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby refers the site plan application listed herein, to construct an addition at the home located at 17 Berkley Lane, to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a determination on the area variances; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, once the determination has been made by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the area variances, the applicant shall return to the Planning Board for final site plan review with any revisions, if necessary, to the proposed project based upon the Zoning Board of Appeals determination. The Chairman called for the next item on the agenda: 4. Review of a Site Plan Application by Douglas Vaggi on behalf of Dr. Stanley Rothman and Harriet Rothman for a subdivision and construction of a new single family dwelling on new lot at 2 Elm Hill Drive, Rye Brook NY, parcel ID 135.51-1-1. • Possible referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals for area variances Chairman Zuckerman stated that approval of the plan as submitted will require five (5) variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Douglas Vaggi, Architect for the applicant, addressed the Board and gave a brief overview of the project, noting that plans have been submitted to the Village that include subdividing the existing property and building a new home on the new lot. They are in receipt of Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed's comments and are aware that they need to go before the Zoning Board for the required variances. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed stated that the existing home has an illegal, non-conforming front yard setback which would require a variance. The additional variances needed for the existing home were created by the location of the subdivision line. //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 The new lot, temporarily called"0"Betsy Brown Road by the Building Inspector, also requires variances for a side yard setback and impervious surface coverage. In her opinion, the need for variances could be eliminated if the site plan was re-designed to reduce the amount of impervious surface coverage and relocate the accessory garage in the rear yard. Additional concerns are tree preservation and protection, the landscape plan and the need for screening to mitigate possible impacts to the visual assets of Crawford Park which is directly behind and adjacent to the new lot and home. Mr. Agatston agrees that while the Board cannot tell the applicant how to design their new home, it does seem that something can be done to minimize the impacts and variances and he would recommend that when it is ready to come back before the Board, a site visit is scheduled so that the Board can see the property and get a better visual concept of the proposed home. Mr. Grzan is not sure he wants to send the application to the Zoning Board immediately because, with regard to the new proposed home, the variances required are part of the current site design, which the Board should look at before referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Goodman disagrees, stating that if the applicant wants to apply for variances they should proceed. It is their design and ultimately their decision. Mrs. Schoen believes it should go before the Zoning Board first. Chairman Zuckerman added that Mr. Grzan's point is well taken. In his opinion, this application would have been an ideal candidate for a sketch plan review, as he believes more planning is needed and there are things that could be done to possibly eliminate some of the variances or at least make them smaller. However, as Mr. Goodman pointed out, it is the applicant's prerogative to proceed if he so chooses. Mr. Vaggi responded that the more they shift the property in order to meet requirements for the existing house, the more they are limited in what they can do with the new lot. He explained that the applicant is trying to retain the integrity of the existing home. Mr. Rothman, owner/applicant, addressed the Board stating his desire is to see that the old house remains undisturbed. Developers that have approached him wanted to tear the house down, but he and his wife want to preserve it and do not want to see it damaged. For a developer, the land is worth more than the house. It is the owners' goal to move into a smaller home, stay in Rye Brook, and preserve the integrity of the original house. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed responded that the question is whether the site plan provided actually minimizes to the greatest extent possible the variances they are asking for. This is why the Village likes applicants to come in long before this point to meet with the //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10 Building Department and the Planning Consultant to go over the project at an earlier stage of design to address any potential concerns or problems. Mr. Accurso added that he also believes that this application needs more planning before it goes before the Zoning Board and that since the new lot is basically a clean slate with new construction, there should be no need for variances. Mr. Agatston believes it is admirable that the applicant wants to preserve the existing home but also agrees that there should be more planning dialogue. He added that even if they were to be granted all the requested variances by the Zoning Board, there is no guarantee that the Planning Board will approve the site plan. He believes it would be helpful if the application was adjourned and the applicant meets with the Village staff to try to resolve all the issues of concern. Chairman Zuckerman suggested, and the Board and the applicant agreed, to a one month adjournment, stating that after meeting with the Village staff a plan may result that has variances that are not as extensive and which may have a more positive result both with the ZBA and the Planning Board. This application was adjourned to November 12th Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn and on a motion made by Mr. Agatston and seconded by Mrs. Schoen, a voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 PM. //NOT 1N PCDOCS VOC 1/13/10