Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-28 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday, October 28, 2010 ROLL CALL: MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of a Site Plan Application by Brian and Ellen Berk to legalize a rear yard sports court, spa, chain link fence, regrading of property, steep slopes and wetland permitting at 11 Edgewood Drive, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel ID 135.28-1-2 • Considering a Resoluti scheduling the Pub ' Hearing CONTINUED BUSINF, 2. Review o sed Local Law amending Chapter 250 of the Village Code regarding As-Built surve failur follow approved plans DISCUSS ACTIOAr NS ON NON-A A MATTERS Subject toc nt of Planning Lard Members present at the meeting. PRESENT BOARD YMDominick Accurso Mr. Bill Laufer Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Dan Tartaglia Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mr. Robert Goodman Mr. John Grzan 1 of 13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 STAFF Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant Ms. Amanda Kandel, Village Counsel Mr. Mike Nowak, Acting Village Engineer 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 v.ew the Planning Board minutes via streaming video on the Village website. The Chairman called for the first item on the agenda: NEW BUSINESS 1. Review of a Site Plan Application by Brian and Ellen Berk to legalize a rear yard sports court, spa, chain link fence, regrading of property, steep slopes and wetland permitting at 11 Edgewood Drive, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel ID 135.28-1-21 1EL "I • Considering a Resolution scheduling the Public Hearing Mr. Anthony Gioffre of Cuddy andler, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and gave a brief explanation/overview of the application. The applicant has built a sports court without a permit and the applicant wants to legalize the structure. The application has been before the-,Zoning Board of Appeals but the ZBA believed it was prudent for the applicant to appear before the Planning Board ess some site plan issues first. Chairman Zuc erman added that a notice of violation was issued in November, 2008, and this Application has In before the Zoning Board since 2009 with the last viit on September 10, 2010.It is scheduled to go before the Zoning Board again ecember, 2010. Some of the issues that need to be addressed are in regard wetlands and steep slopes. Mr. Gioffre responded that Mr. and Mrs. Berk relied on the opinion of the contractor who told them that the structure did not require a permit. Once they realized the in was incorrect, they have been working to correct the issue. Mr. Jim Ryan of John Myer Consulting addressed the Board and gave a brief overview of the project. He addressed Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed's letter in regard to the disturbance to the wetland buffer noting that there are no impacts to the wetland, but there was encroachment into the wetland buffer. There were questions regarding the fill material that was used and in response, they brought in 2of13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 a geotechnical expert to test the fill. The analysis and report showed that the material was structural fill that does not pose any environmental problems. In regard to the concerns for the stability of the created slope, the engineers believe the slopes to be stable. However, there is erosion and they recommended corrective measures including installation of a geotextile and re-vegetation of the eroded slopes. Landscaping details will include providing some additional vegetation on the side of the sports court closest to the neighbor on the south side. They have proposed some additional planting/screening which will supplement the existing vegetation on the neighbor's property. A storin water plan is curren 1 8bbeingorked on with Village staff. Mr. Gioffre will submit letters of support from neig oe handed out pictures with views of the sports court from the neighbor's house adding that this is a structure on grade like a patio. Mrs. Timpone Mohamed addressed the Board in response Mr. Ryan i regard to the wetlands noting that she is waiting for a revised wetlands report that was performed in conformance with the Village Code requirements, which the submitted report was not. She noted that the court is very close'to the neighbor's property raising safety concerns that the Board should consider when reviewing the site plan, screening and fencing. Mr. Tartaglia asked Mrs. TimponeLamed�ishe was advocating a fence to which Mrs. Mohamed responded that a tall fence keeps a ball on the court and away from people in proximity to the court. 41 Mr. Gioffre respo d that the fence makes sense but there are other options such as a low ence a tractable netting that would eliminate the need for a va nce. Mr. Tartaglia ask d Mr. Ryan how the impervious surface calculations were done —what was included in the total. Mr. Ryan respondedt it would be all structures — driveways, terraces, decks, anything required in feVillage code. He will provide a detailed breakdown of the calculations for review. Mr. Accurso asked about the soil borings in the fill, to which Mr. Ryan responded it was done with an auger to a depth of 2-2.5 feet and samples were taken at that time. Mr. Berk, the property owner/applicant, addressed the Board and stated that they use the court for soccer and street hockey. He added that the basketball hoops are anchored into the ground. 3of13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 Mr. Accurso asked if they provide cross sections of the court - one north and south and one east and west and one through the area of disturbance into the wetland. He also asked Mrs. Mohamed where the ideal location for the sports court would have been in her opinion. Mrs. Mohamed responded that to minimize grading, the court should be located at an elevation somewhere between the highest and lowest point of the slope. It should also conform to the required setbacks, and be positioned to be the least nuisance to neighboring properties. She believes the court is set at too high an elevation and that is why it required so much fill. Mr. Laufer asked about the drainage and if there have be n an issues with water. Mr. Ryan responded there were no issues or complain n re ga the court.. Mrs. Schoen is concerned with the noise during play and would li e additional vertical vegetation. She believes the constant pounding of a basketball would be an annoyance. She also believes the height of the fence should not be lowered for safety. Mr. Accurso asked if the existcourt includes storm water management, to which the response was no. Chairman Zuckerman has three environmentally related con s. The first is the quality of the fill, which we have to be certain meets Village Code standards. We also have to be certain of the location of the wetland and the wetland buffer. From an engineering perspective, it is important to make sure that the created slopes are stable. 