Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-09 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes APPROVED:JULY 10.2014 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday January 9, 2014 - 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL MINUTES Review of minutes from the following Planning Board meetings: September 19, 2013 and November 14, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING 1. Consideration of Site Plan and Wetland Permit Applications by Scott Oling to construct a new 2 car garage at 2 Hillandale Road, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.28-1-41 • Applicant requests adjournment 2. Consideration of an application by Kevin Teo for a Steep Slopes Permit for placement of fill, building a retaining wall and re-grading the rear yard at 70 Winding Wood Road South, Rye Brook, N.Y., Parcel I.D. 135.34-1-36 • Consideration of a Resolution CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Consideration of a Site Plan Application and a Special Use Permit Application by Linda Seltman to legalize a professional office at 561 Westchester Ave, Rye Brook, N.Y., Parcel I.D. 135.82-1-11 • Consideration of a Report and Recommendation 4. Referral from the Board of Trustees of a local law amending Chapters 179, 209 and 250 of the Village Code regarding changes of use at existing Shopping Centers • Consideration of a Report and Recommendation NEW BUSINESS Review of a Site Plan Application and Request for a Waiver of Planning Board Jurisdiction for subdivision review of a proposed lot merger submitted by Davinder Makan to construct a a new single family home on the vacant lot at 51 Hawthorne Ave, Rye Brook, N.Y., Parcel I.D. 135.75-1-82 PRESENT BOARD Mr. Domenic Accurso Mr. John Grzan Mr. Bill Laufer Mrs. Amy Schoen Mr. Dan Tartaglia Chairman Gary Zuckerman EXCUSED Mr. Rob Goodman STAFF Mrs. Jennifer Gray, Village Counsel Mr. Phil Butler, Village Councel Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant Mr. Mike Nowak, Jr., Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works 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 Procedure can be found on the Village's website along with streaming video of the Planning Board meetings. Before starting the business of the meeting, Chairman Zuckerman sent condolences to the Goodman family on the loss of Mr. Goodman's father. MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Laufer and seconded by Mrs. Schoen, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the minutes of September 19,`h 2013 and the November 14`x, 2013 meetings were approved. MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES Page 2 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Chairman Zuckerman called for the next item on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration of Site Plan and Wetland Permit Applications by Scott Oling to construct a new 2 car garage at 2 Hillandale Road, Rye Brook, N.Y., Parcel I.D. 135.28-1-41 Chairman Zuckerman informed the Board and the Public that the public hearing is adjourned to February 13, 2014 at the request of the applicant. 2. Consideration of an application by Kevin Teo for a Steep Slopes Permit for placement of fill, building a retaining wall and re-grading the rear yard at 70 Winding Wood Road South, Rye Brook, N.Y., Parcel I.D. 135.34-1-36 • Consideration of a Resolution Chairman Zuckerman noted that at the Planning Board's December meeting the public hearing regarding the application for a steep slopes permit was adjourned because it was not noticed properly, so only the site plan was approved at that meeting. He called for a motion to open the public hearing on the steep slopes permit. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the Public Hearing on the Steep Slopes Permit was opened. MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Mr. Dan Holt addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief overview of the application. Page 3 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed went over her comments, which were all addressed. There being no comments from the public, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the Public Hearing was closed. MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES The Chairman asked Mrs. Gray to summarize the resolution: RESOLUTION CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF A STEEP SLOPES WORK PERMIT TO PERFORM GRADING AND CONSTRUCT VARIOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT 70 WINDING WOOD ROAD SOUTH VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Kevin Teo, property owner, submitted an application for approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Work Permit to construct decks surrounding an existing swimming pool and adjacent to the home, install storm water management facilities, add fill to the rear yard, construct retaining and landscape walls, construct walkways, remove trees, install a shed, and expand the existing driveway at 70 Winding Wood Road South in the R- 15 zoning district, Section 135.34, Block 1, Lot 36 as shown on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the following plans and application materials: 1. Exterior Building Application 2. Building Permit Checklist and Zoning Analysis 3. Site Plan Application and Checklist 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated 10/24/13 5. Tree Removal Permit Application 6. Topographic Survey, prepared by Thomas C. Merritts Land Surveyors, P.C., Pleasantville, N.Y., dated Revised June 4, 2013 Page 4 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 7. Letter to the Rye Brook Planning Board from Nathaniel J. Holt, P.E., dated November 18, 2013 8. Letter to the Rye Brook Department of Engineering and Public Works from Nathaniel J. Holt, P.E., dated October 31, 2013 9. Letter to the Rye Brook Department of Engineering and Public Works from Nathaniel J. Holt, P.E., dated October 24, 2013 10. Zoning Memorandum to the Planning Board from the Rye Brook Building and Fire Inspector, dated December 12, 2013 11. Engineer's Memorandum to the Planning Board from the Rye Brook Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public `Forks, dated December 12, 2013 12. Intermediate Stabilization Plan, Sheet LP-2, prepared by Robert Sherwood, Landscape Architect, LLC, Brookfield, C.T., dated 12/10/13 13. Landscape Plan, Sheet LP-1, prepared by Robert Sherwood, Landscape Architect, LLC, Brookfield, C.T., dated 11/4/13, revised 11/21/13 14. Landscape Plan, Sheet LP-1, prepared by Robert Sherwood, Landscape Architect, LLC, Brookfield, C.T., dated 