HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-14 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes Planning Board Minutes Draft 1
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET
Thursday, October 14, 2010
......................................................................
ROLL CALL:
MINUTES
AL
1. Review of June 10, 2010 and July 8, 2010 minutes
2. Resolution to change meeting dates
PUBLIC HEARING
NEW BUSINESS
3. Referral from Board of Trustees to review a site plan application by Doral
Arrowwood on behalf of American DG E6ergy to install and operate a
cogeneration statIrof
t 975 Anderson Hill Road, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel ID
129.34-1-43,44,4
4. Referral from Bo Trustees roreview a request by Cuddy & Feder on
Lhealf of Reckson Operating Partnership, LLP for Phase 3 Site Plan and
land Permit approvalxtensions for 1100 King Street, Rye Brook, NY,
el ID Section 1, Block 3, Lots 2, 3, and 4
CONTINUSINES
5. Re erral from Board of Trustees to review a Proposed Local Law amending
Chapter 250 of the Village Code regarding As-Built Surveys and failure to
follow approved plans.
• 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 7
Planning Board Minutes Draft 1
PRESENT
BOARD Mr. Dominick Accurso
Mr. Robert Goodman
Mr. John Grzan
Mr. Bill Laufer
Mrs. Amy Schoen
Mr. Dan Tartaglia
Chairman Gary Zuckerman
STAFF Mrs. Marilyn Tmpone-Mohamed, Village P Consultant
Ms. Amanda Kandel, Village Counsel
Mr. Mike Nowak, Acting Village Engi r
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 member and e Village Staff to the
the
audience and explained the rules of procedure for the g. Additionally, Chairman
Zuckerman made note for the public that the complete set of lanning Board Rules and
Procedures can be found on the Vil e website and also announced that the public can
now view the Planning Board minute reaming video on the Village website.
The Chairman called for the first item on e a 3K
MINUTES
1. Revie a 10, 10 and Jul 10 minutes
As there are no comments or changes, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to accept
the minutes and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, a
voice vote was taken and the minutes were adopted unanimously.
2. solution to ange meeting dates
Mrs. Kandel read the resolution:
October 14, 2010
RESOLUTION
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD
BE IT RESOLVED, that, due to the holidays in the month of November the
Planning Board will have one meeting on November 18, 2010 at 8p.m.
1 of 7
Planning Board Minutes Draft 1
On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, a voice vote was
taken and the resolution was adopted unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Referral from Board of Trustees to review a site plan application by
Doral Arrowwood on behalf of American DG Energy to install and
operate a cogeneration station at 975 Anderson Hill Road, Rye Brook,
NY, Parcel ID 129.34-1-43,44,45 AL
Chairman Zuckerman explained that the proposed site plan was referred to the Planning Board by
the Board of Trustees for review and recommendation. The applicant is proposing to install a
cogeneration power plant on the premises to provide heat and electrical service to Arrowwood.
Chairman Zuckerman had asked the Building Inspector, Michael Izzo, to opine as to the
permissibility of such a use in the zoning district and his response was that this proposal
is a permitted accessory use in a PUD and wo not requ)* ea use variance for approval.
The Board of Trustees has made a SEQRA determi ont is is a Typ II Action that
does not require further review, to which Mrs. Kan el, Village Counsel, concurs. The
Board of Trustees also waived many he requirements on the Site Plan Check List at
the request of the applicant. Howeve , e Village consultants have met to discuss this
01and believe that certain information th was d is needed in order to review the
application.
Mr. Ralph Mastromonaco, Engineer for the applicant, addressed the Board and gave a
brief introduction f the application and Mr. Chris Gray of American DG Energy gave an
overview of the project.
Mr. Gray e hat the project%1invWoesinstalling four (4) cogeneration units that
generate power (electricity) and as a haste product, heat, at the proposed site. Three of
the units would be located in a new free-standing pre-fabricated building and the fourth
would be t8th
in an existing office building on the site. The generators are powered by
engines ruon natural gas that are equivalent to V8 truck engines. Heat from the
engines anelectrical generation process is captured in water used as a coolant. The
coolant is then transferred to a second remote structure where the waste heat in the
coolant is used to create hot water and possibly space heating for the building. Three of
the units are located in a free-standing structure because the Arrowwood building does
not have enough space to house all of the equipment. An existing cooling tower is
located outside and adjacent to the Arrowwood building, which is in the same general
area of the site as the new generator building and the reason for the choice of location.of
the new structure. The generator building would be 40 feet by 8 feet by 11 feet high and
it will be roofed, sided and painted. The structure sits 120 feet from the hotel and
approximately 550 feet away from the nearest residences. The units emit sound and air
born emissions.
