Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-08 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday July 8, 2010 ROLL CALL MINUTES 1. Review Minutes of May 13, 2010 2. Resolution to change meeting dates PUBLIC HEARING 3. Review of a Subdivision and Site Plan Application by Douglas Vaggi on behalf of Dr. Rothman for construction of a new single family dwelling on a new lot at 2 Elm Hill Drive,Rye Brook NY,Parcel ID 135.51-1-1. • Considering a Resolution NEW BUSINESS 4. Review of an application for a Special use permit to operate a convenience retail store submitted by Mobil for a service station located at 101-5 South Ridge Street, Rye Brook,NY,Parcel ID 141.27-1-27 CONTINUED BUSINESS 5. Review of a proposed local law amending Chapter 250 of the Village Code regarding "as--built surveys and failure to follow approved plans. 6. Review of proposed amendments to the Village Code regarding jurisdiction to approve affordable housing. • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees DISCUSSION ITEMS ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting. 1 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 BOARD Mr. Dominick Accurso Mr. John Grzan Mr. Robert Goodman Mr. William Laufer Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Daniel Tartaglia Chairman Gary Zuckerman STAFF Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant Ms. Amanda Kandel, Village Counsel Mr. Mike Nowak, Acting Village Engineer Mr. Michael Izzo, Village Building Inspector 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 complete 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 meetings via streaming video on the Village website. The Chairman called for the first item on the agenda: MINUTES 1. Review Minutes of May 13,2010 As there were no comments or changes, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to accept the minutes, and on a motion made by Mr. Tartaglia and seconded by Mr. Goodman, a voice vote was taken and the minutes were adopted unanimously. Next item on the agenda: 2. Resolution to change meeting dates Ms. Kandel read the resolution: July 8, 2010 RESOLUTION VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby cancels its September 9 and 23, 2010 meetings and instead will have one meeting on September 16, 2010. 2of18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, a voice vote was taken and the resolution was unanimously adopted. Next item on the agenda: PUBLIC HEARING 3. Review of a Subdivision and Site Plan Application by Douglas Vaggi on behalf of Dr. Rothman for construction of a new single family dwelling on a new lot at 2 Elm Hill Drive,Rye Brook NY,Parcel ID 135.51-1-1. • Considering a Resolution Chairman Zuckerman advised that this was a continued Public Hearing and did not believe a presentation was required. A new landscape plan has been submitted. The applicant was asked to change "Town of Rye Brook" to either the "Village of Rye Brook" or the "Town of Rye" Mr. Sherwood, Landscape Architect, addressed the Board, gave a brief overview of the proposed landscape plan, which involves removing 13 trees, and replanting 16 new trees as well as additional evergreen screening material. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant, stated that she reviewed the plan and found it to be acceptable. She believes the plan provides an adequate number of trees and evergreen screen plantings to accomplish the screening and mitigation for trees removed that the Board is looking for. Mr. Nowak, Acting Village Engineer, added that the applicant's landscape plan proposal meets the requirements of the Village's tree code. Ms. Kandel advised the Board that the restrictive covenant had some small revisions and is now just waiting on the bank for approval. Mr. Grzan commended the applicant for preserving the original home, but stated he will not vote in favor of the application because of the creation of the "strip." He believes it is a device to circumvent the zoning code to allow the new house to be bigger than what is appropriate for the new lot. In his opinion, the site and home design ct should conform to the current standards of the zoning code. Mr. Accurso also commended the applicant. He also believes that the use of the "strip" sets a troublesome precedent regarding future subdivisions and that the new house is too big for the site, reducing open space on the property. Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to close the Public Hearing and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Tartaglia, Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO YES 3of18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES (MOTION APPROVED 7-0) Chairman Zuckerman echoed what Mr. Accurso and Mr. Grzan stated in regard to the lot line and the oversized new house. He admits he agrees with both of them to the extent that he would prefer the lot line be different and the house smaller, but he does not believe the issue is sufficient to deny the application. Changing the lot line will not affect views of the property, no neighbors have objected to the plan and he believes there are very few neighbors around the new house. Therefore, the size of the house does not have a bearing on the character of the neighborhood. In addition, the applicant is in compliance with the zoning regulations and landscape plan standards, and the home would be screened