10/31/13 15. Engineer's Plans, prepared by Nathaniel J. Holt, P.E., Pawling, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Dated 1 of 4 Existing Conditions Plan 5/25/13 rev. 11/18/13 2 of 4 Site Plan 5/25/13 rev. 11/18/13 3 of 4 Storwwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5/25/13 rev. 11/18/13 4 of 4 Details 5/25/13 rev. 12/16/13 1 of 1 Slope Analysis Plan 5/25/13 rev. 12/22/13 WHEREAS, on November 14, 2013 the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), determined the proposed action to be a Type II Action requiring no additional review under SEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Village Planning Consultant, Village staff and the Planning Board reviewed the information and submitted comments regarding the application; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2013 the Planning Board granted Site Plan approval, with conditions, to construct decks surrounding an existing swimming pool and adjacent to the home, install storm water management facilities, add fill to the rear yard, construct retaining and landscape walls, construct walkways, remove trees, install a shed, and expand the existing driveway at 70 `Finding Wood Road South; and Page 5 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 WHEREAS, one of the conditions required the property owner to obtain a Steep Slopes Work Permit from the Planning Board, if determined by the Village Engineer to be required based on the scope of the proposed work; and WHEREAS, based on the Slope Analysis Plan submitted by the property owner, the Village Engineer determined a Steep Slopes Work Permit is required because disturbance is proposed in an area that meets the definition of "Steep Slope" as set forth in the Village Code; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 2014, the Planning Board opened a public hearing on the subject application, at which time all persons interested were given an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said application, and the Planning Board closed the public hearing on January 9, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the Steep Slopes `Fork Permit standards set forth at Village Code §213-6; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is familiar with the site and all aspects of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby grants a Steep Slopes Work Permit for property located at 70 Winding`Food Road South, subject to the following conditions: 1. The importation of fill to the property shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. 2. This resolution of approval shall not be construed to authorize the disturbance, alteration or removal of any trees, stone walls, retaining walls or other vegetation, landscaping or improvements located outside the boundary line of property located at 70 Winding Wood Road South, except for the removal of the existing stone wall within the Village right-of-way. No grading shall be performed outside the boundary line of the subject property. 3. Construction of the proposed decks is subject to the Applicant obtaining all required variances, as set forth in the Building Inspector's December 12, 2013 Zoning Analysis or any subsequently revised version thereof. The Planning Board recognizes that the layout of the approved site plan and/or the details of the grading plan may change if one or more of the variances identified in the Building Inspector's memorandum are not granted, or are not granted as requested. In the event the grading plan is modified as a result of the Zoning Board of Appeals' consideration of the requested variances, the Applicant shall not be required to return to the Planning Board for a modification of the Steep Slopes Work Permit unless the Village Engineer, in consultation with the Village Planner, Page 6 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 determines the modifications to the grading plan are significant and warrant additional review by the Planning Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that no permits shall be issued until the Applicant has paid to the Village all applicable fees and professional review fees incurred in connection with review of this Application. The Chairman called for a motion to vote, and on a motion made by Mr. Grzan and seconded by Mrs. Schoen, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the Steep Slopes Work Permit was approved: MR. ACCURSO NO MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES The Chairman called for the next item in the order of business. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Consideration of a Site Plan Application and a Special Use Permit Application by Linda Seltman to legalize a professional office at 561 Westchester Ave, Rye Brook, N.Y., Parcel I.D. 135.82-1-11 a. Consideration of a Report and Recommendation Demetrious Adamis, Esq. addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief overview of the application. The revised site plan for the bookkeeping and accounting service and the residential apartments provides parking spaces for 8 cars; but the applicant requests that one of the parking spaces be land banked. He explained that the building contains a ground floor apartment, and an office and additional residential apartment on the second floor. Photographs and plans of the building were submitted at the last meeting. There are no interior or exterior changes to the building proposed as the business has been in operation for nearly 30 years. The current application seeks to legalize the business office on the second floor. Mr. Adamis noted that 8 parking spaces are required by the Village of Rye Brook Code, 3 for the business and 5 for the 2 apartments. Mrs. Gray was asked by the Chairman to provide a summary of the draft Report and Recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Page 7 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook Report and Recommendations to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees on the Special Use Permit and Site Plan Application for 561 Westchester Avenue I. PROJECT OVERVIEW On August 19, 2013, Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees ("BOT") referred a Special Use Permit and Site Plan Application to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board ("Planning Board") for submission of a Report and Recommendation. The Special Permit application was made by RRC/LCS, Inc. ("Applicant") on behalf of the owner, Linda Seltman, to legalize an existing professional office located on a portion of the second floor at the existing building located at 561 Westchester Avenue and designated as Section 135.83, Block 1, Lot 11 on the Town of Rye Tax Map ("Property'). Site Plan approval is required pursuant to Sections 209-1(B)(3) and (6) of the Village Code for a change in an existing use that affects characteristics of the site in terms of parking and due to the activity requiring a special permit (i.e. professional office). Additionally, the structure pre-dates the Town of Rye's adoption of its first Zoning Code in 1931 and accordingly, the requirements of Zoning Code X250-25(L)(2) apply to the conversion of the structure from a 1-family dwelling to a 2-family dwelling with a professional office, as confirmed by the Building Inspector's Zoning Analysis. The Property is located in the R-2F (Residential Two Family) Zoning District and is improved with a two and a half story building with an open porch, one and a half story detached 3-car garage, walkways, asphalt parking area and related appurtenances. II. