Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-23 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETINGS VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016 7:00 P.M. —Mayor's State of the Village 7:30 P.M. —REGULAR MEETING: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: REPORT/PRESENTATIONS: AFFORDABLE HOUSING/PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Public hearing for an application for a PUD site plan submitted by Sun Homes for property located at 1100 King Street (Reckson). RESOLUTIONS: 1) Considering approval of an application for a PUD site plan submitted by Sun Homes for property located at 1100 King Street (Reckson). 2) Considering the acceptance of an Eagle Scout project for improvement to the entrance of Crawford Park from Wilton Road. 3) Authorizing the Village of Rye Brook to enter into a license agreement with the owner of 7 Old Orchard Road for the use of Village property. 4) Considering a resolution expressing concerns with Westchester County's proposed legislative changes to the Airport's Terminal Use Agreement. 5) Considering a salary adjustment for the Village's PT Intermediate Account Clerk/Internal Claims Auditor 6) Considering the adoption of local adjustments for homestead and non- homestead base proportions. 7) Considering the approval of minutes from the meeting of February 9, 2016. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION ITEM ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS SUBJECT TO THE CONSENT OF THE TRUSTEES PRESENT AT THE MEETING THE NEXT SPECIAL AND REGULAR TRUSTEES MEETINGS Regular Meetings: March 8, 2016 and March 22, 2016 Special "Town Hall" Meeting: March 21, 2016 BOARD: Trustee Susan R. Epstein Trustee David M. Heiser Trustee Jason A. Klein Trustee Jeffry B. Rednick Mayor Paul S. Rosenberg VILLAGE STAFF: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Gregory Austin, Chief of Police Robert Bertolacci, Parks and Recreation Supt. Edward Beane, Esq., Village Counsel Michel Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works Fred Seifert, Public Access Coordinator/IT Shari Melillo, Meeting Secretary Mayor Rosenberg welcomed everyone to tonight's Board meeting and advised that they would be taking one item out of order on the agenda. 2) Considering the acceptance of an Eagle Scout project for improvement to the entrance of Crawford Park from Wilton Road. Dean Larkin addressed the Board and provided a slide show to depict his plans for his project which is to improve the entrance of Crawford Park from Wilton Road. There was a brief discussion in regard to the species of plants being proposed. Mr. Bradbury added that Mr. Larkin has already shown his plan and been approved by the Town of Rye. Mr. Bradbury read the resolution: RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ENTRANCE OF CRAWFORD PARK FROM WILTON ROAD WHEREAS, Dean Larkin of 231 Madison Street, Mamaroneck, NY has proposed an Eagle Scout Project for Rye Troop 2 to make certain improvements to the entrance of Crawford Park from Wilton Road; and WHEREAS, this project includes the donation of certain bushes, trees, a park entrance sign, and a commercial bench from various individuals and groups in support of this Eagle Scout project; and WHEREAS, Mr. Larkin would be the project coordinator and would work with other volunteers and members of Rye Troop 2 to install the landscaping and other items in accordance with a design plan presented to the Village Board on February 23, 2016; and WHEREAS, this project will require the approval of both the Village of Rye Brook and the Town of Rye as some of the items being donated may be on the properties of both municipalities. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook hereby accepts the project, design plan, and donations of the improvement items on any village properties as presented to the Village Board on February 23, 2016; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any changes to the design plan on Rye Brook property will be made in coordination with the Village's Superintendent of Public Works/Engineering; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Dean Larkin and other volunteers and members of Rye Troop 2 are hereby named as volunteers for the Village during the course of this Eagle Scout project for any work performed on Rye Brook properties and the names of such volunteers and members of Rye Troop 2 who will be performing work on Rye Brook property shall be provided to the Village prior to the start of the project. On a motion made by Trustee Klein and seconded by Trustee Heiser, the resolution was approved and Mr. Bradbury called the roll: TRUSTEE EPSTEIN AYE TRUSTEE HEISER AYE TRUSTEE KLEIN AYE TRUSTEE REDNICK AYE MAYOR ROSENBERG AYE AFFORDABLE HOUSING/PUBLIC HEARING: 1) Public hearing for an application for a PUD site plan submitted by Sun Homes for property located at 1100 King Street (Reckson). On a motion made by Trustee Rednick and seconded by Trustee Heiser, the Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Bradbury called the roll: TRUSTEE EPSTEIN AYE TRUSTEE HEISER AYE TRUSTEE KLEIN AYE TRUSTEE REDNICK AYE MAYOR ROSENBERG AYE Mr. Null addressed the Board and gave a brief overview of the proposed project which is for 110 homes 10 of which are affordable housing units. Mr. Jerry Schwabe than took over and made a presentation to the Board giving a little more detail. The site where the homes will be built is 30 plus acres and will house single family units and 3 attached type units as well. There will be plenty of open space as well as a pool site, clubhouse area and an abundant amount of landscaping as well. Mr. Null added that the homes range in size from 2300 to 3300 square feet and the affordable housing units would be 1200 or 1400 square feet, which he noted are the largest affordable housing units in Westchester County. Mayor Rosenberg asked about the concerns that have come up about the water pressure issue not only for this development but the surrounding developments also. The Village is aware that testing has been done over the past few weeks and tonight there are representatives from Suez Water here to speak on this issue. Ron Bonogri, Consulting Engineer for Suez Water addressed the Board and advised them that extensive flow testing had taken place at the development site. He noted that some of the tests duplicate the flow test results from the prior week and some of the pressures are above what they had expected. The next step is to take the data and enter it into a model and then they can review it with the Village Engineer. There was further discussion between the Board and Mr. Bonogri