1 of 7
Planning Board Minutes Draft 1
All of the electricity and heat generated would be exclusively sold to Arrowwood at a
price below what they are currently paying. Whatever Con Edison charges them for their
kilowatt hours will be discounted approximately 10 percent.
Chairman Zuckerhnan responded that while the business side is interesting, the Planning
Board is reviewing site plan issues. This will be a learning process for the Board as there
is currently nothing like this in Rye Brook. The Village's consulting engineering firm,
HDR, will evaluate technical issues and present us with a report on their findings.
Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant, addressed the Board and
referenced her memo and the items missing from the application that will be required to
complete the review. Based on the location and size of the structures, it is unlikely the
structures would be visible from Anderson Hill Road, which -n the SROD. The
applicant has submitted a landscape plan that pr es some ser g; however, she
believes the plan should be improved. Mrs. Tim one-Mohamed ask for information
that was waived by the Board of Trustees because it is needed to complete a review of
the application. The information includes a topographic survey, and the locations of fire
hydrants and occupied buildings, among other things. "She®also requested additional
information needed to identify an assess the environmental impacts of the project,
including an installation plan for the 4structure, a detailed narrative explaining the
project in detail, as well as emissions , and information regarding air quality
and noise impacts.
Mrs. Mohamed added that the fourth generator to be to ed in the Pfizer building should
be considered along with the three generators that are the subject of this application when
assessing air quality. HDR asked for additional information related to the technical
review such as a detailed site plan of the Arrowwood campus, other cogeneration plants
in operation in Westchester County and New York State, and a description of the net
environmental benefit of operating such units. An additional item required is the
approval letter from C Edison. S issues should be reviewed by HDR, and the Rye
Brook Building and Fire nspector
Mrs. Schoe asked how a private corporation is able to come into a PUD and sell
electricity. She ak what kind of lease agreement is in place and who is liable in case of
a serious event.
Chairman Zuckerman responded that the Building Inspector has determined the
generators to be a permitted accessory use in the PUD as it would be autility primarily
serving the site.
Mr. Grzan was surprised that the Board of Trustees waived some of the checklist
requirements because of the possible environmental and safety issues involved.
Chairman Zuckerman suggested adjourning the matter to November 181h so the applicant
has time to provide the requested information and the applicant should send the Board of
1 of 7
Planning Board Minutes Draft 1
Trustees a letter requesting an adjournment of the public hearing scheduled for November
9th
Mr. Mastromonaco asked the Board for guidance in regard to the information requested
in Mrs. Mohamed's letter,particularly deed restrictions, and prior land approvals.
Mrs. Kandel explained that knowing the deed restrictions is a necessity because there
may be an easement or other restrictions present that would not allow utilities or restrict
the proposed project in some way.
Al
Mr. Nick Lyras, President of Doral Greens Homeowners Association, addressed the
Board and expressed his frustration because Arrowwood did not inform the HOA about
the project. It was his understanding that no additional building was to be done on this
property per an agreement dated March 8, 1999. Since then, he noted that a lot of
building has taken place. He is concerned about the ject and has a to of questions.
Chairman Zuckerman suggested that Mr. Lyr t all his questions an is in the
form of a letter and address them to him as P ann Board airman.
Application is adjourned to Novemb 18th
4. Referral from Board of Trustees to review a request by Cuddy & Feder
on behalf of Reckson Operating Partnership, LLP for Phase 3 site plan
and Wetland Permit approval extensions at 1100 King Street, Rye
Brook120%D Section 1, Block 3, Lots 2, 3, and 4
Mr. Tartaglia recused himself from review of the application as he represented Reckson
in connection with the application 5ars ago. 04,
Chairma c erman explai d the applicant is seeking an extension of the previously
appro Phase 3 Site Plan and wetlands permit. The Phase 3 site plan before us was
rev' e renewed in the year 2000, and then renewed again for another 5 years in
2005. Th licant now seeks a new 5-year extension. The 2005 extension approval
required ce ork of an environmental nature to be completed before the issuance of a
building permit. H noted that the applicant has recently commenced work on the
stormwater retentio and other facilities.