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION The Planning Board reviewed this application at its October 10, 2013 and January 9, 2014 meetings (the Applicant requested an adjournment from the Planning Board's November 14, 2013 and December 12, 2013 meetings). Page 8 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 A. Relevant Village Code Provisions Village Code §250-25(C)(3) allows residential dwellings in the R-2F District to be converted to professional offices not exceeding "two such professional persons" per dwelling upon the issuance of a Special Permit by the Board of Trustees: Professional office space for use by physicians, surgeons, dentists, attorneys, accountants, insurance agents or similar professions, not residents of the premises, in dwellings on the northerly and southerly side of Bowman Avenue between South Ridge Street and the Port Chester Village boundary line; and in dwellings on the northerly and southerly side of Westchester Avenue between North Ridge Street and the Port Chester Village boundary line, presently zoned R2-F, provided that there shall not be more than two such professional persons occupying any one dwelling, and provided further that there shall be no hospital facilities in connection therewith in any case. Village Code §250-25(C)(3) further requires the following to permit residential dwellings to be converted to professional offices: (a) Off-street parking space shall be provided for at least three ears for each office or suite of offices of a given tenancy or one car for every 300 square feet of floor area used for such office purposes, whichever is greater, and the public entrance to such professional office and parking for such office shall be from Bowman Avenue or Westchester Avenue only. (b) Signs, for the professional occupying the space, shall not exceed two square feet in area,identifying a professional office. Special Permits may be issued by the Board of Trustees upon a finding that "[w]ith respect to all uses listed as requiring special use permits, the use shall be of such location, size and character that, in general, it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent districts." (Village Code §250-6(H)(1)(c)(1)). B. Summary of Application The Applicant proposes the continued use of a second floor office as an accounting business (RRC/LCS, Inc.) for use by one (1) full time professional person and one (1) part- Page 9 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 time professional person during tax season. The Applicant represented that the hours of operation for the accounting office are 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays during "tax season." The Applicant also proposes the continued use of the first floor as a dwelling unit and the remaining portion of the second floor as a second dwelling unit. The Applicant represented that the basement and third floor of the building are currently unoccupied and used solely for storage. Lastly, the Applicant requests approval for shared parking pursuant to Zoning Code §250-6(G)(1)(c)(21)(a), so as to permit the 7 existing parking spaces to serve the professional office and residential uses on the site, rather than presently improving an additional parking space to meet the applicable parking requirements. The Applicant proposes that the 8d' off-street parking space will be "land banked" for future development if and when the Board of Trustees determines such additional parking space to be necessary. Based on the revised plans submitted on December 27, 2013, the Building Inspector has determined in his 3rd Zoning Analysis, dated December 27, 2013, that at least two variances are required: 1. Section 250-25.L(2)(a) —The minimum required apartment size for any two family conversion is 750 sq. ft. The applicant proposes to legalize the existing 714 sq. ft. 2"dfloor apartment. A variance of 36 sq. ft. is required. 2. Section 250-25.L(2)(a) — Service access is required from the rear yard to both apartments. The applicant proposes to legalize the 2nd floor apartment having no such service access. A variance is required. The Building Inspector's 3rd Zoning Analysis also noted that information regarding impervious surface coverage must be submitted to determine whether the proposed land banked parking space, if constructed, would cause the property to exceed the applicable impervious surface coverage limitations. Page 10 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 C. Relevant Considerations and Planning Board Comments Relevant considerations regarding the applications include but are not limited to the following: (1) whether any limitations on the professional office are warranted in terms of hours of operation, deliveries, number of employees, frequency of client visits, etc.; (2) whether seven off-street parking spaces (instead of the eight required off-street parking spaces) substantially meet the intent of the parking requirements by reason of variation in the probable time of maximum use by residents, employees or patrons; (3) whether there are any impacts on nearby properties which are currently a mix of residential and commercial uses; and (4) according to the applicant the property has been utilized for professional office(s) since at least 1986. The Planning Board discussed the proposed parking layout as compared to the existing parking layout, as well as whether there is a requirement to provide handicapped access. Following the Planning Board's discussion, the consensus is that the proposed use of the Property as a 264 s.