Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-18 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL,938 KING STREET Thursday November 18, 2010 - 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING 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 for parcel located at 11 Edgewood Drive,Rye Brook,NY parcel ID 135.28-1-21 • Considering a Resolution NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED BUSINESS 2. Referral from Board of Trustees to Review a Site Plan Application by Doral Arrowood on behalf of American DG Energy to install and operate a cogeneration station for parcel located at 975 Anderson Hill Road, Rye Brook,NY parcel ID 129.34-1-43,44,45 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees 3. Referral from Board of Trustees to review a request by Cuddy and Feder on behalf of Reekson Operating Partnership, LLP for Phase 3 Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approval extensions for parcel located at 1100 King Street, Rye Brook, NY parcel ID 129.34-1-43,44,45 • 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 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010 PRESENT BOARD Mr. Dominick Accurso Mr. Robert Goodman Mr. John Grzan Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Dan Tartaglia Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mr. Bill Laufer STAFF Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed,Village Planning Consultant Ms. Amanda Kandel,Village Counsel Mr. Mike Nowak,Acting Village Engineer 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 minutes via streaming video on the Village website. The Chairman called for the first item on the agenda: PUBLIC HEARING 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 for parcel located at 11 Edgewood Drive, Rye Brook, NY parcel ID 135.28- 1-21 • Considering a Resolution On a motion made by Mr. Grzan and seconded by Mr. Goodman, the Public Hearing was opened by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Gioffre of Cuddy and Feder addressed the Board and gave a brief description of the application and noted that, since their prior appearance before the Board last month, all materials requested have been submitted and a site visit was performed. Mr. Jim Ryan of John Myer Consulting addressed the Board stating that a site walk on the property was done and it allowed them to review the outstanding issues. They are in receipt of the memo from Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed and are addressing all of her 2 of 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010 concerns. One area of concern was the survey which required some clarification and revisions to the labeling of dimensions, which are now accurately shown on the site plans. The extent of the disturbance area, the amount of fill placed, and the make-up of the fill were reviewed and verified during the site visit attended by Mr. Nowak and Mrs. Mohamed. A Geotechnical Engineer was brought in and a pit test was dug to a depth of 6-7 feet. At that depth undisturbed soil was reached and it was determined that the fill material used was good quality fill. There was no visual evidence of any environmental contamination; therefore, it was agreed that the fill used is acceptable, and the grading and new slopes are stabile and appropriately constructed. Mr. Ryan added that according to the Geotechnical Engineer, and based on the visual inspection of the fill, there is no need for further testing of the fill. The Geotechnical Engineer provided a report of findings for the Board to review. In regard to drainage, the proposed trench drain extends along half of the perimeter of the sports court to detain the stormwater run-off from the court and reduce the speed of flow toward the wetland area. Mr. Mike Nowak, Village Engineer, addressed the Board and stated that during the site visit he and Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed witnessed the deep hole test being performed. It showed that the fill material was visually clean; i.e., there was no discoloration, or suspect material within in fill layer. Natural grade was encountered from 3.5 to 4 feet to 6 feet below grade. In regard to stabilization of the slopes, the applicant is proposes to install a geo textile mat to stabilize the steepest area of the slope where some surface erosion was observed. He added that there is no sign of movement or shifting of the fill, which has been in place for 5 years. Mr. Ryan addressed the suggestion that sub-surface drainage facilities, such as dry wells or Cultee units be installed instead of the trench drain. It is his opinion, that installing a sub-surface drainage system in a steep hillside is inappropriate as it may undermine the stability of the slope. The trench drain system and plantings proposed will detain the run-off slowing its velocity while maintaining a more natural sheet flow and lessening the potential for surface erosion of the slope. Mr.Nowak concurred with Mr. Ryan's assessment. Mrs. Mohamed responded that the efficacy of the proposed slope stabilization plan will be determined after review of the specific plant material proposed is completed. While she still has a concern regarding the extent of the limits of disturbance after the site visit, she recognizes, due to fact the fill has been in place for five years, it is difficult if not impossible to accurately determine the actual extent of the area of the property that was graded to construct the sports court, in part because the vegetation in the area has grown significantly during the five years since the grading was performed. The extent of the disturbance in the buffer shown on the site plan, would not require a wetlands permit according to the Village Code. Mrs. Schoen asked about the types of vegetation proposed. 