Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-11 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes Approved:9/19/13 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday October 11, 2012 - 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED BUSINESS 1. Review of an application by Sarah Anne Trayner (66 Bowman Ave Realty Corp.) for an Amended Special Use Permit and Amended Site Plan for the property located at 66 Bowman Ave, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 141.27-1-24 • To be Adjourned 2. Review of an application by Kip Konigsberg on behalf of K&M Realty for approval of an Amended Site Plan to increase the occupancy density from 10 to 18 dwelling units at the property located on Bowman Ave, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel I.D. 141.26-1-1.1 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees 3. Review of a Site Plan application for the proposed teardown and reconstruction of a single family dwelling located at 39 Hillandale Road, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel ID 135.28- 1-38 • Applicant requests an adjournment 4. Review of a proposed Local Law amending the Village Code, Section 209-1 NEW BUSINESS ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS Subject to consent of Planning Board Members present at the meeting. Approved:9/19/13 PRESENT BOARD Mr. Domenic Accurso Mr. Rob Goodman Mr. John Grzan Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Dan Tartaglia Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mr. Bill Laufer STAFF Mrs. Jennifer Gray, Village Counsel Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant 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 the Planning Board Rules of Procedures can be found on the Village website, where the public may also view the Planning Board meetings on streaming video. 1. Review of an application by Sarah Anne Trayner (66 Bowman Ave Realty Corp.) for an Amended Special Use Permit and Amended Site Plan for the property located at 66 Bowman Ave, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 141.27-1-24 Application adjourned to November 8, 2012. 3. Review of a Site Plan application for the proposed teardown and reconstruction of a single family dwelling located at 39 Hillandale Road, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel ID 135.28-1-38 Application taken out of order and adjourned to November 8, 2012 at the request of the Applicant. 2. Review of an application by Kip Konigsberg on behalf of K&M Realty for approval of an Amended Site Plan to increase the occupancy density from 10 to 18 dwelling units at the property located on Bowman Ave, Rye Brook, NY, Parcel I.D. 141.26-1-1.1 • Considering a Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees Jim Ryan representing K&M Realty, stated that he had a meeting last week with Village staff and submitted additional documents. At the meeting with Village staff, some of the leftover issues in the initial comments from staff were discussed. One item submitted before the Planning Board meeting was a letter received today by the Applicant from United Water. Approved:9/19/13 Mr. Ryan then went over each comment and provided responses. A tree on property, which he pointed out on the plans, was an existing tree shown on the original survey that is no longer on the property. He believes it fell down and was removed from the property. The landscape plan was revised to show a new tree to replace the fallen one. A question was raised by F. P. Clark as to whether or not the revised site plan allows space for the fire department to have safe ladder access to the upper floors of the all the buildings. Mr. Ryan stated that the available space and the safe angle of repose of a fire ladder were analyzed graphically and added to the plans. The analysis shows that the spaces at the rear of the revised buildings are large enough for fire ladders to be set up at a safe angle of repose. Chairman Zuckerman noted that the Planning Board has not yet received comments regarding the revised site plan from the Emergency Services Task Force. Mr. Ryan then discussed the comments received from Dolph Rotfeld's office, the Village engineering consultant. The letter from United Water received today and submitted to the Village indicates that there is sufficient supply and water pressure to provide water to the additional residential units proposed. Chairman Zuckerman noted that the Village Engineer and the consulting engineer are not present, and that additional information and documents were submitted just before the meeting that the Board did not had a chance to review. He did not want to move the application forward until the Board has a chance to receive missing information and review the recent submissions. Mr. Accurso and Mrs. Schoen both agreed with Chairman Zuckerman. Mr. Ryan responded that he received Mr. Rotfeld's memo yesterday, and he feels all the information necessary was provided to the Board. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed addressed the Board and went over her comments. She stated that all the information requested regarding the landscape plan and the rip rap slope stabilization already constructed on the site, among other items, were not provided. Mr. Tartaglia added that originally there were to be 10 single family buildings. The current site plan proposes 9 buildings with a total of 18 residential units. The density on the site would be doubled. He asked about the Strip portion of the property and proposed subdivision. Mrs. Gray responded that the subdivision was part of the original 2007 approvals, Mr. Grzan stated that because the footprints of the buildings have not changed from those of the approved plans, he believes that the Applicant has increased the density appropriately. However, the issues brought up by F.P. Clark should be addressed, but he would like them reviewed and handled by the Board of Trustees as the approval authority. Approved:9/19/13 Chairman Zuckerman responded that it is our job to furnish the Trustees with as much information and analysis as possible so the Trustees can make an informed decision regarding the environmental and other impacts of the site plan. If the Planning Board feels it can move the application forward it should. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed brought up the issue of future building alterations. The original approval stated that the buildings could not be altered to increase the building footprint in future, but given the fact the density has increased so much, she recommends that interior alterations that would increase the density further, such as the creation of additional bedrooms, should not be allowed. Mrs. Schoen agrees that exterior building footprint alterations should not be allowed; however, she did not agree that it is appropriate to forbid interior changes to the buildings. Mr. Accurso asked if the attic space could be used as living space, to which the applicant responded "No" because of the attic construction. Mrs. Mohamed added that after referral to the Trustees the application must come back to the Planning Board for review and action on the steep slopes and wetlands permits applications. Chairman Zuckerman noted for the Board that the final memos from the Emergency Services Task Force and Mr. Rotfeld have not been submitted, and asked the Board of how they wanted to proceed with the draft report and recommendations. The Board could review the draft report and recommendations and call for a vote, or the application could be adjourned until the two final memos are received. Mrs. Schoen stated her belief that to delay the report another month isn't appropriate because the responses to the outstanding comments can be made to the Board of Trustees. Rob Goodman agreed with Mrs. Schoen and Mr. Grzan that review by the Planning Board is one of many phases of review of the application. Although the Village's consultants haven't completely signed off on the responses to their comments, he believes the outstanding items are addressed in the report and recommendations. There is no reason to delay the application for another month. Mr. Accurso is uncomfortable proceeding because some of the outstanding issues are important. Mr. Accurso asked if the Applicant had given consideration to making some or all of the units affordable housing. Mr. Konigsberg responded that he had decided not to include affordable housing in the project because he believes it would not be economically feasible. Approved:9/19/13 Mr. Tartaglia did not want to slow down the progress of the project; however, he had concerns regarding left-hand turns into and out of the development. Mrs. Schoen agreed with Mr. Tartaglia's traffic concerns, and recommended that there should be a review of the traffic issues. The Chairman called for Mrs. Gray to read the Draft Report and Recommendation: PLANNING BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR K&M REALTY GROUP, LTD AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT ON BOWMAN AVENUE I. PROJECT OVERVIEW On May 8, 2012, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees ("BOT") referred an application for approval of an Amended Site Plan to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board ("Planning Board") for consideration of a Report and Recommendation. The Board of Trustees is the approval authority for this application pursuant to Section 209- 1(A)(1) of the Village Code. The application was made by property owner, K&M Realty Group, Ltd. ("Applicant") for an amendment to a previous approved site plan for ten (10) residential condominium units, to now authorize construction of eighteen (18) residential condominium units on property located on the south side of Bowman Avenue west of South Ridge Street, Section 141.26, Block 1, Lot 1.1, in the Cl zoning district and the Bowman Avenue Scenic Road Overlay District (the "Property'). 1. BACKGROUND By way of background, the 4.039-acre property located on the south side of Bowman Avenue west of Ridge Street is comprised of two tax lots situated at the confluence of the Blind Brook and its East Branch. The Property was previously divided into two tax lots for financing purposes, but remains one building lot. Tax Lot 1-1 of Block 26, Section 141 contains property commonly referred to as the "Peninsula." Tax Lot 1-1.1 of Block 26, Section 141 contains property commonly referred to as the "Strip." The Property was used for many years as a gravel mine and subsequently for deposition of excavated materials and demolition debris, which contributed to the current topography of the site. The entire property was the subject of an application for site plan approval submitted by the Applicant in 1994. At the direction of the BOT as approval authority and Lead Agency for the environmental review under SEQRA, the proposed development plan received a positive declaration and an environmental impact statement was prepared. The current site plan for development of 10 attached condominiums, Approved:9/19/13 single-family town homes was approved by the BOT, and wetlands and steep slopes permits were approved by the Planning Board, in 2007. The Lower Blind Brook Pond covers a large portion of the Property. The Peninsula, an upland portion of the site is mostly comprised of fill so it includes minimal areas of wetlands; therefore, its developable land is almost entirely located within the 100-foot regulated wetland buffers of the pond and the Blind Brook watercourses. A large portion of the Property is within the 100-year flood plain of the Blind Brook. Although the Peninsula does not flood because of its elevation, the Strip is subject to flooding. The Planning Board was an Involved Agency responsible for reviewing wetlands and steep slopes work during the SEQRA and site plan review processes. The Planning Board approved the wetlands and steep slopes work permits after the Lead Agency issued the Environmental Findings Statement and approved the Site Plan. Site plan approval for the Peninsula and the Strip were granted by separate resolutions by the BOT. The Strip was to be developed as parkland that, upon completion would be dedicated to the Village. Today, with the exception of the installation of stone rip-rap around the perimeter of the Peninsula, the property remains much as it was when approval of the site plan and the environmental permits were granted in 2007. 2. CURRENT APPLICATION On April 18, 2012 the Applicant submitted an application for an amendment to the approved site plan for the Peninsula to increase the number of residential condominium units. Originally the new site plan would have increased the number of units from 10 units to 20 units. However, the current revised development plan proposes 8 two-bedroom and 10 three-bedroom units, for a total of 18 units and 47 parking spaces. According to the proposed plans, the 18 units would be located in nine two-unit buildings attached to create one group of 3 attached buildings, one group of 4 attached buildings and one group of 2 attached buildings. The proposed plans do not change the footprints of the buildings from what was approved in 2007. However, two additional parking spaces were added to the plan, increasing the total number of parking spaces from 45 spaces to 47 spaces. II. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION The Planning Board reviewed this application at its July 12, 2012, August 9, 2012 and October 11, 2012 meetings. Based on a review of the application and information provided by the Applicant and Village Staff, the Village's Planning Consultant, F.P. Clark Associates, provided Planning Memoranda to the Planning Board dated June 14, 2012, July 11, 2012, September 21, 2012, and October 5, 2012. The Village's Engineering Consultant, Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, PC (DRE) provided Memoranda dated October 8, 2012. The Village's Emergency Services Task Force provided Memoranda to the Planning Board dated July 20, 2012. Each of these Memoranda is Approved:9/19/13 incorporated hereby by reference and the relevant portions are set forth below, as applicable. The Planning Board focused on the differences between the pending application and the application approved by the Board of Trustees in 2007, as well as any new circumstances or regulatory changes since 2007, so as to determine what impacts, if any, the pending application would have beyond that which was approved in 2007. The Planning Board also focused on the differences between the pending application and the 10-unit residential plan studied in the prior SEQRA review process. The issues reviewed and discussed include traffic and parking, school impacts, impervious surface coverage and stormwater, open space, visual impacts from the Bowman Avenue Scenic Road, landscaping, emergency services, utilities, and grading. A. Traffic and Parking FP Clark provided the following comments regarding Traffic and Parking in its September 21, 2012 Memorandum: The Applicant's Traffic Consultant provided additional information for both parking need and traffic generation. Based on information provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) the original development of 10 units was estimated to generate up to 10 vehicle trip ends during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The 18 units currently proposed are estimated to generate 15 trip ends during the weekday morning and weekday afternoon peak hours, with the greatest level of site-generated traffic during the weekday afternoon peak hour. The additional 5 vehicle trip ends added to existing traffic on Bowman Avenue and other nearby roadways would have little, if any, impact on the overall operation of these roads or intersections. The additional traffic would not require any additional mitigation, such as modifications to access to the subject property, pavement markings on Bowman Avenue or traffic signal timing at the intersection of Bowman Avenue and South Ridge Street. Based on standards provided by both the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and ITE, the 18 attached units will generate, at most, a need for 34 parking spaces. The maximum number of parking spaces is typically needed overnight when most residents are home, and includes an overlap with visitors during the evening hours. The new proposal would provide 47 spaces, which includes garage spaces, driveways and spaces for visitors. Approved:9/19/13 Based on our review of the Site Plan, it is our opinion that the 47 parking spaces proposed would be appropriate to accommodate the parking need during peak times which includes overnight, evenings and weekends. The 2007 Site Plan approved by the BOT contains 45 parking spaces with two (2) additional parking spaces required to be landbanked' for a total of 47 parking spaces, where 30 parking spaces were required pursuant to the Village Zoning Code. According to the 2006 Environmental Findings Statement adopted by the BOT, the landbanked parking spaces were required for use by visitors because no on-street parking is available in the vicinity of the site. The proposed application proposes to improve the two (2) parking spaces previously proposed to be landbanked. Therefore, 47 parking spaces are now proposed to be actually constructed. Based on the information provided by the Applicant and FP Clark, it is the consensus of the Planning Board that the 47 off-street parking spaces proposed by the Applicant are sufficient to accommodate the Applicant's use of the property. B. Stormwater Management FP Clark's October 5, 2012 Memorandum notes that the Survey submitted by the Applicant, Sheet M-2, last revised September 27, 2012, shows differences in grading between the 2007 Site Plan approved by the BOT and the current proposed plan: According to JMC, Sheet M-2, last revised 9/27/12, includes as-built conditions related to the construction of the rip-rap slope surrounding the Peninsula. We note that the slope was constructed to a higher elevation than what was indicated on the approved plan, and that current existing elevations shown on the Peninsula are approximately one foot higher than the general existing elevations shown on plans and surveys reviewed during the original SEQRA and site plan review process. DRE has reviewed the proposed plans to determine whether the modification of the approved slope height and the modified elevations on the Peninsula, as well as other modifications discussed herein such as expansion of the cantilever at the rear of each proposed building, result in any necessary changes to the stormwater management plan which was approved in connection with the 2007 Site Plan. DBE's October 8, 2012 Memorandum provides the following in relevant part: ' In the 2006 Environmental Findings Statement, the BCT found that the site plan would require three (3) additional parking spaces for use by visitors due to the lack of on- street parking. The 2007 Site Plan Approval Resolution for the Peninsula determined that upon further consideration it was better to maintain open space and instead required by the Applicant to landbank two (2) additional parking spaces. Approved:9/19/13 As discussed at the meeting we are to visit the site and check areas in the rip-rap slope for placement of plants not installed in the original construction. It will also be important to see the rip-rap after a few years of exposure. Important would be a cross-section of the new higher grade and top of the rip-rap. A general review indicates those impervious areas have increased slightly. Although Jim Ryan stated that calculations were done had no impact on the original design, we would like to see the calculations. We will review the revised erosion and sediment control plan when submitted. Therefore, although it is possible that no changes in the stormwater management plan are necessary, DRE has requested further information before malting its recommendation in this regard. C. School Impacts The Applicant's consultant, John Meyer Consulting, P.C. (UMC"), submitted a Memorandum, dated August 30, 2012, to provide an estimate of the number of school age children to be generated by the proposed development. JMC's Memorandum concludes: A total of 13 school age children are anticipated to be generated by the Bowman Avenue Development. Of these 13, three (3) are expected to attend parochial/private schools. The net projected number of school age children that are anticipated to attend public schools is therefore 10. FP Clark provided the following comments in its September 21, 2012 Memorandum: An analysis of the number of school-age children that would be generated by the revised project was submitted. It satisfactorily responds to our original comment. The analysis should be submitted to the Harrison School district for comment and the written response from the