regarding acceptable pressures and guidelines. Dolph Rotfeld, Village Engineering Consultant, addressed the Board and stated that one of the things they were looking for in the test is being able to deliver water to this new development and not have pressure issues there or in the surrounding developments. He is troubled by the 25 percent drop in pressure on the suction line which means the Blind Brook Club could be affected as well as part of Arrowwood. They need to see what the model looks like—the drop in pressure—where was it coming from—what we had in the field—there is some pressure drop but both pumps were running and that is a little bit troublesome. Suez advised the Board that after looking at the models, if they believe there will be an issue, it can be fixed. If there is any deficit at all, the water company can correct it on the suction side. There was another brief discussion between the Board and Mr. Rotfeld where suction issues were discussed and the concern during the summer months when water usage escalates. Mr. Rotfeld's comments have been included in the resolution and he is comfortable with the conditions the Board has included and believes it covers any issues that may arise after looking at the models. Basically, if there is a problem, it is between the water company and Sun Homes to correct it before a building permit can be issued. Robert Weber— 7 - addressed the Board and states that his meter is 56-57-58 pounds on his consistently and believes a 33 percent drop would be big for him. The overall flow will be less in the shower—the water flow in the kitchen will be less and believes this is a major issue. Mayor Rosenberg agrees and while New York State might have their minimum requirements, that may not be good enough for us. This resolution will not be valid unless the water pressure is sufficient for not just the new development, but the surrounding developments as well. Mr. Beane added that the Village you can write the resolution in any way they see fit and if the water pressure becomes a serious issue, Sun Homes and Suez Water have to fix the problem. The point is the Village wants to make sure it does not happen. There is no absolutely perfect objective standard—the water company supplies the water— Sun Homes has certain obligations and they have to resolve any issues. Legally, we can write a resolution that imposes certain responsibilities. If something happens and it does not work the way it is supposed to, the Village has a resolution they can enforce. Mr. Bradbury added that if the consultant determines there is a substantive change the applicant will not be able to get a building permit— improvements would have to be made to correct the problem before that could happen. Trustee Epstein asked what the fix would be if required. Suez responded that it may require an adjustment in the flow meter or pressure relief valve to increase the flow of water. He advised that type of construction could take months to correct. Mr. Weber addressed the Board again and what troubles him is the word substantive is open to interpretation— a drop might be acceptable to one person but not another—believes it makes it argumentative. Mr. Bean responded that he believes it is worse to put a specific psi number because if the pressure is within the parameter of that number—now you may have a problem. Mayor Rosenberg added that basically, unless Mr. Rotfeld is comfortable with the numbers that come out of the model, there will be no building permit issued. Mr. Null added that they have reviewed the conditions and understands that the tests have been done and now they have to be evaluated. They are fine with that and they want to address the village's concern and asked that the meeting with Dolph Rotfeld and Suez Water take place promptly. He is also concerned that if there is an issue and the parts have to be ordered— can they get a building permit if the village confirms that the parts are ordered and the work will be done. Mayor Rosenberg believes that is a fair request. The Board will now discuss the Planning side of the application. Trustee Epstein asked about the affordable units and how does it work for them to be part of the clubhouse— assuming they have the same rights. Bob Dale of Sun Homes responded that they have not written HOA documents yet —it's important that affordable units remain affordable and that is done through a formula of monthly expense. Their anticipation is $700 a month which would cover snow removal, garbage removal, landscaping, etc. If the affordable housing units were to pay less than that, it creates animosity. They would have right to full use of the amenities if they can pay full price—if they cant afford it—they could opt out. Mr. Null added that the affordable units are fixed in what they can be sold for. Generally, we can't sell the units as affordable units at a price that is equivalent per square foot to market rate. The County will calculate what percentage of your monthly income goes to housing—we have tried to balance the interest in allowing everyone to participate in using the amenities. Trustee Epstein asked if they would offer the Village use of their facility such as their meeting space— for the community....not the Village. Mr. Dale explained that this development is privately owned. Mayor Rosenberg explained that there was something written into the resolution at Bellefair that the Village could use the basketball court for their Recreation programs. Mr. Dale responded that it is a very small facility and he is not sure much of what they are building is appropriate for public usage. Trustee Epstein asked about the proposed walking trail. Mr. Dale responded that this is not a gaited community and while they have not thought through it yet they could if the Village requests it. There would be nothing stopping the public from using the trails. Trustee Heiser asked about the affordable housing—if it was mandatory to include the amenities package they would have to reduce the price of the homes —he is bothered that these people would feel segregated. Mr. Null responded that they are not being told they cant use the amenities —they can pay what everyone else pays or they can opt out. Trustee Klein agrees with Trustee Heiser—the affordable units are being segregated in the development and now you are telling them they can't use the amenities if they cant afford it. Peter Schlactus of 80 Bellefair Road— seems to him that as things stand now the King Street corridor has individual isolated pockets of homes that are linked by nothing other than a state road with minimal sidewalk or shoulder facilities which