Chairman Zuckerman expressed his concern that since 2000 and 2005 the regulations and
best practices regarding storm water management have changed substantially and the
focus of the current inquiry is to see if the plan is in compliance with the new regulations
and current best practices.
Mr. William Null of Cuddy & Feder addressed the Board stating that extensive work has
been done and the project is substantially constructed. He believes the project is vested
by way of the work being done and the Village has minimum discretion to deny the
requested extension. They are looking to be able to complete the work in anticipation of
1 of 7
Planning Board Minutes Draft 1
building the Phase 3 office building. He stated that while the Planning Board's review
has been requested, the Planning Board had no basis for a "de novo" review. A number
of opportunities have been explored to complete Phase 3 but none have come to fruition—
hence the reason for an extension.
Chairman Zuckerman disagreed with some of Mr. Null's characterizations. He
explained that the review is not requested, it is required and the Planning Board cannot
rubber stamp an application.. The Board of Trustees has set a Public Hearing to extend
the existing site plan and wetlands permit for an additional 60 days so the Planning Board
can have sufficient time to properly review the application. The Chairman disagrees with
the characterization that the Planning Board has no authority to conduct a "de novo"
review. He does not believe that this Board has any intention of reviewing the proposed
building; however, it will review whether the plan previously approved is sufficient
under today's laws from the perspective of the environmental impacts associated with the
project, and it is the duty of the Board to do so and report its' findings to the Board of
Trustees. It is our function to point out what shVoview
ed. The Board of Trustees
has the final approval authority and can pt, or modify whatever we
recommend.
Mr. Schwalbe, Site Engineer for prof t, gave a of the project.
Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed believes ther i a discrepancy be een the wetlands shown on
the plans and wetlands shown on the Federal jurisdiction wetlands layer of the County
GIS data. She suggests the applicant make contact with the Army Corp of Engineers to
resolve the presence of etlan in the area of the basins.
The other issues oncern a the plans do not include current best practices and
construction of the basins would disturb wetlands. She is also concerned about the large
amount of impervious surface coverage on the property after construction of Phase 3. It
has been stated that existing parking lots on the site are underused, A parking demand
study and a shared parking analysis should be considered to determine if the total number
of parking spaces might be reduced, which would reduce impervious coverage and
stormwater run-off, The stormwater plan should be reviewed by the Village engineering
consultant to det V
ine if the plan complies with current regulations and best practices.
Chairman Zuckerman added that we have a site plan and wetlands permits dating back 10
years. His question is how do the two compare to the practices in place today, and is it
possible to have 2010 best practices incorporated into the plan.
Mr. Bill Kenny, Wetlands Scientist for the applicant, stated that he believes existing
wetlands in the area of the new basin are old stormwater detention basins.
Chairman Zuckerman suggested a meeting between the applicant and the Village
consultants. Mr. Null agreed it would be helpful to do that and would like that
constructive dialog before the next meeting.
Adjourned to November 18th
1 of 7
Planning Board Minutes Draft I
CONTINUED BUSINESS
5. Referral from Board of Trustees to review a Proposed Local Law
amending Chapter 250 of the Village Code regarding As-Built Surveys
and failure to follow approved plans.
• Considering a report and recommendation to the Board of Trustees
The Chairman stated that this item has been discussed at the two previous Planning Board
meetings. Mr. Tartaglia has done some research and has put hi findings in drop box.
Mrs. Kandel added that she reworked the provisions to reflect the earlier discussions of
the Board. The Building Inspector was given a copy and after speaking with him, there
were some very minor word changes requested.
Mrs. Kandel explained that the revisions before the boar)fter al with any instance®in which
you have a building permit and the applicant doesn't 4what was approved. The
Building Inspector can revoke the building permit. extensive discussion and
suggestions, Mrs. Kandel and Chai n Zuckerman will ork on the revisions again and
have them ready for the next meeting.
On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen se by M . Crrzan, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:26 pm.
1 of 7