district submitted to the Planning Board for review. FP Clark also provided the following comments in its October 5, 2012 Memorandum: According to JMC, the projection of the number of school age children was sent to the Harrison School District for comment. When a written response from the school district Approved:9/19/13 is received it will be submitted to the Planning Board for review. Based on this analysis and based on the total student enrollment of 3,520 in the Harrison Central School District according to the NYS District Report Card: Harrison Central School District 2009-2010 (www.reportcards.nysed.gov), the consensus of the Planning Board is that the number of school age children generated by this project would not create a significant impact on the Harrison Central School District. D. Site Plan and Building Plans FP Clark's October 5, 2012 Memorandum provides the following comments regarding the Site Plan: The plans continue to show built and un-built structures on the site as proposed; however, according to JMC, the entire rip-rap slope is in place, although the slope is not yet planted. We note that the proposed amended grading plan raises the first floor elevation of the buildings almost two feet above the first floor elevations of the grading plan reviewed during the original SEQRA and site plan review process. DRE will review the revised grading plan and the constructed rip-rap slope to determine if the grading plan revisions affect other aspects of the project such as the stormwater management plan, and if the rip-rap slope was constructed as originally approved. FP Clark's October 5, 2012 Memorandum provides the following comments regarding the Building Plans: DRE will review the site and building plans to determine if the proposed changes affect the approved stormwater management plan. JMC will revise the "Fire Ladder Section" detail on Sheet M-14 to show the four-foot rear cantilever of the buildings and the resulting adjusted ladder positions, and the revised detail will be reviewed by the ESTE We note that the amended building plans indicate that the total gross floor area of the proposed buildings would be 33,035 square feet, which is increased from the total gross floor area of 22,540 square feet indicated in the accepted FEIS during the original SEQRA and site plan review process. We also note that the proposed amended grading plan raises the first floor elevation of the buildings almost two feet above the first floor elevations of the grading plan reviewed during the original SEQRA and site plan review Approved:9/19/13 process and that the proposed building height of 40 feet is higher than the proposed height of 35 feet discussed in the Lead Agency's Findings Statement on which the original approval of the site plan was based. Furthermore, FP Clark's October 5, 2012 Memorandum continues to provide the following recommendation regarding use of the proposed attic space and future alterations: We continue to recommend that the Board consider making recommendations to the Village Trustees regarding: (a) if alteration of units should be allowed in future; and (b) if so, to what extent such alterations should be allowed, given the constraints of the site. Given the constraints of the site we recommend that no exterior or interior alteration of buildings should be allowed as most typical alterations would impact the capacity of the proposed site plan to support the proposed use with regard to parking, traffic, emergency access and environmental resources. Accordingly, based on review of information submitted by the Applicant and comments submitted by the Village's Staff and Consultants, the Planning Board has identified the following items on the proposed plans which differ from the previous SEQRA and site plan review: i. The Applicant is proposing to improve the two (2) parking spaces shown as landbanked parking spaces on the 2007 Site Plan. (See, Section B above). ii. The Applicant is proposing a total gross floor area of 33,035 square feet, whereas the Proposed Mitigation Plan provided in the 2006 FEIS contained a total gross floor area of 22,540 square feet and the 2007 Site Plans submitted to the Village for a Site Development Permit in 2009 contained a total gross floor area of 32,076 square feet. iii. The height of the proposed buildings is 3 stories/40 feet, whereas the height of the buildings reviewed for the purposes of the 2006 Findings Statement was 3 stories/35 feet and the height of the buildings shown on the 2007 Site Plans submitted for the issuance of a Site Development Permit in 2009 was 3 stories/40 feet. iv. The proposed Grading Plan raises the first (ground) floor elevation of the buildings two feet above the first (ground) floor elevations of the April 7, 2006 Grading Plan reviewed during the original SEQRA and site plan review process. V. The cumulative impacts regarding traffic may have changed since the approval of the 2007 Site Plan. Approved:9/19/13 As set forth in Section A, above, the improvement of two (2) parking spaces previously approved as landbanked spaces is appropriate and the total number of parking spaces provided is adequate for the proposed use. With respect to the difference in the total gross floor area, the Planning Board questions why there is an increase in the proposed gross floor area if the footprint of the buildings is not changing. The Planning Board recognizes that some of the additional square footage is due to the expansion of the cantilever proposed on the rear of each building at the second and third floors from approximately 2.5 feet (as approved in 2007) to approximately 4 feet (as now proposed). Although the remaining difference in the square footage, if any, should be accounted for, the Planning Board notes that the traffic, parking, and school impact analyses indicate that the increased gross floor area will not result in any adverse impacts in this regard. Similarly, the Applicant should provide information that accounts for the difference in the building height of the 10-unit residential plan studied in the FEIS versus the currently proposed building height, and the difference in the proposed first floor elevations of the 2007 Grading Plan versus the currently proposed Grading Plan. E. Emergency Services The Village's Emergency Services Task Force reviewed the proposed plans and issued a Memorandum, dated July 20, 2012, which set forth the following comments: 1. The buildings should be equipped throughout with code compliance fire suppression sprinkler system. 2. The buildings should be equipped throughout with code compliant hard-wired, interconnected smoke detectors/fire alarms, connected to a central monitoring station. 3. Both east & west curbs at the entrance roadway, as well as all walkway end-caps should be designated as enforceable Fire Lanes, in accordance with Village Code §240-22. 