makes it hard to be cohesive. In his opinion, it is an antiquated way to set up a community and the opportunity is here to lead the way in tying these neighborhoods together. In addition to the walking trail, maybe they could extend some kind of path or trail to a neighboring community—there is a place in Bellefair on Bellefair Road where a connection could be made for pedestrians or bicyclists — one could envision a corridor a potential to link these isolated islands. Bill McGuinnes of Sun Homes responded that they will take a look at it but thinks it's a good idea—will have to talk to Homeowners Associations and happy to provide trails — cant commit tonight. Mr. Bradbury wanted to discuss the County's concern regarding sidewalksa long the development and International Drive—the Board needs to decide how to word the resolution. Trustee Klein likes the idea of sidewalks leading out to the bus line—within the community he does not see the need. Board agrees The streets are 24 feet wide inside the development and there is no street parking permitted. There are designated parking areas spread out throughout the site. Mr. McGuinnes—usually parking is not an issue—neighbors usually help each other out during parties or large events. There is no parking allowed in Reckson and they do not want to encourage that by putting sidewalks in. Mrs. Timpone Mohammed confirmed that the applicant is providing extra parking spaces — 50 extra spaces —there will be times where there may be an extra amount of people parking but it will probably get worked out amongst the homeowners. Trustee Klein has two final comments —he still has a lingering issue with the affordable housing units and prefers to see them dispersed though out the development. He also still believes this project is overdeveloped. Trustee Epstein believes there is not sufficient parking in her opinion. There being no further questions or comments, on a motion made by Trustee Rednick and seconded by Trustee Heiser, the Public Hearing was closed and Mr. Bradbury called the roll: TRUSTEE EPSTEIN AYE TRUSTEE HEISER AYE TRUSTEE KLEIN AYE TRUSTEE REDNICK AYE MAYOR ROSENBERG AYE Mr. Bradbury read the resolution: RESOLUTION CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PUD SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY SUN HOMES FOR PROPERTY AT 1100 KING STREET (RECKSON) VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, Sun Homes (the "Applicant"), as authorized by property owner Reckson Operating Partnership L.P., submitted a PUD Site Plan Application in connection with the proposed construction of a residential development of 110 single- family dwelling units on property located at 1100 King Street, designated as Section 129.25, Block 1, Lot 1 on the Town of Rye Tax Map ("Property") and located in the Planned Unit Development ("PUD") District; and WHEREAS, the instant Site Plan Application constitutes Phase II of a two-phase PUD approval process pursuant to Village Code §250-7.E wherein PUD Concept Plan approval and PUD zone change occur in Phase I and detailed subdivision and site plan review and approval occur during Phase II; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is the Approval Authority for this application pursuant to Section 250-7.E(4)(b)(2) of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees and Village staff and consultants have reviewed and considered the following plans and application materials in connection with the proposed application: 1. Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 and EAF Mapper Summary 2. Application for Site Plan Approval 3. Letter to the Planning Board prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated December 23, 2015 4. Letter to the Planning Board prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated November 25, 2015 5. Letter to the Building and Fire Inspector prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated November 24, 2015 6. Letter to the Planning Board prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated November 25, 2015 7. Letter to the Mayor and Board of Trustees prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains,N.Y. dated September 17, 2015 8. PUD Site Plan Project Description and Rendered Illustrative Home Plans and Elevations prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., no date 9. Stormwater Management Report prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains,N.Y., dated September 2015. Revised December 2015 10. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains,N.Y., dated November 2015. Revised December 2015 11. Land Title Survey prepared by Joseph R. Link, Land Surveyor, Mahopac, N.Y. dated March 23, 2002, updated January 26, 2015 12. Letter to Divney, Tung, Schwalbe from NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, New York State Natural Heritage Program, Albany, N. Y., dated February 25, 2015 13. Willingness to Serve Letter from United Water New York, dated October 9, 2015 14. Memorandum to the Village Engineer and the Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering , P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. dated January 7, 2016 15. Memorandum to the Village Engineer and the Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering , P.C., Tarrytown,N.Y. dated November 3, 2015 16. Engineer's Plans, prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Date No number Cover Sheet 9/17/15 rev.12/23/15 SP-1.0 Overall Site Plan 9/17/15 rev.12/23/15 SP-1.1 Site Layout Plan 9/17/15 rev.12/23/15 SP-2.0 Grading and Utility Plan 9/17/15 rev.12/23/15 SP-3.0 Site Utility Plan Overall 9/17/15 rev.12/23/15 SP-3.1 Typical Unit Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-4.0 Landscape Plan Overall 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-4.1 Landscape Plan Typical Unit/Clubhouse 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-5.0 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Details 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-5.2 Phasing Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.0 Site Sections 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.1 Road Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.2 Water Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.3 Sanitary Sewer Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-6.4 Storm Sewer Profiles 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-7.1 to SP-7.3 Site Details 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 SP-8.0 Site Lighting Plan 9/17/15 rev. 12/23/15 L-02 Planting, Lighting and Wetland Mitigation Plan 5/25/07 rev. 11/23/15 F-1 Fire Protection Plan 11/18/15 SS-1.0 Slope