from Crawford Park, which was a concern. Chairman Zuckerman asked if there was any objection to advancing the vote on this application and there being none, Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed read the resolution: July 8, 2010 APPROVED RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A ONE- FAMILY DWELLING ON A NEW LOT AT 2 ELM HILL DRIVE 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, attached 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: 4of18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 1. Building Permit Check List and Zoning Analysis 2. Exterior Building Permit Application 3. Application for Subdivision Approval 4. A Short Environmental Assessment Form 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. Proposed Site Plan dated May 27, 2009, revised June 24, 2009, prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, Port Chester, New York 9. Drainage Summary Report dated May 27, 2009, revised February 4, 2010, with an addendum added February 4, 2010, prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, Port Chester, New York 10. Tree Survey Plan and Report dated May 21, 2009 and a revised Tree Survey Plan and Report dated April 6, 2010 and April 7, 2010 respectively, prepared by Arborscape, Brewster, New York 11. Partial tree removal plan, no date, no title, received March 11, 2010 12. Letters to the Acting Village Engineer, dated February 24, 2010 and March 30, 2010, from Ahneman Kirby, LLC, Port Chester, New York 13. Two memoranda to the Acting Village Engineer, dated January 21, 2010 and January 29, 2010, from Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C.,New York 14. Letter to Douglas R. Vaggi dated January 26, 2010, from the Acting Village Engineer, Michal Nowak 15. Letters to the Village of Rye Brook dated February 23, 2010 and April 6, 2010 from Douglas Vaggi, Architect, Franklin Square, New York 16. 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 rev. 6/8/10 C-2 Proposed Site Plan, Existing House 10/19/09 rev. 6/8/10 C-3 Proposed Site Plan, New House 10/19/09 rev. 6/8/10 C-4 Proposed Paving, New House 4/24/09 rev. 6/8/10 C-5 Erosion Control, New House 4/24/09 rev. 6/8/10 C-6 Site Details and Notes 4/24/09 rev. 6/8/10 C-7 Proposed Tree Plan, New House 4/24/09 rev. 3/31/10 C-8 Proposed Height/Setback Ratios 4/24/09 rev. 6/8/10 C-9 Proposed Height/Setback Ratios 4/24/09 rev. 6/8/10 C-10 Proposed Landscape Plan for New House no date rev. 3/31/10 SKI IA Proposed First Floor Plan 10/19/09 SK12B Proposed Second Floor Plan 10/19/09 rev. 2/24/10 5of18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 SK10C Proposed Basement Floor Plan 4/24/09 SK12C Proposed East Elevation 4/24/09 rev. 2/24/10 SK12D Proposed North Elevation 8/3/09 rev. 2/24/10 SK12E Proposed West Elevation 8/3/09 rev. 2/24/10 SK12F Proposed South Elevation 8/3/09 rev. 2/24/10 SK10H Proposed Elevations 4/24/09 SKIOJ Proposed Detached Garage 4/24/09 17. Engineer's Plans,prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, Port Chester, New York: Drawing Number Sheet Title Dated SP-IA Proposed Utility and Drainage Plan 5/27/09 rev. 4/27/10 SP-2A Proposed Utility and Drainage Details 2/24/10 rev. 4/27/10 SU-1 Subdivision Plat 7/28/09 rev. 4/21/10 18. Landscape Architect's Plans, prepared by Robert Sherwood, Landscape Architect, LLC,Newtown, CT: Drawing Number Sheet Title Dated LP-1 Landscape Plan 6/7/10 rev. 6/13/10 LP-2 Tree Removal Protection Plan 6/7/10; and 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, zoning and engineering considerations presented by Village staff and consultants regarding the subdivision, the Planning Board identified the following planning issues: 1. Visual impacts to Crawford Park as a result of 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, subsequent to referral of the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals by the Planning Board on November 12, 2009, Rye Brook Zoning Board of Appeals granted the following area variances for the existing house on the property on January 5, 2010: • An 8.29-foot variance from the required front yard to legalize the illegal, non-conforming garage; 6of18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 • A 1,546-square foot variance from the maximum allowable gross floor area • An 802-square foot variance from the maximum allowable total impervious surface coverage on the lot. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA), determined the proposed action to be an unlisted action and proceeded as Lead Agency with an uncoordinated environmental review pursuant to SEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Village Planning Consultant, Village staff and the Planning Board reviewed the information, submitted comments regarding the site plan for the new lot, 0 Betsy Brown Road, and made recommendations regarding the subdivision and site plans, the landscape plan and screening views from Crawford Park, zoning, grading, tree removal and protection, storm water management, erosion and sediment control, and the plans were revised according to the comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is familiar with the site and all aspects of the project; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2010, the Planning Board opened a public hearing on the subject application, at which time all persons interested were given