Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-14 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes Approved: 4/14/16 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET Thursday, January 14, 2016 - 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL MINUTES • Review of June 2015 minutes AFFORDABLE HOUSING • Review of a Site Plan Application, Wetlands and Steep Slopes permit application by Buckingham Partners / Sun Homes for a Planned Unit Development, with a Fair and Affordable Housing component located at 1100 King Street Rye Brook, NY, Parcel I.D. 129.25-1-1 • Steep Slopes Public Hearing • Site Plan Report and Recommendation to BOT • Review of a FAH Rezoning Petition, Subdivision and Lot 1 Site Plan Application for construction of two multi-family affordable dwellings on proposed Lot 1 (BOT Referral), Site Plan Applications for proposed Lots 2 and 3 to be improved with one market rate single family dwelling on each lot, and Wetland and Steep Slopes Permit Applications, for property located at 259 North Ridge Street, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.35-1-11 PUBLIC HEARING • Review of a Site Plan Application by John and Tonia Annunziata, to construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling on the property located at 5 Argyle Road, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.51-1-50 CONTINUED BUSINESS • Review of a Site Plan and Wetland Permit Application by 3 Edgewood Drive LLC, to tear down and construct a single-family dwelling on the property located at 3 Edgewood Drive, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.36-1-31 • Application has been adjourned to the February 11, 2016 meeting NEW BUSINESS • Review of Site Plan & Steep Slopes Applications by Wilfred Rohde P.E. on behalf of Douglas and Lisa Levine, to legalize work performed without a permit 1 Approved: 4/14/16 including regrading and constructing retaining walls at the property located at 34 Bellefair Road, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 124.73-1-63 LOCAL LAW CONSIDERATION ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS • Discussion concerning Board Rules and Prospective Amendments NEXT MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2016 Chairman Goodman welcomed everyone present and at home to tonight's meeting. He introduced the Board and the Staff and went over the rules of procedure for addressing the Board. Chairman Goodman called for the first item on the agenda: MINUTES • Review of June 2015 minutes There being no comments or questions, Chairman Goodman asked for a motion to approve the minutes and on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Accurso, the minutes were approved when Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. MORLINO YES MR. RICHMAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES Chairman Goodman called for the next item on the agenda: AFFORDABLE HOUSING • Review of a Site Plan Application, Wetlands and Steep Slopes permit application by Buckingham Partners / Sun Homes for a Planned Unit Development, with a Fair and Affordable Housing component located at 1100 King Street Rye Brook, NY, Parcel I.D. 129.25-1-1 • Steep Slopes Public Hearing • Site Plan Report and Recommendation to BOT 2 Approved: 4/14/16 Mr. William Null of Cuddy & Feder addressed the Board on behalf of Sun Homes and gave an update on the application stating that they had submitted a response to staff and consultant concerns on December 23rd and that they are here tonight to answer any additional questions the Board or staff may have. In his opinion only minor details remain to be resolved. Chairman Goodman responded that previously the Board had opened a Public Hearing on the steep slopes application and it was also considering a report and recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Chairman Goodman asked Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed, Village Planning Consultant, to address the Board. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed discussed the issue of the waiver for the amount of gross floor area per acre. It is currently still an open item in that the Board of Trustees must provide that waiver if the application moves forward. In regard to the PUD site plan— one issue remains related to the 60Ldn Westchester Airport noise contour Critical Environmental Area, and the need to provide sound mitigating construction. Also, the applicant should develop and submit a construction management plan for the project. The applicant was granted its wetlands permit extension at the Board of Trustees meeting of December 15, 2015 so that that item is now closed. The grading plan was slightly altered to reduce the area of disturbance in the northeast corner of the property closest to Bellefair. The applicant has minimized and mitigated the amount of grading necessary. Regarding the buffer areas adjacent to Bellefair and Doral Green that are naturally wooded, there is concern that some of the work may impact the trees in these areas. While it is recommended that the trees not be removed, they should be examined by an arborist to determine if they remained healthy after