14 The Planning concern is the screening for the next door neighbor and he believes the Bo d will best be able to assess the site after a site visit. Lastly, there is co bout the location of the court and the possibility that the court may have e moved, which may alleviate the need for one of the variances. to visit was scheduled for Saturday,November 6th at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Gioffre asked if that site visit had to be noticed to which Chairman Zuckerman responded in the negative. It is documented in the Planning Board Procedures that a site visit is just for observation. No discussion takes place with applicant ora Board members. Mrs. Mohame read the resolution setting the Public Hearing for November 18, 2010 October 28, 2010 APPROVED RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPLICATION 4of13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, A WETLANDS PERMIT AND A STEEP SLOPES WORK PERMIT FOR 11 EDGEWOOD DRIVE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Mr. Brian D. Berk, property owner, submitted an application for approval of a site plan, Permit to Perform Work in a Wetlands, and a Steep Slopes Work Permit to legalize the sports court and spa located in the rear yard of the existing home located at 11 Edgewood Drive, in the R-25 Zoning District, ection 135.28, Block 1, Lot 21 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board shall hold a Public Hearing on November 18, 2010 at 8:00 p.m., at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider the application for site plan approval, a Permit to Perform Work in TWetlands, and a Steep Slopes Work Permit; and BE IT FURTHER RESOL t , that the Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and after review of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared by the Applicant, determines the proposed action to be Type II, requiring no further review pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA; and 440% BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, tha he Applicant is directed to comply with Section 250-40 of the Village C regarding n kation. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, the roll was 04 lled and the resolution was adopted. MR. ACCURSO YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHQEN YES MR. TARTAGLI YES 1 CHAIRMAN Z KERMAN YES Next item on the agenda: CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Review of a Proposed Local Law amending Chapter 250 of the Village Code regarding As-Built surveys and failure to follow approved plans 5of13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 Chairman Zuckerman explained that this proposed Local Law has been reviewed by this Board several times and that the revisions discussed at the previous meeting have been added to the proposed code provisions. Discussion was initiated by Mr. Accurso regarding whether the requirement for a foundation survey should be determined prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Board agreed that the as-built survey requirement does not need to be determined prior to the issuance of the building permit. The Planning Board reviewed the changes made to local law. Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to approve the report and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, th 11 was called: MR. ACCURSO YES *)v MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to forward the report to the Board of Trustees and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and secondedby Mr. Tartaglia, the roll was called and the resolution was adopt d. MR. ACCURSO YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCH N S MR. TARTAGLIA S CHAI ZUCKERMAN YES October 28, 2010 APPROVED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 250 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 250 and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. 6of13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 250, SECTION 9 BUILDING PERMITS AND LICENSES I. LOCAL LAW OVERVIEW The Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees ("BOT") reerred proposed amendments to Chapter 250, Section 9 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook regardin requirements for as- built surveys and adherence to approved plans to the Village of Rye ©ok Planning Board (`Planning Board") for their consideration. The Planning Board is to s it a report and recommendation to the BOT concerning the propos amend Z s. The BOT initially proposed this legislation in response to concerns b the Building Inspector for a need to require an as-built survey when a property owner performs exterior work which may affect the setbacks or other nertinent zoning information which must be verified prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The amendments also allow the Building Inspector to issue a violation to a property owner for not adhering to the approved plans related to the building permit application. Finally, the proposed amendments require the submittal of an interim as-built survey upon completion of the foundation walls or pier foundation to verify placement of said foundation walls or pier foundation in relation to the property boundaries and/or the boundaries of any re cor d easements II. PLANNIN �BD DI USSION AND MfCOMMENDATIONS The Planning Board reviewed assed the proposed amendments at its December 10, 2009, July 8, 2010, October 14, 2010 an October 28, 2010 meetings. During its initial review of the proposed amendments, the Panning Board requested the Building Inspector attend the ning Board meeting to answer the Board's questions regarding the applicability and necessity of each amendment. The Building Inspector attended the July 8, 2010 meeting and provided the-NPlanning Board with additional information as well as answer procedural questions related to the 'proposed amendment. In addition to the Building Inspector's comments, the Planning Board reviewed other codes within the county of Westchester in an attempt to find similar or analogous provisions relevant to the proposed amendments. The following codes were consulted: The Village of Port Chester, Village of Scarsdale, City of Rye, Town/Village of Harrison, Village of Ardsley, Village of Croton-on-Hudson and Village of Hastings-on-Hudson. A. Proposed Amendment to §250-9(B): The following amendment is proposed: 