3 of 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010 Mrs. Mohamed responded that some of it will be ground cover and shrubs. As there is a heavy tree canopy,the plant species would have to be tolerant of shade. As a final comment, Mrs. Mohamed would like the fence around the sports court to remain at the same height it is now but it should be moved back from the neighbor's property line so that additional screening can be added on the Berk property. Mr. Grzan stated that while he does not approve the approach the applicant took, he believes the scars from the grading seem to have healed. He asked if this was 5 years ago and we were reviewing the application before construction instead of after, would we be looking for anything else to be done. Mr. Gioffre reiterated that Mr. Berk relied to his detriment on the opinion of his consultants that the construction did not require a permit. Mr. Accurso wanted to discuss stormwater management as he is confused as well as concerned. Mr. Ryan explained that they are capturing the stormwater run-off without creating a major disturbance to steep slopes by using a trench drain. The trench drain will allow for detention and infiltration without creating a point discharge and the overflow will go down the hill in a sheet and the flow will be slower as well. Mr. Accurso asked if this were a new application, would it be required to have on-site detention? Mr. Ryan responded yes it would and probably in or near the buffer area. However, to do it now would have a potential negative impact on stabile slopes. In his opinion, the volume flowing through the buffer is not significant and what they have proposed will slow the velocity down and provide some detention. Mr. Nowak stated the proposed stormwater is adequate and agrees with the approach. Mr. Tartaglia asked if the property owner at#15 is having any runoff issues. The owner of that property, who was present in the audience, responded he is not. Mr. Tartaglia asked about the 6 test pits that were mentioned in the letter as he does not see them located on the plans. Mr. Ryan responded that they are described in the report and indicated on one of the plans. Chairman Zuckerman wanted to poll the Board on the sports court requiring a 3.82 foot variance and if the Board wanted to require that the sport court be moved 3.82 feet by the applicant to eliminate the need for the variance. Mr. Gioffre responded that as discussed at the last meeting, while the sports court does require a variance, the Zoning Board will be concerned with the impact on the neighbors. 4 of 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010 The Chairman noted that the Planning Board can approve the sport court as it is subject to the Zoning Board granting the variance or we can approve a sport court that does not require such a variance. Mr. Grzan said what is done is done and he wants to hear from the neighbor. Mr. Goodman is only concerned with the screening with the fence and agrees that what's done is done. Mr. Accurso is also concerned with the screening and added that variances run with the land and wanted that noted. Mrs. Schoen agrees and believes going back over it does not serve a purpose. She feels the proposed screening is not sufficient and wants more screening around the spa area. Mr. Tartaglia is not as concerned with screening but will go with majority of the Board on that subject. He can't see making the applicant move the court in his opinion, this is not a structure, and it is at grade just like a patio. His concerns are the steep slopes and the drainage, but after 5 years, it is still stable and he would just as soon leave well enough alone. Mr. Sam Schwartzman, 15 Edgewood Drive, addressed the Board in support of the application. He has had no problem with flooding and he has no problem in regard to the aesthetics, adding that they can barely see the sports court from their house. As there are no further comments or questions, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn the application to December 9th. Mr. Gioffre requested that the Board close the Public Hearing tonight and as there were no objections, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Grzan, the Public Hearing was closed and Mr.Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Chairman Zuckerman called for the next item on the agenda: CONTINUED BUSINESS 5 of 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010 2. Referral from Board of Trustees to Review a Site Plan Application by Doral Arrowood on behalf of American DG Energy to install and operate a cogeneration station for parcel located at 975 Anderson Hill Road,Rye Brook,NY parcel ID 129.34- 1-43,44,45 29.34- 1-43,44,45 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees Mr. Mastromonaco addressed the Board noting that he has submitted material to the Village since the last meeting that addresses two sets of comments regarding air quality issues. Chairman Zuckerman asked about the actual siting of the facility and if it could be moved, in his opinion to benefit the facility, toward the north away from the parking lot. He believes where it is proposed crowds the parking lot tremendously. Mr. Chris Grey of American DG Energy addressed the Board and pointed out that it is actually tucked behind the cooling towers and will be placed so the conduits can be placed in a straight run. Mrs. Kandel responded that was not how it was shown on the plans and the plans need to reflect what will actually take place. Mr. Tartaglia added that looking at the site plan he sees a lot of discrepancies in regard to the location of the facility, the piping and the conduits. Chairman Zuckerman stated that we will go through the rest of the plan tonight and if matters are incomplete, they can be addressed at the next meeting. Mrs. Mohamed discussed some of her concerns that were brought up in her letter to the applicant. She was hoping for a more naturalistic plant scheme. She has asked for additional information which has not yet been provided, including information on any easements or leases at the site. A full EAF was provided as was information on emissions, air quality, and noise. NYSERDA (New York State Energy Recovery Development Association) considers the two installations on the property to be a single system so when analyzing impacts to air quality the cumulative effect of both installations should be looked at together. Mr. Grzan stated that after reading the HDR report, if the air quality permit is not required then a lot of the issues being discussed will go away. There is an interconnection agreement with Con Ed that is required and he believes that the Board is continuing in vain to discuss this application until the major players are on board such as Con Ed and the DEC. Mr. Tartaglia asked the applicant about the NYSERDA incentive monies and if they have gotten the application in as there is a November 30th deadline, to which the applicant responded they had. 6 of 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010 Mr. Tartaglia's other concern is the poor design of the enclosure building and believes screening and landscaping are going to be important. Mr. Mike Muso of HDR, Engineering Consultants for the Village, addressed the Board and introduced the project manager for this application, Noemi Santiago, who was the primary author of the November 11th report. She will speak to the air quality and noise issues. Ms. Noemi Santiago addressed the Board and stated that they have reviewed the application and information provided by applicant and did a site visit as well. She agrees with Mr. Grzan that the Village should follow up with Con Edison on the issuance of the permit required. The safety operations and maintenance manual calls for a lot of safety follow up and the Village should require the applicant to prepare a health and safety plan (HASP) to be followed during operation and maintenance that includes an emergency plan as well as procedures for lock out and tag out. In regard to noise, they reviewed the noise data the manufacturer provided and existing noise monitoring was performed near the cooling tower both while the tower was and was not in operation. The applicant provided noise monitoring performed by the manufacturer to give an indication of the noise level of the source. After comparing this noise to the existing noise, they found it would not be increased more than 6 dba which is the standard required by the DEC. It is only an increase of about 4 dba which is less than what is allowed. The applicant is adding attenuators which will reduce the noise output as well and the findings will be included in the final report after the remaining calculations are done. An attenuator is a duct that is made of a material to reduce the noise. They do, however,recommend that operation during night time hours be limited. In regard to air quality,New York State DEC would require permits or registration of the units as well as the Westchester County Health Department. However, according to the applicant the units will be exempt as per the regulations. HDR suggests the applicant confirm that with the DEC. There are certain regulations that still need to be followed like record keeping for a period of 5 years. They had also requested that a "potential to emit" calculation be provided by the applicant and they have done so and it is being reviewed. The report points out that the nox (nitric oxide) emissions from the units need to be included in Arrowwood's total calculation for nox emissions when determining if they would require a Title 5 permit. Mr. Grzan states that as he understands our process in this case, it leads to a permit to construct not a pen-nit to operate and this won't go anywhere until the other entities act first. 