construction. If trees must be removed, there should be a replanting requirement to maintain the effectiveness of the screening the buffer provides. There have been issues with other PUD's in the past when, after approval, residents ask for amendments to the site plan. The applicant has said that it would not allow changes in the homes themselves; however, there should be a way to accommodate some of the typical things homeowners like to add such as shed's, enlarged patios, etc. The Applicant was to submit draft guidelines for such improvements. Mr. Null responded that they would replace any trees that needed to be removed for construction purposes as they want an appropriate buffer with healthy trees. In regard to PUD modifications, the Applicant is happy to work with the Village on draft guidelines legislation. An individual owner would have to ask the Homeowners Association to approve any changes on the property. The Applicant stated that it is well aware of circumstances of other PUD's and are willing to work with the Village to avoid issues on the Sun Homes property. Mr. Dolph Rotfeld, Village Engineering Consultant, addressed the Board with regard to engineering items. Currently the applicant has answered all of the comments given to them. Mr. Rotfeld advised the Board that he had a meeting with Suez Water and advised the company of the concerns of the Village regarding water pressure. He suggested a specific test protocol to simulate conditions that may affect water pressure in surrounding 3 Approved: 4/14/16 developments to determine if such effects would happen to water pressure and flow. The water company discussed the changes they are making to increase the flow capacity of their pumping station. There will be no individual meters—hydrants are to be owned by the Village of Rye Brook and a maintenance agreement will have to be entered into. Mrs. Schoen asked if there are no individual meters—how is the water company going to determine how much water will be used by each individual home. Mr. Accurso asked why there are no meters in the houses. Mr. Rotfeld responded that he does not really know, but believes that the Water Company does not want to go onto private streets. Mr. Accurso asked Mr. Rotfeld if the Applicant took into account the numbers in the report in regard to the additional 11,000 square feet of impervious surfaces that the Applicant says can be added in the future by site plan amendments,— specifically the 68% runoff capture requirement. Mr. Rotfeld replied there would be no detrimental effect. Mr. Tartaglia asked what part of the water supply system will be the Village's obligation to maintain after the project is done and in service, and what part will be the HOA's responsibility. Mr. Rotfeld responded that it would be the complete responsibility of the HOA. The HOA will determine the individual billing for water for each individual home—there would have to be an agreement in the offering plan. Chairman Goodman asked Mrs. Gray to read a summary of the report and recommendation to the Board of Trustees: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY SUN HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A PUD SITE PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET APPLICATION OVERVIEW The Rye Brook Board of Trustees is currently considering an application by Sun Homes ("Applicant") for approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Site Plan for a residential community consisting of 110 dwelling units on real property located at 1100 4 Approved: 4/14/16 King Street (the "Property'). Specifically, the Applicant seeks approval of a Site Plan for the construction of a residential community on Parcel 129.25-1-1, located directly behind the Reckson Executive Park on King Street. The development will include 100 attached and detached market rate dwellings, 10 affordable housing units as well as a pool, club house, streets, on-street parking areas, communal open space and storm water retention areas. On July 28, 2015, the Board of Trustees adopted a Negative Declaration for the proposed action which included certain amendments to Zoning Code, rezoning the property from OB-1 to the PUD Zoning District, approval of a PUD Concept Plan and PUD Site Plan, as well as all related approvals and permits, such as a Steep Slopes permit and any necessary Wetland Permit approval or extension. The Negative Declaration which culminated the BOT's SEQRA review included a full and comprehensive review of potential impacts such as traffic, storm water, wetlands, steep slopes, wildlife, tree removal, community character and other relevant categories of potential environmental impact. At the same meeting, the Board of Trustees adopted a local law which made certain text amendments to Section 250-7E of the Village Zoning Code concerning PUD developments, including authorization for the Board of Trustees to waive the floor area limitation for residential developments and to waive certain buffer area requirements. On August 18, 2015, the Board of Trustees re-zoned to the PUD Zoning District and approved a PUD Concept Plan. Thereafter, on or about September 17, 2015 the