7of13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 Upon approval of the plans and issuance of the building permit by the Building Inspector, the approved documents and plans and any approved amendments thereto shall represent the full scope of work to be performed pursuant to the corresponding building_permit. Failure to adhere to the limits and specifications contained within the approved documents and on the approved plans without prior authorization from the Building Inspector, his/her designee or other authorized approval authority, shall be considered a violation of this chapter. After consultation with the Building Inspector and the above cited codes, the Planning Board agrees this provision is necessary but recommends that the pro osed language be modified and certain provisions added to §250-9(B) as set forth below: ...Upon approval of the plans and issuance of the building-pc rmit by the Building Inspector, the approved documents and plans and any approved amendments thereto shall represent the full scope of work to be performed pursuant to the corresponding building permit. All dimensions shown on this plan relating to the location and size of the lot to be built upon shall be based on an actual survey, and the lot shall be staked out on the round before construction is started. (1) The Building Inspector may revoke a permit heretofore issued in the following instances: (a)Where the Building Inspector finds that there has been any false statement or misrepresentation as to a material fact in the application, plans or specifications on which the building permit was based. (b)Where the Building Inspector finds that the permit was issued in error and should not have been issued in accordance with the applicable law. (c) Where the Building Inspector finds that work performed under the permit is not being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the application, permit, approved plans or specifications. (d)Where the person to whom a permit has been issued fails or refuses to comply with a stop-work order issued by the Building Inspector. (2) Failure to adhere to the limits and specifications contained within the approved documents and on the approved plans without prior authorization from the Building Inspector, his/her designee or other authorized approval authority, shall be considered a violation of this chapter The Planning Board believes these modifications not only achieve the Building Inspector's goal of having the authority to issue a violation when finding permit holders performing work outside the scope of the approved plans, but also enhances the Building Inspector's authority to issue a stop work order and to revoke a permit. Similar language was 1 The bold items are the changes recommended by the Planning Board. A modified proposed local law in its entirety is attached hereto. 8of13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 found in the codes of other comparable communities and the Planning Board believes it is an appropriate addition to the Rye Brook Code. B. Proposed Amendments to §250-9(C): The following amendment is proposed: C. Upon completion of footings or foundation walls for the construction of a new building_or any other structure as deemed appropriate by the Building Inspector, and prior to any further construction, setting of modular structures or framing, the owner shall submit to the Building Inspector for review and approval an as-built foundation survey, certified by an engineer or surveyor licensed in the State of New York, showing the dimensioned location of the footings or foundation walls as constructed in relation to the property boundaries. After consultation with the Building Inspector and the above cited codes, the Planning Board agrees that this provision is necessary, but recornmends the proposed language be added as §250-9(C) with the following changes: l- C. Upon completion of the foundation walls in the case of poured concrete , the first course of the foundation walls in the case of concrete masonry units (CMU), or the pier foundation as the substructure for the construction of a new building or anv Structure, as deemed appropriate by the Building Inspector, and prior to any further on site construction, setting of modular structures or framing onto the foundation as constructed the owner shall notify the Building Inspector and,if required by the Building Inspector, the owner shall submit to the Building Inspector for review and approval a certified as-built foundation survey, sealed/stamped by an engineer or surveyor licensed in the State of New York, indicating the dimensioned location of the proposed foundation as in relation to the lot lines of the property and to the boundaries of any recorded easements. The Planning Board believes that an automatic requirement for an interim as-built survey is too stringent and does not allow for flexibility in cases where there is clearly no issue of setback incursion. The proposed change allows for the building Inspector to use his discretion when such issue might arise during the course of construction. It should be pointed out that in most cases a final survey will still be required after completion and prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning Board recommends the modified language in the first 9of13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 sentence to make explicit that an as-built foundation survey may be required regardless of the type of foundation built. C. Proposed Amendments to §250-9(D): The following amendment is proposed: D. Prior to a final inspection and prior to the issuance of a certificate occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Building Inspector a final property survey, certified by an engineer or surveyor licensed in the State of New York, unless otherwise directed by the Building Inspector. After consultation with the Building Inspector and the above cited codes, the Planning Board agrees that an as-built survey should be required in some instances prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. However, the Planning Board recosmnends the proposed language be modified to read as follows: D. The Building Inspector shall make a final inspection upon completion of construction of a building or exterior structure and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. A final survey prepared by a New York State licensed surveyor is required prior to the final inspection and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, unless, in the opinion of the Building Inspector, such construction work is of a minor nature and will not encroach upon any required setback or recorded easement. The final survey is to include, but