Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-12 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - I VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday November 12, 2009 - 8:00 p.m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ROLL CALL MINUTES 1. Review of the Planning Board minutes of October 8, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING 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. • Considering a Resolution CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Review of a Site Plan Application by Douglas Vaggi on behalf of Mr. 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. • Considering a referral resolution to the Zoning Board of Appeals NEW BUSINESS 4. Review of a Proposed Local Law amending chapters 209 and 250 of the village code regarding Scenic Roads Overlay Districts (SROD) 5. Review of a Proposed Local Law amending chapter 250 of the village code regarding Temporary Certificate of Occupancies (TCO's) DISCUSSION ITEMS ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting. IOF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - 1 PRESENT BOARD Mr. Dominick Accurso Mr. Warren Agatston Mr. Robert Goodman Mr. Bill Laufer Mrs. Amy Schoen Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mr. John Grzan 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 Ms. Shari Melillo, Planning Board Secretary 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. Chairman called for the first item on the agenda: MINUTES 1. Review of the Planning Board minutes of October 8, 2009 Mrs. Schoen noted for the record that her vote on the application referral to the Zoning Board, item number 3 in the October 8th minutes, was omitted. Secretary will make the necessary correction. Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to approve as amended and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Agatston, a voice vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 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. • Considering a Resolution 1OF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - I Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant, addressed the Board and stated that the applicant was asked to provide certain technical information that was omitted from the site plan,but as of tonight, new plans have not been submitted. Chairman Zuckerman asked Ms. Reinke, Village Attorney, to update the Board on the status of the language for the restrictive covenant. Ms. Reinke responded that she had reviewed the proposed changes with Mr. Vitagliano, Attorney for the applicant, and they are in agreement with respect to the language but the Board should review the restrictive covenant and offer any comments. Chairman Zuckerman noted that the area of the vegetative buffer is delineated in two separate sections, whereas it should be one continuous 35-foot wide area. Mr. Vitagliano added that the applicant cannot maintain a vegetative buffer where the existing house and driveway are located. Therefore the surveyor delineated the areas that can be maintained in a vegetative state. Ms. Reinke clarified that the 35 foot buffer area required by the SROD not only requires preservation vegetation, but also other items such as stone walls and architectural features. Chairman Zuckerman believes the attorneys can work together to adjust the language of the restrictive covenant to address the issues raised tonight by the Board and the applicant. He also addressed the issue of the drawings and stressed that he would like this completed by the next board meeting on December IOth and asked that the drawings be submitted to the Village no later then November 251h Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn, and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Agatston, a voice vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously. Motion carried Next item on the agenda: CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Review of a Site Plan Application by Douglas Vaggi on behalf of Mr. 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-I-1. • Considering a referral resolution to the Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Vaggi, Architect for the applicant, addressed the Board stating that after discussions with Mr. Nowak and Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed, the site plan and sub-division were IOF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - 1 changed. The changes include removal of the detached garage and pool house and the addition of an attached three-car garage on the new lot. The design for the new house is in compliance with all zoning regulations including set backs and the impervious coverage for the front yard. Variances are now only required for the existing home. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed responded that Mr. Vaggi is accurate in his description and the Building Inspector has reviewed the new plans as well. The variance required for the existing home is for non-compliant impervious surface coverage in the front yard, which she believes could be eliminated if the large parking area in front of the home is reduced. Review of the plot plan and the landscape plan are pending based on agreement on a site plan and recommendations from the Board. In regard to the strip piece of the new Betsy Brown Road lot, it was her understanding that the applicant wants to preserve the existing historic house. As suggested during the meeting with the applicant, the strip should be designed to reduce the area of the 2 Elm Hill lot so that any lots subdivided out of it would be non compliant to eliminate the threat of subdivision. Instead, the applicant chose to propose that a restricted covenant be placed on the 2 Elm Hill lot to prohibit subdivision. The strip indicated on the current plan serves only to make the new home on the Betsy Brown Road lot conforming; it does not protect the historic Elm Hill Drive home because it does not sufficiently reduce the area of the lot to do so. Chairman Zuckerman noted that because of the strip, the variances are increased on the old lot and eliminated on the new lot. Mr. Agatston added that in looking at the new plan you can see that the applicant wants to retain the existing pool on the 2 Elm Hill lot, which is understandable. Mr. Agatston is not happy with the strip and suggests eliminating the pool, changing the lot lines, and eliminating the strip instead. He also suggested eliminating much of the impervious surface in front of the house. Mr. Zuckerman echoed the comments of Mr. Agatston and sees no purpose for the strip, but added that it is the applicant's choice of what variances they request before the Zoning Board. He advised the applicant that any approval of a variance by the Zoning Board does not automatically mean an approval with this Board. He also added that when the applicant comes back before this Board, we can go through the plan more thoroughly and believes it would be helpful for the Board to make a site visit as well. Mr. Rothman, the applicant, addressed the Board and explained that the thinking behind the strip is that they want the older house on a larger lot and a 20-foot wide strip is all that is needed to allow the new house to have no variances. The strip would not impact either house in any way and it makes the new lot work. Mr. Rothman added that neither house would be able to use the strip as the existing stone wall and vegetation would remain. In addition, he explained that having the driveway where it is proposed is absolutely essential to the character of the house. They are also completely in agreement with putting restrictive covenants on both properties. 1OF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - 1 Mrs. Schoen does not have a problem with the strip at all. She believes from an aesthetic point of view that the strip will enhance the view from Betsy Brown Road and she would support it. Ms. Reinke explained 2 changes in the Draft Resolution. The first is that, after speaking with Inspector Izzo, variance information is now included. The second is regarding SEQRA. Most residential site plan applications are Type 2, but as the application is also for subdivision, it does not fit into either the Type 1 or the Type 2 category. Ms. Reinke stated it is her recommendation that the action be classified as Unlisted, Later in the SEQRA process, the Board would then need to decide whether to adopt a positive declaration or a negative declaration based on whether there will be any significant environmental impacts caused by the plan. Tonight, the Board must also decide whether the SEQRA review will be "coordinated" or"uncoordinated." Coordinated review means that after the Board declares itself Lead Agency, it must contact and coordinate review with all the Involved Agencies. In an uncoordinated review, the Lead Agency and the Involved Agencies do separate, uncoordinated SEQRA reviews. Due to the nature and size of the application, Ms Reinke suggested that an uncoordinated review is appropriate. Ms. Reinke read the resolution as amended. Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion and a motion was made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr.Goodman. November 12, 2009 APPROVED RESOLUTION REFERRING A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A ONE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A NEW LOT AT 2 ELM HILL DRIVE TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Mr. Douglas R. Vaggi, architect for property owners, Dr. Stanley Rothman and Harriet Rothman, has made an application to the Village of Rye Brook for approval of a subdivision and site plan to subdivide property and construct, on the new lot (0 Betsy Brown Road), a new one-family dwelling, detached garage and in-ground pool with the existing one family dwelling to remain on the existing lot (2 Elm Hill Drive), in the R-12 Zoning District located at 2 Elm Hill Drive, Section 135.51, Block 1, Lot 1 on the Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the following plans and application materials: 1OF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - 1 1. Building Permit Check List and Zoning Analysis 2. Exterior Building Permit Application 3. Application for Subdivision Approval 4. A Short Environmental Assessment Fonn 5. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist 6. Site Plan Application 7. Topographic Survey dated July 28, 2009 prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, Port Chester, New York 8. Subdivision Plat, Sheet SU-1, dated July 28, 2009, prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, Port Chester, New York 9. Proposed Site Plan dated May 27, 2009, revised June 24, 2009,prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, Port Chester, New York 10. Drainage Summary Report dated May 27, 2009, prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, Port Chester, New York 11. Tree Survey Plan and Report dated May 21, 2009, prepared by Arborscape, Brewster,New York 12. Architect's Plans, prepared by Douglas R. Vaggi, R.A., Franklin Square, New York: Drawing Number Sheet Title Dated C-1 Existing Site Plan 10/19/09 C-2 Proposed Site Plan, Existing House 10/19/09 C-3 Proposed Site Plan, New House 10/19/09 C-4 Proposed Paving, New House 4/24/09 C-5 Erosion Control, New House 4/24/09 C-6 Site Details and Notes 4/24/09 C-7 Proposed Tree Plan, New House 4/24/09 C-8 Proposed Height/Setback Ratios 4/24/09 C-9 Proposed Height/Setback Ratios 4/24/09 SKI IA Proposed First Floor Plan 10/19/09 SKI 1B Proposed Second Floor Plan 10/19/09 SK10C Proposed Basement Floor Plan 4/24/09 SK10D Proposed East Elevation 4/24/09 SK10E Proposed North Elevation 4/24/09 SK10F Proposed West Elevation 4/24/09 SK10G Proposed South Elevation 4/24/09 SK10H Proposed Elevations 4/24/09 SKIOJ Proposed Detached Garage 4/24/09 WHEREAS, the Village Planning Consultant, Village staff and the Planning Board reviewed the information, submitted comments and made recommendations to the Applicant regarding the subdivision and site plan; and WHEREAS, in addition to the planning considerations set forth in the memorandum from Frederick P. Clark & Associates, Inc., dated November 6, 2009, 1OF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - 1 annexed hereto, the following planning issues are identified by the Planning Board for the consideration of the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1. Visual impacts to Crawford Park from the removal of existing trees on the newly created lot. 2. Creation of two lots, one of which is developed to an intensity greater than the permitted zoning requirements for the district; and WHEREAS, the subdivision and site plan, as proposed, would require the following variances for approval, pursuant to a zoning analysis conducted by the Village Building Inspector: 1. A front yard setback of 35 feet is required pursuant to Section 250-21(F)(1). The applicant's existing, nonconforming front yard setback at the existing garage on the existing 2 Elm Hill Drive lot is 26.71 feet requiring a variance of 8.29 feet. 2. A variance from the maximum permitted gross floor area is required pursuant to Section 250-21(D) for the 2 Elm Hill Drive lot. The applicant is proposing a gross floor area of 7,724 square feet where a maximum of 6,178 square feet is permitted. A variance of 1,546 square feet is required. 3. A variance from the maximum perinitted impervious surface coverage is required pursuant to Section 250-37(C) for the 2 Elm Hill Drive lot. The applicant is proposing 13,159 square feet of impervious surface coverage where the maximum permitted is 11,425 square feet. A variance of 1,734 square feet is required. 4. A variance from the maximum permitted front yard impervious surface coverage is required pursuant to Section 250-37(D) for the 2 Elm Hill Drive lot. The applicant is proposing front yard impervious surface coverage of 49.99% where the maximum permitted front yard impervious surface coverage is 40%. A variance of 9.99% is required. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has deterinined that pursuant to Section 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 subdivision and site plan approval may be given; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is familiar with the site and all aspects of the project. 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 1OF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - I Applicant, determines the proposed action to be an Unlisted Action and will proceed with an uncoordinated review pursuant to SEQRA; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, for the reasons stated herein, the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby refers the subdivision and site plan applications listed herein, to subdivide the property and construct, on the new lot (0 Betsy Brown Road), a new one-family dwelling, detached garage and in-ground pool with the existing one family dwelling to remain on the existing lot at 2 Elm Hill Drive, 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 subdivision and site plan review with any revisions, if necessary, to the proposed project based upon the Zoning Board of Appeals determination. Chairman Zuckerman asked Mr. Nowak to call the roll: MR. AGATSTON YES MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MS. SCHOEN YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 4. Review of a Proposed Local Law amending chapters 209 and 250 of the village code regarding Scenic Roads Overlay Districts (SROD) Chairman Zuckerman explained that the Planning Board has been discussing the amendments for about a year and several applications for properties within the SROD, including one from tonight, have come before the Board. Mr. Agatston stated that he understands trying to avoid the frontage issues that arose regarding the Berkley Drive application. After reading the amendments, he believes they makes sense and is in favor of the proposed changes. There have been a few applications where construction took place out of site of the Scenic Road. The question is, if the construction or changes cannot be seen from the Scenic Road, is it necessary for