an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said application and the Planning Board closed the public hearing on July 8, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board, in accordance with Article 8 of the State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, and upon review of the EAF and all other application materials that were prepared for this action, hereby adopts a Negative Declaration because the subdivision/lot line relocation would not result in physical changes to the site or any environmental impacts, ending the State Environmental Quality Review process; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, as follows: 1. The Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby finds that the Final Plat will not be substantively changed from the Preliminary Plat and determines that a public hearing on the Final Plat is not required. The Planning Board hereby grants both Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Approval for the two-lot subdivision, shown on Sheet SU-1, Subdivision Plat, dated 7/28/09 rev. 4/21/10 prepared by Ahneman Kirby, LLC, to the Applicant, and the Planning Board Chairman is authorized to sign such plat subject to the following conditions and modifications which must be satisfied prior to the signing of the Final Plat by the Planning Board Chairman: 7of18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 a. The Applicant shall prepare a Final Subdivision Plat in accordance with Section 219-32 of the Village of Rye Brook Subdivision Regulations, which shall include the Town of Rye tax lot designations for both subject lots. Upon obtaining a satisfactory review by the Acting Village Engineer, the Final Subdivision Plat shall be submitted for review and signature to the Westchester County Department of Health. The signature of the Department of Health shall be required prior to the signing of the Final Plat by the Planning Board Chairman. b. The Applicant shall submit a statement signed by the Town of Rye Receiver of Taxes that all taxes due for both lots have been paid. C. The Applicant shall accept the placement of a covenant on the property restricting further subdivision of both lots and submit a fully executed copy of the covenant and restrictions as filed in the Westchester County Clerk's Office d. A stormwater runoff drainage easement from 2 Elm Hill Drive to 0 Betsy Brown Road shall be drafted and recorded by the Applicant and noted on the Final Subdivision Plat. e. The restrictive covenant shall be noted on the Final Plat. 2. For the reasons stated herein, the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby approves the site plans listed herein to construct a new home and site improvements on the new lot at 0 Betsy Brown Road; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Final Plat shall not be signed by the Planning Board Chairman and no permits shall be issued by the Building Department until the Applicant has paid to the Village all applicable fees and professional review fees incurred in connection with review of this Application. Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO NO MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN NO MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES (MOTION APPROVED 5-2) Next item on the agenda: 8of18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 NEW BUSINESS 4. Review of an application for a Special Use Permit to operate a convenience retail store submitted by Mobil for a service station located at 101-5 South Ridge Street,Rye Brook,NY,Parcel ID 141.27-1-27. Mr. Vasquez, a representative from Exxon Mobil addressed the Board and gave a brief overview of the application, which is to legalize the convenience store presently operating at the Mobil Station located at 101-5 South Ridge Street. There was a permit issued in error for this property. The store is small and is accessory to the gas station, not a point of destination. They believe the store does not impact the traffic flow on Bowman Avenue or Ridge Street. There was a discussion that followed regarding trucks and cars being stored on the property, as the vehicles occupy some of the required parking spaces. Mr. Michael Izzo, Village Building Inspector, addressed the Board and explained that the Building Department started working with the applicant back in 2004 with respect to bringing the use of the property into compliance with the building and Zoning Code. Some of the items that needed addressing were the alarm systems, automatic fire suppression system, electrical and plumbing systems. He added that in addition, they had taken down a wall and installed refrigerators in the building. Exxon Mobil was helpful in getting the station up to code with respect to the life safety concerns. He added that additional problems still exist at the station including a required fence that was never installed, fewer than the required number of parking spaces, and storage of vehicles in required parking spaces. Ms. Kandel added that the gas station was issued a special use permit by the Town of Rye in 1967 but none of the conditions included a convenience store. Chairman Zuckerman believes the main issue here is parking, as there is currently a non conforming parking situation. By seeking to change the permit, they will need to seek a variance from the Zoning Board to change the number of required spaces. Twenty-two paces are required and they currently have only 14. The consensus of the Board is that the application should not be discussed until the existing violations are rectified. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed added that the traffic and parking demand analysis she recommended in her memo should be conducted to measure actual traffic flow and parking use to determine impacts from the store, if any, and the mitigation measures that might be necessary. Mr. Grzan stated his belief that the traffic issues on streets surrounding the property have nothing to do with the convenience store. No one enters the gas station solely to access 9of18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 the store, in his opinion. He does not believe that review of the application should be influenced by the outstanding violations at the property. Ms. Kandel wanted to clarify that the storage of vehicles for customers is a permitted use under the special use permit. It is the storage of trucks or other vehicles related to businesses other than the gas station that is the issue. Mrs. Schoen disagrees and does not want to entertain the application until the existing issues are cleaned up. She believes the corner has high volumes of traffic, which is potentially a big problem, and supports analyzing the traffic. Mr. Tartaglia added that the corner is also frequented by middle school children, so turning counts in and out of the gas station on both streets should be performed and analyzed. He believes the location of the convenience store causes vehicles to pull in to the property and park where they can outside of designated spaces in areas where children may be walking. Chairman Zuckerman wanted to reiterate that the applicant is Exxon Mobil. As the owner, they have an interest to clean up this particular station and it is obvious that the Board feels the same way. The issue is the amendment of the special use permit to include an expanded retail use. It is not a major expansion, but it may represent competition in some respect to the retail stores in the shopping center across the street. The sense of the Board is that no one is happy with the idea of giving anything to a gas station that has so many violations. Mr. Grzan does not condone the existence of violations at the station, but still believes the Board should separate the application from the violations. Ms. Kandel clarified that the traffic impact study is not necessarily to determine the impact the installation of the convenience store has on the road traffic but rather to examine the efficiency and safety of the circulation of traffic within the site. Chairman Zuckerman stated the consensus of the Board that before a recommendation can be made to the Trustees a traffic study and parking demand study should be conducted because the outcome of the study may impact the recommendation. It is also the consensus of the Board that the violations should be corrected immediately. This application is adjourned to August 12, 2010. CONTINUED BUSINESS 5. Review of a proposed Local Law amending Chapter 250 of the Village Code regarding"as-built surveys and failure to follow Approved Plans. Chairman Zuckerman asked Building Inspector Izzo to explain what he wants to accomplish in amending the Code by the proposed Local Law. 10 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 Mr. Izzo explained the purposes of an as-built survey and the need, in his opinion, to have an as-built survey in order to enforce the zoning code regulations.. The proposed amendments, he believes, are long overdue. He noted that the local law is only a draft, and he is looking for input from the Board. Chairman Zuckerman responded that one of the things that bothers him about the proposed amendments is that there is a need to distinguish between interior and exterior work. Inspector Izzo agreed, adding that there is also exterior work that does not require an as- built survey. He explained that an as-built survey is required when a job is complete and it is necessary to document changes to the footprint of the building, or the addition of a structure, like a generator, that was not on the approved plans because changes to that plan were requested during construction. It is also required to verify that a project with no approved changes was located on the site at the required setbacks and constructed at the correct size. The Chairman added that basically the as-built survey verifies and documents that the project was built according to the approved plan. As Mr. Izzo pointed out, this would not apply to all applications. It would not apply to a small patio or a standard-sized deck. The object here is to find the correct wording to protect the Village and the homeowner. Mr. Grzan believes that sometimes the Village over regulates. He believes that such a regulation would cause residents to forgo a building project or home improvement because it would make the process too tedious. He believes Mr. Izzo already has all the authority he needs to require as-built surveys and deal with construction not in accordance with approved plans. Ms. Kandel will work on wording to insure that homes and additions are built in compliance with approved plans and homeowners are not burdened when they want to make small improvements to their homes. She will also look into such regulations in other municipalities to see what type of requirements they have. Adjourned to August 12, 2010. 