Analysis 12/23/15; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2015 the Board of Trustees adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the Proposed Action which included certain text amendments to the PUD zoning regulations in Chapter 250 of the Village Code, rezoning the Property from OB-1 to PUD, PUD Concept Plan and PUD Site Plan approvals, and other required permits and approvals; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015 the Board of Trustees rezoned the Property from OB-1 to PUD approved a PUD Concept Plan for the Sun Homes development; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2015 the Board of Trustees received a PUD Site Plan application submitted by Sun Homes; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2015 the Board of Trustees affirmed its continuing role as Lead Agency for the review of the PUD Site Plan application and referred the application to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board for Report and Recommendation; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2016 the Planning Board adopted a Report and Recommendation which was submitted to the Board of Trustees for consideration; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2016, the Applicant was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board in accordance with Section 239-m of the General Municipal Law and the Westchester County Code; and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2016, the Application was referred to the Town of Harrison, New York and the Town of Greenwich, Connecticut in accordance with Section 239-nn of the General Municipal Law and the Westchester County Code; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2016 the Board of Trustees received comments from the Westchester County Planning Board and reviewed them at their February 23, 2016 public meeting; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on February 23, 2016, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the Application were given such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees, Village Planning Consultant, and Village staff have reviewed all application materials, including public comments; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees is fully familiar with the application and the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA on July 28, 2015 and upon considering all public comments, as well as comments from the Applicant, Village Planning Board, Westchester County Department of Planning, other agencies, Village consultants and staff, the Board of Trustees hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Site Plan application for property located at 1100 King Street (Reckson), subject to the following conditions: 1. Satisfaction of any outstanding conditions of the Resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees on July 28, 2015 and August 18, 2015 concerning the Sun Homes project. 2. Approval of all required permits and/or approvals from the appropriate agencies for the Project, including approval of a Steep Slopes Permit from the Village Planning Board. 3. Based on the current and anticipated future need for park and recreational opportunities in the Village of Rye Brook, and the demands of the future population of the proposed residential development, the Board of Trustees hereby finds that additional recreation/parkland should be created as a condition of approval for the Application. The Board of Trustees further determines that a suitable park of adequate size cannot be properly and practically located within the Parcel, nor has the Applicant offered recreation/parkland of suitable size and practical location to adequately address the need for additional recreation/parkland within the Village. Therefore, the Board of Trustees hereby requires that the Applicant shall pay a Recreation Fee in Lieu of Parkland in accordance with Sections 250-7.E(2)(f)[2] and 209-15 of the Village Code. Such fee shall be based on the Recreation Fee for residential subdivisions as set forth in the Village of RygBrook License & Permit Fee Schedule. Payment of said fee, in full, shall be a condition precedent to issuance of a building permit for the project. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Village Consulting Engineer the information, data and results set forth below and demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Village Consulting Engineer that the following test has been performed: A water main flow test shall be performed on the discharge side of the BelleFair community's water pumping station (i.e., at the Anderson Hill Road location) to simulate a discharge flow in excess of the Sun Homes' water demand. This test shall include a hydrant discharge of at least 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for a duration of 5 minutes. The discharge hydrant will be located on the Reckson Executive Park site in the general vicinity of the proposed Sun Homes' water main connection. Hydrant 9289 in BelleFair shall be flowed at 300 gpm at the same time as the one at Reckson. A hydrant located at the highest elevation on BelleFair Boulevard in the circle shall be monitored/recorded for pressure before, during and after the test at I minute intervals. After 5 minutes, the discharge hydrant flow shall be reduced to 500 gpm and shall discharge for another 5 minutes. Pressure readings shall be recorded again at the Bellefair site during and at the end of the test. During these same intervals, residual pressure readings shall be taken at a hydrant in Doral Greens' community farthest from the connection to the 16" water main along Anderson Hill Road. Residual pressure should also be taken before, during and after the test on a hydrant located on the suction side of the booster station on Anderson Hill Road. For information purposes, only, it should be determined whether the second pump has been activated anytime during this test. The results of the test shall be provided to the Village Consulting Engineer for review and a determination whether the BelleFair or Doral Green community would experience a substantive change in water pressure by reason of the provision of water service to the Sun Homes community under current water system operations. Submission to the Village Consultant Engineer shall include the input and results of the model output at the various testing locations referenced above, including information of other extremities of the system such as Lincoln Avenue at Cerebral Palsy of Westchester. The submission shall also include the current results of the model of the water system during peak hour in Doral Green and in BelleFair. Results of the new flow tests shall be plugged into the model and the results of the impact of the tests on the model shall be submitted to the Village Consulting Engineer. The model shall have elevations at the nodes used. Under no circumstances shall a building permit be issued without confirmation from the Village Consulting Engineer that provision of water service to the Sun Homes community is not expected to result in a substantive change in water pressure to the communities at BelleFair, Doral Green and to the customers on the "suction side" of the BelleFair pump station. 