£ professional office for an accounting business with a maximum of two (2) professional persons along with two dwelling units as shown on the plans entitled "Location, Zoning & Site Plans, Exterior Elevation, Partial Second Floor Plan and Notes," prepared by Luis Saiz,Jr., Architect, White Plains N.Y., dated May 17, 2013, will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of this portion of Westchester Avenue which is a mixed commercial and residential area. It is also the consensus of the Planning Board that seven off-street parking spaces (as opposed to eight required off-street parking spaces) will substantially meet the intent of the parking requirements because the resident of one of the dwelling units also works at the professional office and therefore, at least one parking space will be utilized by the same person for both uses. However, the Applicant must add the impervious surface coverage calculations to the site plan, as requested by the Building Inspector, to confirm that no variance is necessary. Page 11 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 III. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS After discussion and consideration of the comments provided by Village Staff and the Village's Planning Consultant, the Planning Board recommends approval of the Special Use Permit and Site Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. The area of the proposed future off-street parking space shall remain in a landscaped condition until such time as the Board of Trustees determines that improvement of such parking space is necessary. Upon such determination by the Board of Trustees, the Applicant, its successors or assigns, shall improve the parking space as shown on the approved Site Plan, to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector, within 6 months of the date of written notice to the Applicant, its successors or assigns. 2. The Applicant must submit the impervious surface coverage calculations requested in the Building Inspector's Zoning Analysis. Dated: Rye Brook, New York January 9, 2014 The Chairman asked for comments. Mrs. Mohamed explained that the requested impervious surface coverage calculations for the lot were not provided. Regarding the request to land bank one of the required parking spaces, she noted that there have not been parking issues on the lot, even though there are currently only 7 parking spaces. She also noted that one of the required parking spaces is used by a residential tenant who is also the business owner, which reduces the parking demand, so approving 8 parking spaces and land banking one of the spaces is appropriate for the current situation. She did not see any planning or environmental problems with building the land banked space in the future, should it be needed. Chairman Zuckerman asked why the impervious surface coverage calculations were not provided by the applicant. Mr. Adamis responded that his client recently gave the calculations to the Building Inspector. Chairman Zuckerman responded that the Planning Board did not see the calculations, so he would not be inclined to refer the report to the Board of Trustees without seeing the calculations. Ms Schoen inquired as to the egress from the second floor and whether that is a fire code requirement. Ms. Gray responded that it is a requirement of the Village Zoning Code. The Code has a unique provision which requires rear service access when one-family dwellings constructed prior to a certain year are converted to a two-family dwelling. Page 12 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 Mr. Grzan asked if the building was currently a one-family or a two-family residence. Mrs. Gray responded that it is currently a single-family home according to Building Department records. She clarified that site plan application would legalize the conversion of the single- family home into a two-family home and it is a requirement for issuance of a special use permit for the business office. After some additional discussion, the Chairman call for a motion to vote on accepting the draft report and recommendations, and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Grzan, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the report and recommendations was approved. MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES The Chairman asked Mrs. Gray to read the resolution referring the accepted Report and Recommendations to the Board of Trustees. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR 561 WESTCHESTER AVENUE 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 Special Use Permit and Site Plan application for 561 Westchester Avenue and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to vote on sending the accepted Report and Recommendations to the Board of Trustees. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the resolution to refer the Report and Recommendations to the Board of Trustees was approved. Page 13 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES The Chairman called for the next item in the order of business. 4. Referral from Board of Trustees of a local law amending Chapters 179, 209 and 250 of the Village Code regarding changes of use at existing Shopping Centers a. Consideration of a Report and Recommendation Mrs. Gray was asked by the Chairman to read the draft report and recommendations: 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 AMENDING CHAPTERS 179, 209 AND 250 OF THE VILLAGE CODE REGARDING CHANGES OF USE AT EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS IV. OVERVIEW On November 12, 2013, Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees ("BOT") referred a to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board ("Planning Board") for submission of a Report and Recommendation a proposed local law amending Chapters 179, 209 and 250 of the Village of Rye Brook Code ("Village Code") regarding changes of use at existing shopping centers. The proposed local law amends the application processing procedures for changes of use in existing shopping centers only. All other types of land use applications would remain subject to the current application processing procedures. Page 14 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 Currently, the Village Code requires site plan review for a "...change in an existing use that will affect the characteristics of the site in terms of traffic, access, parking, loading, circulation, hours of operation, drainage, utilities, lighting, security or other Village services..." Under this provision, changes in tenancies at existing shopping centers, such as retail to restaurant, have