4. As was noted in my Isr memo dated 1/8/07, the fire hydrant water supply line shown on page M-5 should be configured with an interior loop to ensure adequate water pressure to the fire hydrants at all times. 5. The Fire Department has requested that the applicant provide an alternate fire service water line to the site from the west side, for use as a second water source in an emergency situation. Approved:9/19/13 6. The Emergency Services Boat Launch proposed at the Passive Park should be reconfigured or relocated to allow for a less severe gradient change from grand to the water to facilitate proper launching of the water craft. According to JMC's August 31, 2012 Memorandum, Sheets M-3 and M-4 have been revised to add notes regarding compliance with the ESTF's Comment #1 and Comment #2 and plans have also been revised in conformance with the ESTF's Comment #3 and Comment #6. On October 10, 2012, the Applicant submitted a plan showing an interior loop of the water service main which has not yet been reviewed by DRE or the ESTF. However, it the Board's understanding that the Applicant does not agree to provide the alternate fire service water line for use a second water source in an emergency situation as the Applicant is already extending the United Water Westchester ("UWW") water line several hundred feet for this project and has received a "will serve" letter from UWW demonstrating that adequate supply and pressure exist for this project. As noted in FP Clark's October 5, 2012 Memorandum, "JMC will revise the `Fire Ladder Section' detail on Sheet M-14 to show the four-foot rear cantilever of the buildings and the resulting adjusted ladder positions, and the revised detail will be reviewed by the ESTF." The Applicant submitted the revised Sheet M-14 on October 10, 2012 and it was forwarded to the ESTF for review and comment. F. Utilities The project is proposed to be serviced by a municipal sewer line and a UWW water main which the Applicant proposes to extend approximately 600-800 feet along Bowman Avenue to connect to the site. DRE's October 8, 2012 Memorandum provides: We should receive flow calculations for water and sewage due to increase of the number of dwelling units. The original proposed and sanitary sewer and water pipes should be adequate to handle the domestic flows. Fire flow requirements, as promulgated by ISO for the proposed type of construction and space of the buildings should be provided. JMC's October 10, 2012 Memorandum states the Applicant has received a "will serve" letter from the Westchester County Department of Environmental Facilities which states the Blind Brook Wastewater Treatment Plan and Blind Brook Trunk Sewers have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project. FP Clark's October 5, 2012 Memorandum further provides: According to JMC, an updated "will-serve" letter was requested from United Water Westchester. The new letter will be submitted to the Village for review when it is received by the Applicant. Approved:9/19/13 On October 11, 2012, the Applicant submitted a "will serve" letter from UWW which states UWW has adequate pressure and volume to serve the project. G. Landscaping FP Clark raised a question in prior Memoranda regarding the status of a regulated tree shown on the Layout and Landscaping Plans. FP Clark's October 5, 2012 Memorandum provided the following with respect to the tree: According to JMC, all trees, whether regulated or not, including the regulated tree to remain shown on the approved and current plans, are no longer on the property. JMC will revise the landscape plan to add a replacement tree for the regulated tree to remain that is no longer on the property. The Applicant submitted revised plans, dated October 10, 2012, which included the replacement tree. However, based on the degree of landscaping provided in the plans approved in 2007, the Applicant should revise the current proposed Landscape Plan to incorporate more landscape plantings which will mitigate any visual impacts from the Bowman Avenue Scenic Road. III. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS After discussion and consideration of the comments set forth in the memoranda from F.P Clark and DRE, the Planning Board recommends approval of the Amended Site Plan, upon the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit information for review which accounts for the difference in gross floor area, building height and the grading/elevation change between the plan reviewed for the previous 2007 Site Plan approval, including the plans studied as part of the prior SEQRA review, and the current proposed plan. 2. The Applicant shall provide the fire hydrant water supply line shown on Sheet M-5 configured with an interior loop to ensure adequate water pressure to the fire hydrants at all times, pursuant to ESTF's July 20, 2012 Memorandum. 3. If determined by DRE to be necessary, the Applicant shall submit a revised stormwater management plan for review and approval by the Village Engineer and/or the Village's Consulting Engineer. Approved:9/19/13 4. The Applicant shall submit a draft Construction Management Plan for review. 5. The Applicant shall obtain approval from ESTF for the revised "Fire Ladder Section" detail on Sheet M-14 showing the four-foot rear cantilever of the buildings and the resulting adjusted ladder positions. 6. The Applicant shall submit information regarding UWW's ability to supply water to this site during an emergency situation. In the event it is determined that UWW does not have the ability to supply water to this site during an emergency situation, the Applicant shall further explore the possibility of providing an alternate fire service water line to the site from the west side, or other alternative water supply, for use as a second water source in an emergency situation. 7. The Applicant shall submit the proposed plans to WCDOH, NYSDEC and UWW for review and approval. 8. The Applicant shall satisfactorily address all comments from DRE, FP Clark and Village Staff. 9. The Applicant shall examine sight lines and consider restricting left turns out of the site. The Applicant shall also consider providing its "fair share" of traffic mitigation measures along Bowman Avenue. 10. The Applicant should revise the proposed Landscape Plan to incorporate more landscape plantings which will mitigate any visual impacts from the Bowman Avenue Scenic Road and the "Strip." Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends that all conditions of the BOT's July 24, 2007 "Resolution Approving a Site Plan Submitted by K&M Realty Group, LTD for Development of Ten(10) Residential Units on Bowman Avenue West of South Ridge Street, Rye Brook, Lots 1-1 and 1-1.1, Block 26, Section 141" remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise stated in the BOT's resolution for the current development proposal. Those conditions include the following, as modified for the current development proposal(modified language is shown with strikethroughs and underlines): Approved:9/19/13 1. A copy of this resolution shall be attached to the building permit application. 