Applicant submitted its PUD Site Plan application to the Board of Trustees which was referred to the Planning Board on October 2, 2015 for consideration and for a report and recommendation. On November 5 Approved: 4/14/16 24, 2015,the Board of Trustees referred to the Planning Board the Applicant's request for an extension of its existing Wetland Permit Approval. The Planning Board reviewed the PUD Site Plan application at its meetings on October 8, 2015, November 12, 2015, December 10, 2015, and January 14, 2016 and reviewed the Wetland Permit extension request at its December 10, 2015 meeting. DISCUSSION The following topics are those which the Planning Board primarily focused discussion upon: Density/Floor Area Waiver The approved PUD Concept Plan permits up to 110 residential units in the general configuration shown on the Concept Plan. The number of units proposed by the Applicant translates to a density of approximately 3.6 units per acre which is consistent with the neighboring development of Bellefair (1.9 units per acre), the Arbors (6.8 units per acre) and Doral Greens (7.9 units per acre). The proposed units per acre also falls under the maximum of 6 units per acre permitted with a PUD, as per the Village Code. The Applicant is proposing a total floor area which exceeds the 9,000 square-foot floor area per acre limitation set forth in the Village's PUD requirements. Specifically, the PUD Site Plan proposes 12,109 square feet of floor area per acre. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting a 3,109 square foot waiver which is a 35% increase over the allowable floor area. On July 28, 2015 the Board of Trustees adopted a local law which amended Section 250-7.E(3) of the Zoning Code to allow the Board of Trustees to waive the 9,000 square foot/acre floor area limitation applicable to PUDs, in whole or in part, if an 6 Approved: 4/14/16 applicant provides affordable housing units equivalent to 10% of the proposed market rate units. This amendment to the Zoning Code applies to this PUD and any future proposed PUDs within the Village. It is the Planning Boards understanding that the Zoning Code amendment does not state an applicant is entitled to a floor area waiver if the requisite number of affordable housing units is provided, but only that an applicant is elm for a waiver. It should be noted that the PUD Site Plan must contain at least 10 affordable housing units based on the schedule set forth at Section 209-3.F. Here, the Applicant is providing 10 affordable housing units which is equivalent to 10% of the 100 market rate units. Thus, the Applicant is eligible for a floor area waiver. As justification for the waiver, the Applicant points to three grounds: (1) inclusion of affordable housing units which are significantly larger than the minimum size required; (2) attached garages; and (3) walk-out basements. The Planning Board does not agree that providing the required affordable housing units constitutes a valid justification for granting the waiver. Although the affordable units provide a benefit to the community, they are required by code and should not serve as the basis for a gross floor area waiver. Attached garages and walk-out basements are included in the Village's definition of Gross Floor Area. However, these features contribute positively to the design and layout of the residential community but they are included in the Villages definition of GFA and thus increase the overall GFA calculation. While it may have been possible for the Applicant to design the development without these features and comply with the floor area limitation, the inclusion of the additional floor area in the overall development does not create any adverse impacts as the property is capable of supporting the additional buildable area. Therefore, based only on the second and third ground referenced above, the Planning Board supports the requested floor area waiver. 7 Approved: 4/14/16 Lighting Plan The revised Lighting Plan replaces the originally proposed bollard lighting with traditional lighting standards which provide more comprehensive street lighting. However, the Applicant requested consideration for eliminating some of the street lighting standards to provide more minimal lighting throughout the development, keeping only the lighting standards located along the proposed extension of International Drive at internal roadway intersections, and adjacent to visitor parking spaces. In determining whether to eliminate some of the proposed lighting standards, the Board of Trustees should consider the following factors: whether the level of lighting desired (i) promotes the avoidance of car accidents involving users of the vehicular roadways that are also used by pedestrians as walkways with special consideration to vulnerable groups, e.g. pedestrians, cyclists, the elderly, the disabled, and children; (ii) enhances the nighttime environment by eliminating or mitigating lateral glare and sky lighting; and (iii) promotes energy efficiency. Steep Slopes/Grading Based on the Grading Plan, the Applicant is proposing a balanced cut and fill. The Applicant is proposing to increase the amount of slopes on the property that exceed 35% by approximately 0.61 acres, increase the amount of 25%-25% slopes by approximately 0.3 acres, decrease the amount of 15%-25% slopes by approximately 0.84 acres and decrease the amount of 0%-15% slopes by approximately 0.08 acres. The disturbance to existing slopes and creation of new slopes shown on the Grading Plan has been minimized through the utilization of retaining walls, particularly between the property and the adjacent Bellefair residential development. 