been subject to site plan review generally due to changes in parking requirements and traffic generation. The proposed local law is intended to streamline the approval process for changes of use in existing shopping centers by (1) eliminating the requirement for site plan review for certain types of applications, thereby subjecting the application to administrative review only; and (2) transferring approval authority for site plan review from the Board of Trustees to the Planning Board for certain types of applications, thereby eliminating (for certain applications) the current bifurcated process whereby the Board of Trustees, as approval authority, refers the application to the Planning Board for report and recommendation. Specific criteria are set forth in the local law for determining whether an application will be subject to administrative review (i.e., Building Department) or Planning Board review. All other changes of use or site plan amendments at existing shopping centers which do not meet either set of criteria remain subject to site plan review by the Board of Trustees. Under the proposed local law, administrative review by the Building Department will be applicable where the change in use meets the following criteria: (1) No increase in gross floor area ("GFA' or change the building footprint (except minor additions or alterations, as set forth in the local law); Page 15 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 (2) No hours of operation between 11:00 p.m, and 5:00 a.m.; (3) No requirement for a Special Permit or variance; (4) No requirement for a greater number of off-street parking spaces relative to the existing use. (5) Site alterations that do not involve changes to the vehicular or pedestrian circulation plans, or the site lighting plan, would also be exempt from site plan review under the proposed amendments. For such applications, the proposed change in use in an existing shopping center would be subject to administrative review only. Under the proposed local law, an application for a change in use is elevated from administrative review to site plan review by the Planning Board where the application requires a variance or increases the number of off-street parking spaces relative to the existing use, and the above-listed criteria #1, 2 and 3 are otherwise satisfied. For such applications, the local law amends the site plan checklist to require submittal of a limited traffic and parking study with the initial application materials. Any change of use that exceeds the criteria by proposing an increase in GFA or change in the building footprint that is more than a minor addition or alteration, proposing hours of operation between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., or requiring a Special Permit, would be subject to site plan review by the Board of Trustees. In addition, the proposed local law authorizes the approval authority to waive the requirement for a public hearing on the site plan were the application is not expected to result in visual, noise, traffic or other adverse impacts to adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhood. It also adds a definition of "Shopping Center" to the Zoning Page 16 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 Code, amends the list of permitted principal and accessory uses in the C1-P District, and amends the list of permitted principal uses in the OB-S District to include "Shopping Center containing a mix of at least two principal uses permitted in the C1-P District, except a drive- in, open front or curb service restaurant and/or bowling alley." V. PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSION The Planning Board reviewed this local law at its December 12, 2013 and January 9, 2014 meetings. At the December 12, 2013 meeting, Village Planner Marilyn Timpone- Mohamed provided the Planning Board with an overview of the local law. Steven Silverberg, Esq., attorney for the Rye Ridge Shopping Center, submitted a letter dated December 6, 2013 and provided comments on the proposed local law, including (1) creating a maximum food service threshold for existing shopping centers; (2) adding a provision that changes the way parking capacity is calculated for shopping centers whereby a threshold for a certain mix of uses, including necessary parking for that mix of uses, would be established and future changes of use, which do not exceed the approved number of parking spaces, would not be subject to further parking studies or site plan review. Mayor Paul Rosenberg also commented on the proposed local law, noting that it was decided based upon meetings with representatives of the Rye Ridge Shopping Center, and in consultation with Village staff and consultants, that the issue of parking calculation, specifically for the Rye Ridge Shopping Center, would be considered separately from the proposed local law. In that regard, he noted that the proposed local law is the first "track" in streamlining the review process for changes of use at all existing shopping centers. The Page 17 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 second "track" is the exploration of a possibility of a site-specific site plan amendment for Rye Ridge Shopping Center that would consider the approval of a certain maximum threshold of food service or similar proposal. He emphasized that the intent and purpose of the proposed local law is not to determine parking thresholds or otherwise amend parking requirements. At the January 9, 2014 meeting the Planning Board provided the following comments: 1. Concern was expressed about providing an opportunity for waiving a public hearing on an application involving an existing shopping center without providing a similar opportunity for other applications that come before the Planning Board or Board of Trustees for site plan review. 2. A request was made to Village staff and consultants to compile a list of recent land use applications from existing shopping centers and provide a review of how the proposed local law would have impacted such applications. 3. In reference to the proposed local law's requirement that traffic and parking studies be submitted as part of a site plan application, the term "recent" should be better defined. The term is set forth at Section 6 of the proposed local law to be codified in the Site Plan Checklist at Section 209-3.C(4)(v) and (w) of the Village Code. A specific time frame should be referenced to clarify the meaning of the term "recent." The Planning Board discussed the possibility that a two-year time frame may be appropriate, but deferred to the expertise of the Village Traffic Consultant to recommend an appropriate time frame. Page 18 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 VI. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS After discussion and consideration of the comments provided by Village Staff, Village Planning Consultant, and members of the public, the Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed local law subject to the comments set forth above. Dated: Rye Brook, New York January 9, 2014 Chairman Zuckerman explained that the main goal of the revisions is streamlining the change of use and site plan approval processes for changes of use and minor site plan amendments in the two existing shopping centers in Rye Brook. Mr. Grzan and Mr. Accurso both voiced concerns regarding the proposed provision that would allow the approval authority to waive the Public Hearing requirement under certain circumstances. Mr. Tartaglia stated that he had issues with the code amendments as written and he believed the Board should take more time to consider the amendments more carefully. He noted that one of the shopping centers is located across the street from the Port Chester Middle School so some caution is advisable. The Rye Ridge Shopping Center is, in his opinion, a complex mixed-use center because it includes offices and restaurants. Chairman Zuckerman appreciated Mr. Tartaglia's concerns. However, he would be able to vote in favor if the rest of the Planning Board agrees because local law addresses issues he is concerned with such as making it easier to do minor site improvements in the shopping centers. Mr. Tartaglia continued to voice his concern that the issues at the Rye Ridge Shopping Center are complex and deserve more consideration. He asked about SEQRA review of the proposed code amendments, to which Mrs. Gray responded that review under SEQRA was started by the Trustees and would be continued by the Trustees when the Planning Board refers its comments to the Trustees. Chairman Zuckerman stated that he would agree to not including a recommendation to allow waiving the requirement for a Public Hearing. Mr. Tartaglia asked if the Middle School was notified regarding the amendments, to which Mrs. Gray responded that the School District will be notified at least 10 days before the Public Hearing so it would have an opportunity to provide comments to the Trustees. She Page 19 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 added that the amendments also would be submitted to the Westchester County Planning Commission for comment. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed added that her office was part of the team that put the legislation together. The amendments are based on ideas from the Board of Trustees workshop regarding how to clarify existing regulations and simplify the review process for changes of use and minor site work in shopping centers. For instance, if a new retail or restaurant use applies to occupy a space that is already occupied by a retail or a restaurant use respectively, the applications would be reviewed and approved by the Building Department under certain circumstances. When there is a concern that a new use may be a more intense use than an existing use, such as when a retail space changes to a restaurant use, or a retail use changes to a service business like Soul Cycle, both of which may create higher parking demand than the existing retail use, site plan review by the Planning Board would be triggered. Review by the Planning Board also would be triggered for a change of use from a general office use to a medical office for the same reason. Chairman Zuckerman asked for a voice poll the Board to determine if the members would agree to vote on the draft report and recommendations at that time. Mr. Grzan stated that he would agree to a vote on the report and recommendation, although he shared some of Mr. Tartaglia's concerns. Mr. Laufer added that the concerns discussed did not apply to the amendments because the intent of the revisions is to streamline the process and give the Building Department more guidance and discretion. Mr. Accurso stated that he shared Mr. Tartaglia's concerns. Mr. Tartaglia added that he has seen the nature of the Rye Ridge Shopping Center change over the years and he wanted to be comfortable that as it continues to change there are significant safeguards in place to guide the changes. Chairman Zuckerman stated his belief that the Board was "on the right track." He said he would like a survey performed to look at all recent changes of use that were before the Board of Trustees in the last 2 years and identify the new process for each under the proposed amendments, which should be provided to the Board of Trustees for review. There was discussion regarding the need for traffic and parking studies to determine the impacts of an application on traffic and parking demand. Board members felt that not every application that may increase traffic or parking demand requires new traffic counts or background parking demand analysis, especially if another recently submitted application provided the same data. The amendments did not, in the Board's opinion, give a precise duration of time that existing traffic counts or background parking demand analysis could be relied upon and be valid for use in reviewing subsequent applications. When consensus was reached by the Board members on the three issues discussed, Mrs. Gray was asked by the Chairman to amend the resolution to add concern regarding waiving public hearings, a Page 20 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 suggestion that Village staff and consultants provide a survey of recent applications and analyze how the amendments would impact the process for each application, and add a specific time frame to replace the term "recent" as set forth in 6C of the proposed local law regarding traffic and parking demand studies, the specific time frame to be recommended by the Village Planning Consultant. When the revisions to the draft report and recommendations were finished, the Chairman called for a vote, and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Grzan, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the revised Report and Recommendation was approved: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES The Chairman asked Mrs, Gray to read the resolution referring the accepted Report and Recommendations to the Board of Trustees: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTERS 179, 209 AND 250 OF THE VILLAGE CODE REGARDING CHANGES OF USE AT EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS 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 Chapters 179, 209 and 250 of the Village Code regarding changes of use at existing shopping centers, and requests the Secretary to the Planning Board forward a copy of the Report to the Board of Trustees and the Village Administrator. Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to send the report and recommendations to the Board of Trustees, and on a motion made Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, Mr. Nowak called the roll and the resolution referring the accepted Report and Recommendations to the Trustees was approved. Page 21 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES The Chairman granted a request from Mr. Jim Ryan, representing Win Ridge Realty, to address the Board. Mr. Ryan discussed Mr. Tartaglia's concerns regarding the increase in the number of restaurants in the Rye Ridge Shopping Center. He agreed with Mr. Tartaglia that a maximum ratio for restaurants should be established. He also stated his belief that the term `limited traffic study" in the amendments is ambiguous. Mr. Jonathan Coleman of Win Ridge Realty, owner of the Rye Ridge Shopping Center, addressed the Board, stating that a top priority of Win Ridge Realty is helping tenants stay in business, so streamlining the review process and reducing the expense and time it takes applications to be approved is welcomed. He thanked the Boards for considering the proposed amendments to the Village Code. The Chairman called for the last item of business on the agenda. NEW BUSINESS 5. Review of a Site Plan Application and a Request for Waiver of Planning Board Jurisdiction for subdivision review of a proposed lot merger by Davinder Makan to construct a new single family home to be built on the vacant lot at 51 Hawthorne Ave, Rye Brook, N.Y., Parcel I.D. 135.75-1-82 Bert Dorfman, Esq., Attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board stating that he wanted to submit an affidavit of sign posting and notice mailings, which he gave to Mr. Nowak. Chairman Zuckerman voiced confusion regarding the applicant's letter, which discusses a lot merger, when there is an open site plan application for development of the sub-standard lot. He noted the options available to the applicant. The first option would be to pursue the building of a single family home on the non-conforming lot, which would require referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances. In the second option, the applicant pursues a subdivision application to move a common lot line to create a conforming lot, and a site plan application for development of the new conforming lot. Mrs. Gray summarized Page 22 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 Section 250-6.A(2)(a) of the Village Code regarding merger of sub-standard lots. If a building permit is sought for a non-conforming lot and the property owner owns one or more lots contiguous to the lot, it is required that the adjacent lots be merged to create a conforming lot. The lots may also be re-apportioned to create two conforming lots. She went on to note that Section 250-6.A(2)(b) allows an applicant to ask the Board to waive its jurisdiction over the subdivision review process. If a waiver is granted, the applicant would submit a proposed plat that would be signed by the Planning Board Chairman and filed in the County Clerk's office. Mrs. Gray agreed that the applicant has two options as described by the Chairman. Mr. Dorfman responded that the contract-vendee, who is the applicant, would prefer to reapportion the lots so as to create two conforming lots, but the property owner does not agree to that approach. Chairman Zuckerman clarified that based on Mr. Dorfman's response, the contract vendee for the substandard lot would like to create a conforming lot by relocating the common lot line with the adjacent lot. However, the owner of the 51 Hawthorne Avenue property has not agreed to the re-apportionment of the two lots, which is a private matter between the parties engaged in the sale of the lot. Mr. Aldo Vitagliano, Attorney for the Vilcas, owners of the 51 Hawthorne Avenue property, addressed the Board, confirming that his clients own lots 82 and 83, and they have a contract with the applicant for the sale of lot 82. He went on to explain why the Vilcas did not want to reapportion the lots, and suggested that the application be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Vitagliano stated for the record that the Vilcas are prepared to permit the approval to be conditioned on a requirement that the remaining lot (Lot 83) can be developed under current zoning with no more than one house. Their concern about reapportioning the lots is the resulting building footprint on Lot 83 due to increased setbacks in the Scenic Roads Overlay District. Mrs. Gray was asked if she knew when the substandard lot was created. She responded that the land was originally subdivided in 1890; however, the smaller lot was created in 1907 when it was further subdivided by deed. The other half of the original lot from which it was subdivided sits to the rear of Lot 82 and fronts North Ridge Street. In 1907 there was no requirement for approval of the subdivision by the Town of Rye. Mr. Grzan added that if the owner wants to build a house on lot 82 and the lot is substandard but contiguous to a lot under the same ownership, the owner would be required to create a conforming lot. However, the current lot cannot be developed without variances from the ZBA. Mrs. Gray added that the current owner owns two contiguous lots; therefore the owner must combine the lots, or reapportion the lots, to create conforming lots and the Planning Board can waive its jurisdiction to review the lot merger, if it chooses to do so. Mrs. Gray stated that the only way the contract-vendee can build on the existing sub-standard lot is by obtaining variances. If variances are granted by the ZBA, a lot merger by the owner would Page 23 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 not be required. Mrs. Mohamed noted that it is impossible to determine the impacts of building on the substandard lot without reviewing a proposed site plan for the lot. She also discussed the planning concerns related to development of the substandard lot in the Hawthorne Avenue district, which was created to protect the large homes and lots that are unique to the avenue. The 1994 Hawthorne Avenue Study determined that changing the zoning of the area from R-7 and R2-F