is not limited to all improvements; setbacks; and topographic information to indicate compliance with approved plans. The Planning Board believes the requirement of an as-built survey in order to close out certain permits and before certificates of occupancy are issued by the Building Inspector is a needed addition to the Rye Brook Code. This type of provision is typical in most other municipalities and will provide the Building Inspector with the authority to require a property owner to submit an as-built survey. The intent in requiring an as-built survey is to insure a structure is built in accordance with the applicable plans and zoning laws in addition to providing the Village with an accurate record of what exists on the property as a result of the construction work performed at the property. The original draft legislation required an as-built survey in all cases, even those not involving exterior work. The modification makes clear that a survey will 10 of 13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 be required in only those instances where exterior work is performed. In addition, the Planning Board was careful to grant the Building Inspector the authority to waive the requirement for a final as-built survey for exterior additions/structures of a minor nature that will not encroach on a setback or easement. The Planning Board believes that the homeowner should not be burdened with an expensive survey for such work when the Building Inspector feels that it is not necessary. The Planning Board added the language concerning minor work that may encroach upon a recorded easement in order to attempt to prevent future issues of encroachments into such easements. This provision would only apply to instances where the building inspector believes the work is minor and would not otherwise require an as-built survey but for the fact that the new structure may encroach upon a recorded easement. III. CONCLUSION X 'J?� In conclusion e Plan g Board recommends the BOT approve the local law as modified herein. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 250 OF THE VILLAGE CODE +41 A LOCAL LAW to amend Chapters 250 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook regarding Building Permits and Licenses. BE IT ENACTED by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook as follows: Section 1: Chapter 250, Section 9 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook is hereby amended to read as follows: 11 of 13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 § 250-9 Building permits and licenses. ... B. There shall be submitted with all applications for building permits two copies of a layout or plat plan drawn to scale, showing the actual shape and dimensions of the lot to be built upon, the exact size and location on the lot of the building and accessory buildings existing and the lines within which the building or structure is to be erected or altered, the existing and intended use of each building or part of a building, the number of families or housekeeping units that the building is designed to accommodate and such other information with regard to the lot and neighboring lots that may be necessary to determine and provide for the enforcement of this chapter. One copy of such plan shall be returned to the owner when such plans shall have been approved by the Building Inspector. Upon approval of the plans and issuance of the building permit by the Building Inspector, the approved documents and plans and any approved amendments thereto shall represent the full scope of work to be performed pursuant to the corresponding building permit. All dimensions shown on this plan relating to the location and size of the lot to be built upon shall be based on an actual survey, and the lot shall be staked out on the ground before construction is started. (1) The Building Inspector may 44evolke a permit heretofore iss ed in the following instances: (a)Where the Building Inspector finds that there has been any false statement or misrepresentation as to a material fact in the application, approved plans or specifications on which the building permit was based. (b)Where the Building Inspector finds that the permit was issued in error and should not have been issued in accordance with the applicable law. (c) Where the Building Inspector finds that work performed under the permit is not being carried out in accordance with the provisions of the application, permit, approved plans or specifications. (d)Where the person to whom a permit has been issued fails or refuses to comply with a stop-work order issued by the Building Inspector. (2) Failure to adhere to the limits and specifications contained within the approved documents and on the approved plans without prior authorization from the Building Inspector, his/her designee or other authorized approval authority, shall be considered a violation of this chapter C. Upon completion of the foundation walls in the case of poured concrete , the first course of the foundation walls in the case of concrete masonry units (CMU), or the pier foundation as the substructure for the construction of a new building or any Structure, as deemed appropriate by the Building Inspector, and prior to any further on site construction, setting of modular structures or framing onto the foundation as constructed the owner shall notify the Building Inspector and, if required by the Building Inspector, the owner shall submit to the Building Inspector for review and approval a certified as-built foundation survey, sealed/stamped by an engineer or surveyor licensed in the State of New York, indicating the dimensioned location of the proposed foundation as in relation to the lot lines of the property and to the boundaries of any recorded easements. 12 of 13 Planning Board Draft Minutes 10/28/10 D. The Building Inspector shall make a final inspection upon completion of construction of a building or exterior structure and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. A final survey prepared by a New York State licensed surveyor is required prior to the final inspection and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, unless, in the opinion of the Building Inspector, such construction work is of a minor nature and will not encroach upon any required setback or recorded easement. The final survey is to include, but is not limited to all improvements; setbacks; and topographic information to indicate compliance with approved plans. Section 2: This Local Law shall take effect immediately upo e filing with the Office of the Secretary of State. October 28, 2010 Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, the meeting was adjourned at 9:33 pm. Tr 13 of 13