5. Consistent with comments from Westchester County set forth in its memorandum dated February 12, 2016, to offset projected increases in sewage flows from this site into existing infrastructure, including adding volume of sewage flow requiring treatment at one of the treatment plans operated by Westchester County, the Applicant shall contribute $100 per dwelling unit toward a future inflow and infiltration study in the Village. 6. The Board of Trustees recognizes the Westchester County Planning Board's recommendation regarding the revision of plans to include sidewalks along roadways within the development and along International Drive, as well as a pedestrian connection between Sun Homes and BelleFair, but the Board of Trustees is satisfied with the plans as proposed without sidewalks because the development is not located on a through street so will not be heavily trafficked, street lighting has been added to the proposed plans to make the streets safer for pedestrians, and the inclusion of sidewalks will reduce the amount of open or green space available on the Property. 7. The Applicant shall cooperate with the Village in developing guidelines for future renovations, home expansions or additions to ensure that no more than 11,000 square feet of additional impervious surface coverage is added to the site without further review and possible modification of the stormwater management system. 8. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the following additional conditions shall be satisfied: a. A performance bond shall be submitted in a sum determined by the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works 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/Superintendent of Public Works and approved as to form by the Village Attorney. b. All outstanding comments of the Emergency Services Task Force in its December 7, 2015 memorandum shall be satisfied. C. Submission a maintenance agreement for stormwater management facilities, including rain gardens and permeable pavers, for review of the Village Attorney as to form. Such agreement shall be recorded in the Westchester County Clerk's Office and proof of recording shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. d. The approved site plan(s) for Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be amended as necessary to accommodate aspects of the PUD Site Plan, including fire access, changes to International Drive, and relocation of the existing trash enclosure and maintenance yard at the rear of the existing parking area. e. The note on the Landscape Plan shall be revised to state that where trees are removed from the buffer areas, additional trees shall be planted to eliminate gaps created in the existing vegetation resulting from the removal of dead, dying or diseased trees. f. Submit to the Village for review and approval of the Village Attorney as to form, all necessary easements to be recorded in the Office of the Westchester County Clerk. Proof of recording shall be submitted to the Village prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. g. The Applicant shall obtain approval from New York State Department of Transportation_ Connecticut Department of Transportation and/or the Town of Greenwich. as applicable, for changes to the signal timing for the intersection of King Street and International Drive for the weekday morning peak hour and for the intersection of King Street and Anderson Hill Road for the weekday afternoon peak hour as set forth in the May 19. 2015 memorandum from F.P. Clark Associates. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Village Code §250-7.E(3)(a) the Board of Trustees hereby waives the floor area limitation of 9,000 square feet per acre, set forth at Village Code §250-7.E(2)(d)(1), to allow 12,109 square feet of floor area per acre to be developed due to the inclusion of walk-out basements and attached garages in the design of the dwelling units which are included in the calculation of gross floor area, but contribute positively to the design and layout of the residential community without creating any adverse impacts as the property is capable of supporting the additional buildable area; and 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; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the ten (10) units of affordable housing, the applicant shall work with the village's affordable housing consultant (i.e. the Housing Action Council) to comply with the requirements of the Westchester County federal housing settlement for the purpose of having these units qualify towards satisfying the affordable housing mandates in the settlement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall discuss the possibility of connecting walking trails with the BelleFair and Doral Green Homeowners Associations Trustee Epstein really wants to see the walking trails come to fruition. Mr. Null wanted the resolution to reflect that the County was happy with the size of the affordable units and asked that the Village specify that it is the marketing and not the size of the units in the resolution. Trustee Heiser urged the applicant to fully integrate the affordable housing into the overall community and is still concerned with the amenities package. He would hate to see these people view themselves as second class citizens and not part of the community. On a motion made by Trustee Epstein and seconded by Trustee Rednick, the resolution was approved and Mr. Bradbury called the roll: Legal made a change in the resolution regarding the affordable housing units to comply with the requirements for affordable housing and qualify under mandated settlement... Mr. Bradbury called the roll: TRUSTEE EPSTEIN AYE TRUSTEE HEISER AYE TRUSTEE KLEIN NAY TRUSTEE REDNICK AYE MAYOR ROSENBERG AYE 3) Authorizing the Village of Rye Brook to enter into a license agreement with the owner of 7 Old Orchard Road for the use of Village property. Mr. Bradbury read the resolution: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF 7 OLD ORCHARD ROAD FOR THE USE OF VILLAGE PROPERTY WHEREAS, Leslie Egenhauser, owners of 7 Old Orchard Road, designated on the Town of Rye Tax Assessors Map as Section 135.34, Block 1, Lot 28, has requested a license from the Board of Trustees to maintain a composite material fence currently located in the Old Orchard Road right-of-way, which right-of-way is owned by the Village of Rye Brook ("Village Property"), and to enter upon that portion of said Village property to maintain, restore and replace (in-kind) the fence and for no other purpose; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), determines the proposed action to be a Type II Action and, accordingly, no further environmental review is required. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees, upon consideration of the aforementioned request, hereby authorizes the Village to enter into a License Agreement with Leslie Egenhauser, as annexed to this Resolution as Exhibit "A", to maintain the composite material fence within the Village right-of-way on Old Orchard Road, subject to and in accordance with the terms set forth in the attached License Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the License Agreement and deliver all necessary documents to accomplish its purposes. Trustee Rednick asked if we should address the right of way issue in the near future as it is becoming a common occurrence. Mayor Rosenberg explained it is still our property and it is used for utility use mostly. Trustee Klein aske fi the fence was ever to be replaced, can we request it be moved out of the right of way. Homeowner agreed and it was addressed in the agreement. Mr. Bradbury called the roll: TRUSTEE EPSTEIN AYE TRUSTEE HEISER AYE TRUSTEE KLEIN AYE TRUSTEE REDNICK AYE MAYOR ROSENBERG AYE 4) Considering a resolution expressing concerns with Westchester County's proposed legislative changes to the Airport's Terminal Use Agreement. Thanked the members of our airport committee for sitting through tonight's meeting. Apparently the County Executive's office is proposing to modify the terminal use agreement and bring the number of passengers from 240 per half hour to 11520 per day. This particular change is a very drastic one that give a lot of flexibility to the airlines and the airport— allowing more airlines and more passengers to use the airport and will increase the number of flights. Concerns that we want to highlight —not just this Village but throughout Westchester County and Connecticut as well. Mr. Bradbury read the resolution: RESOLUTION CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY'S PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE AIRPORT'S TERMINAL USE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, prior Westchester County Executives and Boards of Legislators have historically maintained a firm policy position of No Expansion at the Westchester County Airport and went so far as to adopt resolutions to this effect dating back to at least 2003 to protect the County residents that are impacted by Airport activities; and WHEREAS, despite the long-standing policy positon of No Expansion at the Westchester County Airport, the County Executive has sent the Board of Legislators proposed legislation modifying the Terminal Use Agreement at the Westchester County Airport (the "Airport") which would drastically increase the long-standing limit on the number of commercial flight passengers allowed to enplane and deplane at the Airport from 240 passengers per half hour to 11,520 passengers per day; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation has been re-introduced to the Board of Legislators and it has been referred to the committees on Legislation, Infrastructure, and Environment; and WHEREAS, this proposed legislation is of significant concern to the residents of the Village of Rye Brook and the County of Westchester who would be impacted by this airport expansion; and WHEREAS, the net effect of this legislative change is to remove a legislatively-imposed policy of a half-hour passenger restriction and instead provide additional flexibility to the commercial airlines and the private Airport management company that contracts with the County in order to maximize and substantially increase their ability to add daily flights and increase the number of passengers as much as the market desires while utilizing the current four(4) gates within the current runway restrictions; and WHEREAS, the County's position that 240 passengers per half hour simply equals 11,520 per day (240/half hour x 48) and impacts are minimal due to other restrictions at the Airport and terminal is seriously flawed based upon the following items: 1. The 11,520 passenger limit per day surprisingly includes an allocation of 3,120 passengers for the hours between 12:00 midnight and 6:30 A.M. when the County has previously instituted a voluntary curfew period and has made the policy decision not to encourage flights during that curfew period. This non-mandatory curfew is routinely already violated by airlines (171 times in November 2015, including 57 times by one airline); 2. Many more private planes and their passengers already use the airport. If this legislation is approved, this change will further dilute one of the few protections against additional flights and airport expansion. Commercial flights represent about 20% of the total flights at the Airport, and the Terminal Use Agreement already factors in approximately 65 "holiday" days when there are no restrictions on passenger limits. The airlines already have unrestricted limits on passengers approximately 18% of the year. The remaining "non-holiday" days simply place reasonable restrictions that spreads passengers throughout the days in order to limit the impacts on the County residents affected by the Airport traffic; 3. The Airport and terminal do not have the capacity to handle the number of passengers and flights they are seeking to add. For instance, in 2014 there were IAM passengers that utilized the Airport. 