it to come before the Board? Mr. Goodman added that in regard to structures that can be built behind a building, they can impact the scenic views, and there does not seem to be any limitation to prevent it in IOF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - I the proposed changes. He believes there needs to be some sort of conditions added to preserve the purpose of the Scenic Roads Overlay District. Mr. Agatston stated that in addition to the regulations of the Scenic Roads Overlay District, any large addition probably would be regulated by other Village building codes and zoning regulations and would have to come before the Board anyway. While Mrs. Schoen and Mr. Laufer agree with Mr. Agatston, Chairman Zuckerman agreed with Mr. Goodman in that the problem is that while nothing can be built in the 35 foot buffer, if someone erects a second story that does not violate any of the zoning ordinances, but is visible from the Scenic Road, should it be regulated? The original draft stated that if you could view it from the SROD, it would fall in the jurisdiction of the Planning Board. He believes the Board should determine if "view" is the correct vehicle to use and the Board should give some thought to it for discussion at a future meeting. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed added her opinion that being able to view or not view a structure is not the problem. The real issue is making sure that whatever is built does not adversely impact the view. She is not in favor of the proposed changes the way they are currently written. Chairman Zuckerman added that the original thought was the concept of viewing as determined through the discretion of the Building Inspector, but the Administrator and Building Inspector were not in favor of that. Trustee Liaison Pat Romano addressed the Board as a Trustee and stated that one of the issues discussed was allowing the applicant to request a waiver from the Building Inspector. Chairman Zuckerman adjourned this matter to the next meeting and called for the next item on the agenda: 5. Review of a Proposed Local Law amending chapter 250 of the village code regarding Temporary Certificate of Occupancies (TCO's) The Acting Village Engineer, Michael Nowak, addressed the Board and stated that the purpose of the amendment is to allow the Building Inspector to grant a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) for residential construction. An example would be where a house is 80 percent complete but is still under construction, and the homeowner wants to move in for monetary put-poses. The proposed code changes would allow the Building Inspector to grant a TCO for up to 6 months. A TCO for more than 6 months would have to be approved by the Board of Trustees. Ms. Jen Reinke, Village Attorney, stated that the scope of projects intended to be covered by a TCO are substantial projects, which would not include something small, like a deck. IOF10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DRAFT VERSION - 1 Chairman Zuckerman added that the current law allows a TCO for residential construction, but does not include guidelines, and that is what we are attempting to do here. Mr. Agatston has a lot of problems with the amendments because a lot of what is proposed doesn't make sense.What if the kitchen is not done? What if the heat is not done? The dollar amount should be much higher, and he also has a concern with a 6— month TCO — can the applicant come back again for another 6 months? He believes the wording really needs to be addressed. Mr. Accurso added that in New York City, a TCO is issued for 90 days and he believes 6 months is way to long as well. Chairman Zuckerman believes the proposed law is designed for major projects where the owner of the home is not in occupancy. The pressure comes when the home is nearly completed and the owner is living elsewhere and paying another rent etc. and the issue is that something not completed is holding up the applicant from moving in. Mr. Agatston asked if the Building Inspector has had input. Mr. Nowak responded that the Building Inspector feels he does not have legislation to guide him when issuing a residential TCO. He does inspections and uses his professional judgment to issue the TCO; however, there are no minimum standards for him to follow even though the Village Code allows issuance. Currently, as proposed by the Board of Trustees, TCO's would be issued for one month at a time, for up to 6 months. After 6 months, the Building Inspector would not issue additional TCO's without approval from the Board of Trustees. Trustee Santon, was recognized and stated that he initiated the proposed changes because the Board of Trustees never adopted any guidelines under which to issue TCO's to give a framework to the Building Inspector. The proposed changes will prevent people from not finishing their projects and leaving the property undone. What this will do is give the Building Inspector guidelines to follow when issuing TCO's. Chairman Zuckerman believes the discussion was a good starting point but further discussion is needed with the Building Inspector to continue evaluating the law and discussing additional changes, if needed. Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn and on a motion made by Mr. Agatston and seconded by Mrs. Schoen, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:58 pm. 1OF10