6. Review of proposed amendments to the Village Code regarding jurisdiction to approve affordable housing. • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees Mr. Accurso stated that the draft report is well written and he believes it hits all the major points expressed by the Board. There being not further comments or questions, Ms. Kandel read the report: PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 11 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 209 OF THE VILLAGE CODE PROJECT OVERVIEW A Request has been made by the Village Board of Trustees to review certain draft amendments to Chapter 209 of the Village Code regarding jurisdiction over fair and affordable housing approvals and report back to the Board of Trustees. The proposed Local Law includes the following definition of"Fair and Affordable Housing": "(a) for the purposes of this Chapter, Fair and Affordable Housing shall be defined as any,project,plan,or application that includes: (1)for-purchase housing unit(s)that are affordable to a household whose income does not exceed 80% of the area median income (AMI) for Westchester County as defined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the annual housing cost of a unit including common charges, principal, interest,taxes and insurance does not exceed 33%of 80%AMI,adjusted for family size: or (2) rental unit(s) that are affordable to a household whose income does not exceed 60%AMI and the annual housing cost of the unit, defined as rent plus any tenant paid utilities,does not exceed 30%of 60%AMI adjusted for family size." And amends Chapter 209, Section 1(A) of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook to have the Village Board of Trustees retain jurisdiction over any project related to fair and affordable housing regardless of size or number of units: "for any application related to a Fair and Affordable Housing,regardless of acreage or number of units,including but not limited to any such application made pursuant to any federal,state or local statute or ordinance,judicial determination or as a result of a settlement of a court proceeding regarding Fair and Affordable housing, including but not limited to United States ex rel Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York,Inc. v. Westchester County, New York, the Board of Trustees is shall be designated as the approval authority as such term is defined in Chapter 250, Zoning, of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook, and, as such is hereby authorized to review and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove site plans." 12 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 POLICY REASONS FOR THE LEGISLATION Since the Planning Board was not privy to the policy discussions behind the proposed legislation, we are relying upon the statements made by Trustee Paul Rosenberg at our June 10th meeting and inferences drawn from the language of the proposed legislation itself It is clear that the intent of the legislation is to rest final responsibility for approval of fair and affordable housing projects with the Village Board rather than the Planning Board. The Board of Trustees is assuming that "Fair and Affordable Housing" is already a political issue and the proposed legislation reinforces this assumption, since elected officials are directly answerable to the public at the polls. Furthermore, the Board of Trustees already has final approval authority on site plans for all projects larger than 4 acres, commercial property, and special use permits, areas which the Board of Trustees has heretofore determined to have political impact worthy of its consideration. Extending this authority to affordable projects under 4 acres will unnecessarily politicize these smaller projects. The Planning Board believes that every effort should be made to de-politicize the concept of Fair and Affordable Housing. However, the legislative intent does not consider the negative effect that the proposed legislation may have on the fair and affordable housing projects. The Planning Board believes that singling out fair and affordable housing as necessitating an extra layer of review and approval sends a message to the community that there is reason to require extra protection from affordable housing and that decisions will be made based on politics rather than planning. This will continue to reinforce the stigma that fair and affordable housing already has with much of the general public. 13 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 RECOMMENDATION Recognizing the reality and depth of community concerns, the Planning Board recommends that the Village Board incorporate into the planning process a method for building support and, to the extent possible, consensus around the plan's specific strategies, beginning well before any specific plans are submitted. The proposed legislation, while well intended and appearing pro-active, is defensive and is likely to have the opposite effect. Public outreach and education are more effective tools to assist in the process of fulfilling the Village's regional responsibility to have affordable housing become an inclusionary part of the community. REMOVING BARRIERS AND IMPEDIMENTS TO APPROVAL The Planning Board also sees the adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter 209 as a barrier and possible impediment to the development of affordable housing projects within the Village. The requirement that site plans for small projects undergo Village Board as well as Planning Board review will significantly lengthen the approval process and increase soft costs and possibly financing and carrying costs of the developer. Some of these increased costs may not be recoverable by the developer out of Federal and State sources of affordable housing funds such as Federal and State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and State Housing Trust Fund grants (HTF) and thus serve to discourage the building of such projects in Rye Brook Although, as pointed out previously, the Board of Trustees will continue to retain final approval of certain projects, the addition of this requirement, where none previously existed, may raise substantial questions under the Settlement. The Planning Board urges the Village Board to seek the advice of Counsel on this specific point. 14 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 PREMATURE LEGISLATION While it is prudent for the Board of Trustees to act in a pro-active manner, the Planning Board believes that this particular legislative effort may be premature at this time. The Board of Trustees appears to be concerned about the implementation of"Fair and Affordable" housing in the Village when the obligations of the constituent municipalities has not yet been determined. Rather than taking a piecemeal approach, the Planning Board recommends examining the obligations of the Village once the settlement is implemented and taking a "big picture" approach to attaining the goals set forth therein. Partly as a result of their required NY State land use training, Planning Board Members may be more adept at considering the planning, development and environmental issues attendant to a site plan approval than Village Board Members whose expertise may be better served adopting zoning legislation aimed at encouraging fair and affordable housing development and streamlining the approval process. There are many tools at the BOT's disposal to accomplish the end goal of building and/or creating Fair and Affordable Housing in the Village. By way of example, the BOT should review the current Village Zoning Code and implement changes to enhance the ability of developers to approach the Village with Projects, i.e., incorporating a floating zone or overlay zone in order to allow fair and affordable housing projects to be built as- of-right in appropriate portions of the Village to qualify under the settlement. This method allows the BOT to set the legislative framework for the Planning Board to follow and allows the Planning Board to plan by a firm set of rules, thereby removing the 15 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 concerns of the BOT that the Planning Board would be subject to a political maelstrom when faced with a fair and affordable housing project. RECOMMENDATION While the Planning Board applauds the Village Board for its pro-active approach in dealing with the issue of implementation of fair and affordable housing within the community, it believes that the approach in the proposed amendment to Chapter 209 may actually have the effect of discouraging such housing by creating new and additional impediments and barriers to the attainment of zoning and land use approvals especially for smaller projects. The Village Board's legislative responsibilities and expertise may be better served by studying and eventually adopting changes to the Village's code that will actually encourage fair and affordable housing such as: • Imposing required set asides; • Awarding density bonuses; • Rezoning certain areas for higher density; • Locating and identifying appropriate locations throughout the village to create an inventory of sites that will accommodate scatter site housing while at the same time protecting nearby property owners; • Creating an affordable housing floating zone and/or overlay zone; • Developing a fast track procedure for approval; • Creating a schedule of discounted permit fees and costs for affordable housing projects; and • Creating a fair and affordable housing commission to usher applicants through the process. 16 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Planning Board recommends the Board of Trustees does not adopt the legislation herein and consider the Planning Board recommendations as stated herein. On a motion made by Mr. Goodman and seconded by Mr. Tartaglia, the report was approved. MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES (MOTION APPROVED 7-0) Mrs. Kandel read the referral resolution: July 8, 2010 APPROVED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 209 OF THE VILLAGE CODE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook adopts the attached Report and Recommendation to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on the proposed amendments to chapter 209 and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, the resolution was approved and the roll was called: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES 17 of 18 Planning Board Minutes 7/8/2010 MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES (MOTION APPROVED 7-0) There being no further business, on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 pm. 18 of 18