to a new R-15A district with dimensional regulations that were based on the actual sizes and proportions of lots on the avenue would preserve the unique character of the area. Another goal of the re-zoning was to preserve the large properties and limit the possibility that they would be subdivided. Now that one of the smaller lots is proposed to be developed there are certain questions the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals should consider. Are there any reasonable alternatives to building on the sub-standard lot, such as reapportionment? Is the character of the new development compatible with the existing homes in that neighborhood that are built on deep lots with areas of as much as 60,000 square feet? And, would the proposed development be consistent with the requirements of the district regulations? There is also the matter of precedent. If variances are granted to build on a non-conforming lot and a site plan is approved, a precedent may be created for future subdivision and site plan applications that would erode the neighborhood character that the R-15A district was created to protect. Mrs. Mohamed recommended that the Boards review the 1994 Hawthorne Avenue Study because it is important to understanding the potential impacts of the application. And, as there is an open site plan application for the lot, the Boards can review the building that might be constructed on the lot to determine if it would impact the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Grzan stated his opinion that the Board did not favor waiving jurisdiction regarding subdivision. Although Chairman Zuckerman was not sure the Board had enough information to refer the applications, he asked Mrs. Gray read the resolution referring the subdivision and site plan applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals: RESOLUTION REFERRING APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 51 HAWTHORNE AVENUE TO THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD Page 24 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 WHEREAS, Davinder Makan and Nicholas Shirriah of Makan Land Development II, LLC, Applicant/Contract Vendee, submitted applications on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Pedro Vilca, property owner, for approval of a Subdivision and Site Plan to construct a new two-story, single family residence at 51 Hawthorne Avenue in the R-15A zoning district, Section 135.75, Block 1, Lot 82 as shown on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map, adjacent to property also owned by Mr. and Mrs. Pedro Vilca and also known as 51 Hawthorne Avenue in the R-15A zoning district, identified as Section 135.75, Block 1, Lot 83 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, Village Code 5250-6.A(2)(a) requires two adjacent parcels (or a portion thereof} to be merged to create a conforming lot, where one parcel does not meet the minimum area, yard, setback, horizontal circle or other zoning requirement, and the owner of the substandard parcel also owns other parcel(s) contiguous thereto; and WHEREAS, Lot 82 does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of the R-15A Zoning District in that it consists of 13,010 square feet where 15,000 square feet is required, and Lot 82 may also be deficient with respect to the minimum horizontal circle zoning requirement; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to seek variances from the above-referenced requirements, rather than merge a portion of Lot 83 with Lot 82 to create a conforming lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed and considered the application at its January 9, 2014 meeting, including the Planning Memorandum prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates, dated January 9, 2014; and WHEREAS, the following planning issues are identified by the Planning Board for the Zoning Board of Appeals consideration with respect to the variances: • The stated purpose of the R-15A District is preservation of the stability and unique character of the Hawthorne Avenue neighborhood, and protection of existing stately homes that may be destroyed by re-subdivision of the large lots on which they are located. • The Hawthorne Avenue neighborhood was studied in 1994, which led to the creation of the R-15A district from portions of R-7 and R2-F districts. The new zoning was established, in part, to protect the large homes and large lots that line most of the avenue. These properties, with an average lot size of 23,000 square feet (the largest is 60,000 square feet) have very different scale, open space, and setbacks from typical R-7 Page 25 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014 and R2-F properties with minimum lot sizes of 7,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet respectively. • Development of a substandard lot in the Hawthorne Avenue neighborhood would not be consistent with the stated purpose of the R-15A zoning district. • Lot 83 is currently large enough to be subdivided into two minimum size lots • Varying the requirements of the R-15A district to permit development on a lot that does not meet the minimum lot size requirement could set a precedent for the creation of other non-conforming lots in the district; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that for the reasons stated herein, the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby refers the application listed herein to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a determination on the required variance. The Chairman called for a vote on the referral resolution, and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Laufer, the roll was called and the resolution referring the applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals was approved: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GOODMAN ABSENT MR. GRZAN YES MR. LAUFER YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN ZUCKERMAN YES Chairman Zuckerman advised the applicant, and the Planning Board that even if the requested variances are granted, the Planning Board will review the site plan application and weigh the planning considerations of the plan. The granting of variances, he said, gives the Planning Board permission to approve the site plan application, it does not mandate an approval. There being no further business, Chairman Zuckerman called for a motion to adjourn the meeting, and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Grzan, the meeting was adjourned by unanimous voice vote at 9:44 pm. Page 26 of 26 Rye Brook Planning Board January 9,2014