11,520 passengers per day would total 4.2M passengers in a year. At its peak (+/- 2008), the Airport had between 2.0- 2.5M passengers and there were serious impacts to traffic and parking; 4. The County is requesting the flexibility to have 11,520 passengers per day, yet at the same time, they state that they do not anticipate having 11,520 passengers per day because airlines prefer certain "prime" travel periods. The result is that the flexibility and control of the number of passengers and flights is placed solely in the hands of the airlines and the private airport management company that has a contract with the County in order to increase flights by utilizing all of the gates during any travel times that the market dictates there is interest in flying. If the proposed legislation is approved, the 11,520 passenger limit may likely become a largely irrelevant restriction; 5. Over the years the County has made improvements at the Airport terminal and gates, but has stated the improvements were not Airport expansions, and the construction was for necessary security enhancements and added modern convenience for the passengers. At the time of these projects it was often stated to local municipalities that the best protection against expansion is the passenger limit of 240 per half hour, the runway design, weight restrictions, and the number of gates (4). Now, the County is reversing the argument in their favor, stating that the facility has expanded to 40,000 sf since the time the 240 passenger limit was put in place, so the provision is superfluous and outdated; 6. The only significant additional parking to handle an increase in flights that has been added to the Airport is the off-site facility at the Purchase Park-to-Fly, the long-term viability of which, to our knowledge, is not determined by Westchester County; 7. The County has stated that another significant protection against expansion is the limit of four (4) gates, but if this is a self-imposed limit there is nothing prohibiting additional gates to be considered by the County at a later date; 8. Another significant protection for the municipalities in the region is the limits on the length of the runways and the airplane weight restrictions which limit the size of the planes and the distance they can travel. The County has stated that increasing the runway length is one of the items being considered for potential inclusion in an upcoming Airport Master Plan update anticipated by mid-year 2016; 9. Any discussion or consideration of changes to the passenger restrictions, runways, gates or other significant items should be reviewed in the context of the updated Airport Master Plan anticipated later this year in order to avoid any segmentation concerns with regard to SEQRA, and to review each modification in the context of the long-term goals of the local residents, the County and the Airport; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook firmly believes that Westchester County is not in a position to consider a Negative Declaration under SEQRA for this proposed legislation until such time that it has fully evaluated all of the environmental impacts that additional flights and passengers will bring to the Airport and surrounding region including the following items: 1. Impacts to the availability of on-site and off-site parking from the increase in passengers and flights; 2. Impacts of an increase in on-site and off-site traffic including on I-684, King Street, and Anderson Hill Road, especially during peak commuting hours; 3. Impacts on the water quality of the Blind Brook and Rye Lake/Kensico Reservoir as a result of the additional flights; 4. Impacts of additional de-icing fluid that would be utilized at the Airport and would enter the Blind Brook, which continues to be a significant problem for residents downstream from the Airport property as far south as Westchester Avenue; 5. Additional noise impacts and a reduction in air quality as a result of the additional flights; 6. Since the Airport has been designated by the County as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA), the potential impact of any Type I or Unlisted Action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA is a relevant area of environmental concern and must be evaluated in the determination of significance under SEQR; 7. Impacts to the FAA Z instrument overlay zones that radiate out from the airport as a result of any increase in flights, noise and/or types of aircraft at the Airport as a result of this legislation. These zones also affect development in the surrounding municipalities, in that they limit the type of development that may be located within these zones; 8. Other impacts of the additional flights, especially considering that in 2014 there were IAM passengers at the Airport and at the proposed limit of 11,520 passengers per day there would be 4.2M passengers per year not including the potential for additional passengers on the unrestricted +/- 65 holiday day periods. The potential for these passenger totals to far exceed any actual prior peak years ever experienced at the Airport is high, and as such, these impacts need to be fully evaluated; 9. Whether any of the identified considerations and impacts would trigger the need for an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared to fully address any significant impacts of the proposed legislation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that while the Board of Trustees acknowledges that the Westchester County Airport serves a very important purpose for the residents and corporations in Westchester County and the surrounding region who depend upon the convenience of this regional airport, they are equally concerned about the impacts of the additional flights and number of passengers that would occur as a result of the proposed legislative changes to the Terminal Use Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed legislation has far reaching impacts that require further environmental study and evaluation that should not be expedited and should instead be reviewed in the context of the update to the Airport Master Plan anticipated later in 2016; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the proposed legislative changes provide far too much flexibility for the airlines and the private airport management company that contracts with the County and have the potential to seriously impact the residents in the surrounding region; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that prior to making any changes to the Terminal Use Agreement, the County should seek a written legal opinion from their counsel regarding whether making significant changes to the Terminal Use Agreement impacts any existing grandfathered protections included in this Agreement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village Board is eager to continue to work with the County Executive, the Board of Legislators, the airline representatives and any other impacted municipalities to seek alternative ways of addressing problems currently experienced by the airlines and the airport management staff in a way that would seek to both support the Airport and limit impacts to the residents in the region; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be provided to the County Executive, the Board of