2. Site plan approval shall be subject to approval of a steeps slopes work permit and a permit to perform regulated activities in a wetland by the Village Planning Board. 3. Conditions of approval for development: a. Construction of basements, now and in the future shall be prohibited. Garages and attics shall not be converted to habitable areas. b. Parking shall be prohibited along the entire access road and all travel aisles. It shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and subsequently the Homeowners Association to place and maintain appropriate traffic regulation signage and enforce the "no parking" rules. c. Additional building bulk or structures of any kind (including but not limited to additions to buildings, enlargement of decks,patios or walkways, or placement of sheds or other accessory structures) shall be prohibited by deed restriction and/or other appropriate measures subject to prior written approval by Village Counsel. The foregoing shall not include repairs or rebuilding as originally approved. d. Provision of a final Tree Preservation and Protection Plan to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. e. Pt!evisien of a final steep slopes pianfiRg plan to the satisfaefie Issuance of a Steep Slopes Permit and a Permit to Perform Regulated Activities in a Wetland by the Village of Rye Brook PlanningBoard. f Provision of a final landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. g. Provision of a final stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. h. Provision of a final erosion and sediment control plan to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. i. Provision of a final, detailed monitoring and maintenance plan for all wetland buffer and steep slope plantings to the Approved:9/19/13 satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. The Applicant and eventually the Homeowners Association or Condominium Board shall be required to inspect, maintain, repair and replace any and all wetland buffer plantings and steep slopes plantings to comply with the design standard intended, the requirements of the Village Code and to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. j. Provision of a final, detailed monitoring and maintenance plan for all stormwater management facilities to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. The Applicant and eventually the Homeowners Association or Condominium Board shall be required to inspect, maintain and repair all stormwater management structures and appurtenances in accordance with the approved plans to insure the proposed stormwater management facilities function to the standards and objectives of the Village of Rye Brook stormwater management ordinance and to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. k. Provision of a final, detailed monitoring and maintenance plan for all steep slope rip-rap or other stabilization construction to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. The Applicant and eventually the Homeowners Association or Condominium Board shall be required to inspect, maintain, repair and be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the stability of steep slopes on the property to the design standard intended, the requirements of the Village Code and to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or consultants. 1. The monitoring and maintenance of all stormwater management facilities, wetland buffer and steep slopes plantings and rip rap or other stabilization construction required by the conditions of this resolution that are to be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association or Condominium Board shall be clearly and completely described in the condominium offering plan, subject to the prior written approval of the Village Attorney. in. Provision of a final construction management plan for the entire site prior to granting of a building permit that includes specific times and routes for trucks carting material to and from the site, including potential truck routes, number of trucks, number of trips, dust and noise mitigation measures and coordination with the Port Chester Middle School schedule to avoid traffic conflicts during school arrival and dismissal times for approval by the Village Engineer, fire, and police services and any other consultants determined to be Approved:9/19/13 necessary by the Village Engineer. Work shall be staged to minimize the number of trucks present at the site at any one time. n. Use of a turbidity curtain during construction and/or any other method or methods determined to be necessary by the Village Engineer, consultants or other approving agencies, to prevent migration of silt into the water environment surrounding the site. o. The Applicant, its successors or assigns, shall include text acceptable to the Village Attorney in the Offering Plan for the proposed Condominium or Homeowner's Association, advising prospective purchasers of conditions 3(a) to (c) and (i) to (1), (q), (s), (t), (u), (w). There shall be no amendments to the Offering Plan, by-laws or Rules and Regulations concerning items 3(a) to (c); (i) to (1), (q), (s), (t), (u), (w) of this Resolution without prior approval of the Village Board of Trustees. p. The Applicant, its successors or assigns, shall include language acceptable to the Village Attorney in the deeds to the individual units concerning conditions 3(a) and 3(c). q. Placement of a 35-foot wide permanent conservation easement on the Peninsula running parallel to the front property line along the entire Bowman Avenue frontage of the Peninsula to preserve the landscape buffer created on the Peninsula pursuant to the requirements of the Scenic Roads Overlay District. The Applicant shall provide the conservation easement for review and approval by the Village Board of Trustees prior to the issuance of a building permit. Landscaping installed between the Bowman Avenue right-of-way and the residential units within the conservation easement shall be maintained, according to the requirements of the conservation easement, by the Applicant and thereafter by the Condominium Board or Homeowners Association. r. Installation of a landscape buffer along the Bowman Avenue frontage of the Peninsula sufficient to screen views of the buildings from the street, to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and/or Consultants. s. No activity of any type shall be permitted on rip-rap steep slopes except required maintenance. Appropriate signage to that effect shall be installed and maintained by the Applicant Approved:9/19/13 and thereafter by the Homeowners Association or Condominium Board. t. Construction of docks or any other structures extending into the watercourse or pond shall be prohibited. u. Swimming, boating, fishing or other water related recreational activities shall be prohibited. Appropriate signage to that effect shall be installed and maintained by the Applicant and thereafter by the Homeowners Association or Condominium Board and included in the Condominium's Offering Plan, By- Laws and Rules and Regulations. v. Construction traffic shall be scheduled to avoid generation of construction related traffic that coincides with roadway peak hours. v sidepAial unit and five (5) spaees faf guests, the site plan shaI4 show an additional two (2) par-king spaees that afe appfeved "land banked" faf eenstndetion in the f�ttxe if aetefmined by Village Engineef to be neeessafy. The A,...1;..apA isnot obligated veeefnber17 2006 Fifi ZingsCtatemel3+�sttfuetion of-;'tieh pafking spaeesdeemedneeessafy by the Village Eng-* .