7 of 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010 Chairman Zuckennan added that we have to set forth as completely as possible all the aspects of this application so that the Board of Trustees can make a decision based on this Board's recommendation. To do that, we need to make sure all of the information requested is provided so that when we submit our report to the Board of Trustees, it will be complete. Mr. Grzan would also like the Fire Department involved as this is a high voltage unit. Mr. Grey added that whatever permitting they are required to get they will certainly get. The facility permit is already in process and they are moving forward with the NYSERDA report; however he believes some of the other permits mentioned may not be required. Mr. Grey added that the units are closest to the hotel. and if they are too loud, the hotel will require us to fix the problem. We did not submit lease agreements because they contain confidential information. His company is putting 2 million dollars into this project of which they will receive $375,000 from NYSERDA through the grant program and they would not invest this kind of money into this project if we didn't think we could get the permits we needed to operate it. If this Board requests we move the units,we will move them to expedite the process. Adjourned to December 9th The Chairman called for the next item on the agenda: 3. Referral from Board of Trustees to review a request by Cuddy and Feder on behalf of Reckson Operating Partnership, LLP for Phase 3 Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approval extensions for parcel located at 1100 King Street, Rye Brook, NY parcel ID 129.34-1-43,44, 45 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees Mr. William Null of Cuddy and Feder addressed the Board at which time, Mr. Tartaglia recused himself because he has represented Reckson in the past. Mr. Null respectfully requested that the Board make a recommendation tonight due to the Public Hearing with the Board of Trustees scheduled for December 14"' as they are concerned about having time to do the required notifications. Mrs. Kandel responded that as the Public Hearing is set for 12/14 it can be noticed, and if there is an issue, the Board of Trustees can open the Public Hearing on that date and adjourn it. Mr. Schwalbe, Site Engineer for the applicant, addressed the Board and noted they had received a letter from Dolph Rotfeld Engineering last Friday and had responded to the 8 of 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010 Village this week. The main detention basin has already been constructed and the project will install additional basins to provide additional water quality improvements. Mr. Rotfeld's comments were primarily related to water volumes in the basins. Mr. Schwalbe showed the Board pictures of the basins and their locations. The remainder of the comments requested more information and details which they provided. Mr. Rotfeld of Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, consultant for the Village, addressed the Board and stated that they had looked through the work presented and in his opinion it looks good. In regard to the concern about building a basin in a flood plain, he believes there is confusion on this issue based on the county map. According to the latest County map the existing detention basin is shown as part of the flood plain. He has no problem with the proposed plan and believes it is a good plan. Mr. Grzan asked what we are trying to prove or demonstrate here and how is it related to the construction plan that was approved in 2005. Mr. Schwalbe responded that the original site plan application was approved in 2000. That plan was designed to the standards and good practices in place at that time. Chairman Zuckerman was concerned and wanted to be sure the plan met today's requirements and best practices. Mr. Schwalbe added that in regard to a federal permit, Mr. Bill Kenney spoke with the Army Corp of Engineers and they indicated that it wasn't needed. They are in the process of getting documentation to that effect from them. Chairman Zuckerman adjourned the application to December 9th and stated that he will be working with Counsel on a draft of Report. It will also most likely address the fact that there may be too much parking proposed. The Report may contain a provision to eliminate some of the required parking, which will therefore eliminate some of the impervious surface and reduce stormwater run-off. Mr.Null noted that the stormwater improvements are already under construction. Chairman Zuckerman responded that it would be just something for the Board of Trustees to look at and consider. There is currently a substantial amount of parking at this location that is not used, as was noted by the applicant. The Board of Trustees will have a thorough report from the Planning Board before them when they review the application, which may shorten the applicant's time before the Board of Trustees. Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Grzan, the meeting was adjourned at 10:06 pm. 9 of 9 Planning Board Minutes 11/18/2010