Legislators, the Westchester County Airport Advisory Board, and other municipalities in the region urging them to consider the impacts of this proposed legislation on the residents and property owners within their jurisdictions. Mayor Rosenberg explains that this basically states we are not happy with the proposal - he had a conversation with David Gelfarb and made it clear that Rye Brook would not sit by and watch this happen without a fight. The County does need to let newer aircraft in as they are quieter and more fuel efficient but we are not in favor of 11,520. Jack Robinson, Chairman of the Airport Advisory Committee for Rye Brook addressed the Board. On behalf of the Advisory Committee he wants to commend the Board of Trustees for promptly putting this on the agenda and they did a fine job with the resolution. It is a well written document that covers all of the concern we have expressed as well as independent citizens. We also think there needs to be more communication with the community at large —they need to understand the nature of this and how it can affect the quality of life. We are concerned that the County Executive wants to expedite this change in the law— obviously there is concern that the County Board has not provided information on what the impacts would be of the proposed increase in air traffic. In closing—having participated and gone to a number of County Board meetings— the master plan has been on the agenda many times but not yet open to the public. They have a concern that the order of this is backwards — sense of urgency. Communication and education are very important. Mr. Schlactus —he wished to amplify Mr. Robinson's comments. He wishes that this document would be used as an educational tool to other municipalities around the County. He also thanked the Board for being pro-active on this. He noted that we mentioned the Blind Brook in the resolution— on other side of airport is the Kensico Resovoir. Economic and direct health depend on that body of water—it would take untold billions to filter should it become contaminated—needless to say many other communities around the reservoir as well. Secondly— question of if the whole resolution is a Trojan horse for a much larger attack on the airports size and scope. Nobody has conducted a study on changing the terms that date back to 1984—if you change the terms do you undermine the entire grandfathering on which all limitations depend.. He would love to see all parties come together and work out something that makes everyone happy. Mayor Rosenberg agrees and Mr. Bradbury will add the resovoir to the resolution and suggesting waiting for the Master Plan. Mrs. Nioras of Hillandale Road - she forwarded an email to Mr. Bradbury and Mayor Rosenber today suggesting that the Board try to include something regarding the study done in 2007 — charts in that study clearly state that there are deficiencies in the airport. A deficiency is a deficiency and the FAA should be taken seriously - if they find deficiencies today what will happen with these proposed changes. Mr. Bradbury responded that he will have to do some more research before it can be added. Mayor Rosenberg wants to have a cover letter from him when the resolution is submitted to the County and the surrounding municipalities and newspapers. Bob moras —hillandale road—pulled charts from the study— series of deficiencies — include things like not having enough capacity from gate perspecivie— luggage perspective—parking...etc—that was at that level—when you add to that as proposed it has serious impacts on the community. Why the county would seek to go this route then evaluate the master plan..... Also the grandfather clause..... He believes there is a grander plan to expand the airport—the master plan will include a lot more traffic going into the airport. Susan— are any of the other neighbors of ours doing the same thing as us Chirs —greemwch is the most active— some discussion with outher communities — desire it to get this out to make more people aware Paul—gary Zuckerman is also on board with sounding the alarm bells Chris —biggest concern is doing this ahead of the master plan Marilyn— cant believe and needs to do more research—there are a lot of conclusions in this short environmental form and neg dec—none of which have the support of any data. Wondering how they got to this point and how they decided that those impacts were sort of just put into a category of not being significant. Vote— all ayes 8) Considering a salary adjustment for the Village's PT Intermediate Account Clerk/Internal Claims Auditor Chris read resolution Jason and susan Paul —Judy doing since 2003 —reviewing internal bills — otherwise all bills would have to come to board meeting... All ayes 9) Considering the adoption of local adjustments for homestead and non- homestead base proportions. Chris read resolution Motions — susan and Jason Chris —the town is the key action—by practice the towns concur with the town— village has to act on it after the town—that's why back on agenda All ayes Minutes — carry over Signs in the right of way for rb youth soccer Motion Susan and Jeff David asked our standard on signs —who are we going to say yes to and who do we say no to Paul—good question—rbys been around for a long time— don't want to make a practice of this — Chris— one issue—by practice—the building inspector has approved the signs in the rye ridge shopping center—people should ask permission and building dpet approves it Code reads anyone who wants permission to use right ow way needs to come to bot for approval— other not for profits could come before us at some point—board has to decide what is ok and what is not David— so many worth while charities —want to help everyone but don't want all those signs up Paul—rye brook organization—his opinion—worthwhile group —perform a function for entire village—not for profit. David— signs are an eyesore Susan— agrees—bad precedent to set—up for a very long time - not in favor— so many avenues of getting info out there—website— social media—hamlet hub....not for more signage.... Motion to recind resolution—made by susan—second by heiser— all ayes except for paul Administrators report— cca—proposals are due next week— asking for signage the day they come in— our case—2.29.16 —if things go smoothey— looking to make the swith may 16 Fiscal stress monitoring—we are at 3.3 —would have been 0 but has to do with environmental factors—better direction even from last year. Adjourn to exec for tax cert matter Special village town hall meeting 3/31 — informal non televised question and answer Adjourned 10:43 —Jeff and Jason all ayes