--., shall be the Y sib lity e� the 14aff,eov,%efs-Asseeiation e in the Offefing Plan. x. The property shall be apportioned into two lots as delineated by the existing tax lots 1-1 and 1-1.1 by the Village, if the Village determines in its sole discretion to receive the strip (Lot 1-1) as a passive public park. y. Construction of all improvements to the Strip (Lot 1-1.1) as shown on the Site Plan approved by the Board of Trustees by Resolution dated July 24, 2007 and as amended by the Site Plan approved herein with respect to the location of the proposed Emergency Services Boat Launch, shall be completed prior to offering the Strip for dedication to the Village and within eighteen (18) months of the issuance of the first Building Permit for the ten eighteen residential units on the Peninsula or prior to issuance of the last residential Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs earlier. Approved:9/19/13 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a 100% performance bond shall be submitted in a sum determined by the Village Engineer and shall be furnished to and accepted by the Village, to guarantee the satisfactory and complete installation and construction of all infrastructure and public improvements, as determined appropriate by the Village Engineer, for the Peninsula, including landscaping, sewage, water, drainage, roads, sediment and erosion control measures, sidewalks, stormwater detention, and watercourse buffer mitigation approved as to form by the Village Attorney. 5. The Applicant shall provide to the Village, a landscape maintenance bond in the amount of which is to be determined by the Village Engineer in a form satisfactory to the Village Attorney. A bond with a minimum term of two years commencing upon the issuance of the 8th certificate of occupancy shall be posted for the maintenance of general site landscaping, the landscaping to thereafter be maintained and replaced as necessary. 6. Amended Site Plan approval shall expire one year from the date of this resolution. Upon written request, the Board of Trustees may extend the expiration date by up to six months upon good cause shown. IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the Planning Board recommends the BOT approve the Amended Site Plan application, upon the conditions set forth above. Dated: Rye Brook,New York October 11, 2012 On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, there was discussion: Mr. Grzan was concerned about the recommendations of the Emergency Services Task Force. He also questioned the need for a loop in the water supply for fire suppression. Mrs. Gray added that there are two issues related to the fire suppression water supply , the loop asked for on the United Water line, and request for an alternate emergency water supply. Mr. Accurso asked for an explanation of the gross floor areas of the buildings and clarification of discrepancies, to which Mr. Ryan responded. Mr. Grzan asked Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed if additional gross floor area would have significant impacts. Approved:9/19/13 Chairman Zuckerman responded, recalling discussions regarding the amended site plan. The additional GFA is something that the Board of Trustees should review to determine if there could be significant impacts. Mr. Tartaglia wanted to add recommendations regarding traffic impacts, wanted the property cleaned up, and would like to see the performance bond changed to a line of credit. The Chairman asked Mr. Nowak to call the roll, and the draft report and recommendations was adopted as revised: MR. ACCURSO NO MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER ABSENT MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN NO The Chairman called for Mrs. Gray read the resolution referring the Report and Recommendations to the Board of Trustees: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR K&M REALTY GROUP, LTD 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 Amended Site Plan application and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board Chairman is hereby authorized to finalize the attached Report and Recommendation in consultation with Village Counsel to accurately reflect the Planning Board's discussions at its October 11, 2012 meeting, prior to such Report and Recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Trustees and Village Administrator. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, Mr. Nowak called the roll, and the resolution was approved: MR. ACCURSO NO MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES Approved:9/19/13 MR. LAUFER ABSENT MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN NO 4. Review of proposed Local Law amending the Village Code, Section 209-1 Mrs. Gray summarized the amendments, explaining that the 50%rule would be amended to alleviate concerns that applicants are circumventing the rule by dividing applications into smaller projects that do not trigger site plan review. Chairman Zuckerman added that if multiple applications submitted within a certain time period would trigger site plan review when considered together, then the last application would be considered the trigger that requires site plan review of all the earlier applications as well. He noted that the Building Inspector is in favor of Option 1 of the draft Local Law. The majority agreed that the time period should be 24 months from issuance of the first building permit. The Chairman asked Mrs. Gray to summarize the Draft Report and Recommendation to the Trustees: 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 209: SITE PLAN REVIEW I. LOCAL LAW OVERVIEW The Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees ("BOT") referred to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board ("Planning Board") for their consideration a proposed amendment to Section 209-1(B) of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook regarding a the threshold for site plan review where an addition, exterior alteration or major expansion is proposed, as follows: Proposed Amendment to §209-1(B)(2): The following amendment was referred to the Planning Board for consideration: B. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or any other required permits or approvals, a site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the designated approval authority for any one of the following land use activities: Approved:9/19/13 (1) Any new construction or teardown, as such terms are defined in § 250-2 of the Zoning Code, of any building, including one- and two-family dwellings. (2) Additions, exterior alterations or major expansions performed to an existing building which result in an increase of 50% or more of the gross floor area of the existing building over a period of 18 consecutive months. The Building Department requested such amendment to Section 209-1(B) in response to concerns that applicants are circumventing the requirement for site plan review when additions, exterior alterations or major expansions are proposed which increase the gross floor area ("GFA") of an existing building by 50% or more. For example, an applicant came to the Building Department with a proposed addition that increases the GFA of the existing building by 50% or more, learned of the requirement for site plan approval under such circumstances, later returned to the Building Department with a smaller addition that does not trigger site plan review, received the building permit, then several weeks or months later returned to the Building Department with a second building permit application which, when taken together with the first application, exceeds the 50% GFA threshold. The amendment as proposed by the BOT would require that any two or more additions, exterior alterations or major expansions that result in an increase of 50% or more of the existing GFA over a period of 18 consecutive months, would trigger site plan review. II. DISCUSSION The Planning Board reviewed and discussed the proposed amendments at its September 13, 2012 and October 11, 2012 meetings. The Planning Board agreed that an amendment is necessary to prevent applicants from circumventing site plan review through "gamesmanship," but the consensus of the Planning Board is that further clarification is necessary to determine (1) when the 18 months begins; (2) what is reviewed when the application comes before the designated approval authority; and (3) whether 18 months is an appropriate timeframe. Another comment raised by the Planning Board was that the limitation on multiple additions which exceed 50% of the existing GFA should not extend to new property owners. For example, if a residential property owner constructs an addition that increases the GFA of the existing home by 30% and several months later sells the home to an individual who also decides to put an addition on the home, the new homeowner's application should not be limited by the previous homeowner's addition. The Planning Board reasoned that the distinction is that the intent behind the local law appears to be to prevent bad faith or purposeful circumvention of the current site plan review trigger. The Planning Board also discussed whether the time period between applications should be based upon the date on which the building permit application is submitted, the date the building permit is issued, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued. Although basing the time period on the date the certificate of occupancy is issued would Approved:9/19/13 be an incentive to obtain a certificate of occupancy, it does not prevent a homeowner from circumventing site plan review by obtaining a building permit for an addition with a 30% increase in GFA after already having obtained a building permit for an addition with a 25% increase in GFA three weeks earlier since it is unlikely that a certificate of occupancy would have already been issued for the first addition and therefore, the time period would not have begun to run. The Planning Board also discussed whether the 18 month time period should be extended to 24 months or 36 months and whether the Building Inspector should be given the discretion to determine when to refer an application to the designated approval authority for site plan review when two or more applications for additions on the same structure are received in a short time period, which when taken together would exceed 50% of the existing GFA. III. RECOMMENDATION Based on the Planning Board's discussions at its September 13, 2012 and October 11, 2012 meetings, it is recommended that the BOT approve the following amendment to Section 209-1(B)(2) of the Village Code: B. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or any other required permits or approvals, a site plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the designated approval authority for any one of the following land use activities: (1) Any new construction or teardown, as such terms are defined in § 250-2 of the Zoning Code, of any building, including one- and two-family dwellings. (2) Additions, exterior alterations or major expansions performed to an existing building which result in an increase of 50% or more of the gross floor area of the existing building. An addition, exterior alteration or major expansion which results in an increase of 50% or more of the gross floor area of an existing building, including one- and two-family dwellings, shall not be segmented by the applicant into two or more applications, each of which would not independently result in an increase of 50% or more of the gross floor area of the existing building, but when taken together would exceed such threshold. Any application for an addition, exterior alteration or major expansion submitted less than 24 months after the issuance of one or more building permits for another addition, exterior alteration or major expansion by the same property owner(s), which when taken together would result in an increase of 50% or more of the gross floor area of the building existingat t the time of the initial application, shall be subject to site plan review, which review shall include all additions, exterior alterations or major expansions for which a building permit was sought by the same property owner(s) within 24 months of the current application. Dated: Rye Brook,New York October 11, 2012 Approved:9/19/13 On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Goodman, Mr. Nowak called the roll, and the draft Report and Recommendations was adopted as revised: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES The Chairman asked Mrs. Gray to read the resolution referring the Report and Recommendations to the Board of Trustees: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE 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 local law amending Chapter 209 of the Village Code 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, Mr. Nowak called the roll, and the referral resolution was approved: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN YES MR. GRZAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES On a motion made by Mr. Tartaglia and seconded by Mrs. Schoen, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous voice vote at 10:40 pm.