8 Approved: 4/14/16 When implementing the Grading Plan, it will be important to ensure that limits of construction are established, temporary and permanent slope stabilization measures are employed, and existing vegetation in areas adjacent to grading work is protected so as to ensure survival post construction. Landscape Screening The Planning Board is concerned that the removal of existing vegetation and grading of the property may create visual impacts to neighboring properties within Doral Greens and Bellefair. To address this concern, the Applicant added a note to the landscape plan requiring all existing trees within certain buffer areas to be evaluated by a certified arborist for safety and survivability to determine whether they should remain. All healthy trees in these areas will be retained. To ensure the effectiveness of the buffer vegetation in screening the proposed development from adjacent properties, the note should 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. Stormwater The SWPPP submitted by the Applicant has been reviewed by DRE and determined to be acceptable. The stormwater management plan has been designed such that discharge rates remain at less than 76% of the predevelopment rates and the project will achieve a 68% Runoff Reduction Volume (RRv) where 30% is required. The design of the Stormwater Management plan remains reliant upon the approved and partially 9 Approved: 4/14/16 constructed detention basins at the rear of the property and also includes green infrastructure techniques such as porous pavement, vegetative swale, and tree planting. Water Flow/Pressure On October 9, 2015 Suez Water (formerly, United Water Westchester Incorporated) issued a "Willingness to Serve" letter in which Suez certifies it has the ability and willingness to serve the Sun Homes development. It states that "[Suez] has adequate pressure and volume to serve [Sun Homes] subject to the following: the fire flow data provided was noted by Sun Homes as requiring confirmation." In a subsequent email to the Applicant dated October 28, 2015, Suez stated the following: Please be aware that we are doing some further studies along Anderson Hill Road and will continue to study this area and that, in addition to normal maintenance activities, we may make some improvements such as water main replacements that will positively affect water service for our customers. [Suez] has a Long Term Water Main Replacement Program and we continuously review and update plans and studies so we can optimize the water system improvements we make throughout our system. To confirm that surrounding properties will not experience pressure or flow issues as a result of the added demand on the water system, DBE's November 3, 2015 memorandum requests fire flow data and its December 8, 2015 memorandum requests information regarding Suez's proposed improvements, some of which information must come from Suez. Specifically, DRE's December 8, 2015 memorandum states: [Suez] proposed improvements in support of this application must be detailed. A hydraulic analysis must be submitted demonstrating that surrounding properties will not experience pressure or flow issues as a result of the added demand on the system. We will gladly meet with the 10 Approved: 4/14/16 water company to discuss our thoughts on how to evaluate existing vs. proposed conditions. DRE's January 13, 2016 letter further states: With regard to this issue, we met with Frank McGlynn of Suez to discuss field tests necessary to determine if the construction of the Sun Homes project would have an impact on the water suppled to Belle Fair. Hydrant(s) would be opened at Belle Fair to flow at the average peak rate. Pressure would be taken before, during and after the flow. This procedure would then be repeated with hydrant flow in the Executive Park at the peak rate expected in the Sun Homes Development at maximum build out. At Belle Fair hydrant flow would be measured along with pressure in their system. Mr. McGlynn would like the above requested procedure submitted to him so that he could calculate the cost to the water company for conducting the testing. That cost would have to be paid to the water company. These items remain outstanding and must be addressed by the Applicant. PUD Guidelines Although the Applicant has stated that no site modifications will be permitted and that such limitation will be stated in the Homeowner's Association documents, such limitation is not realistic over time. In the Village's experience, it is common for PUDs or the individual residents within a PUD to request permission for the construction of sheds, patios, decks, retaining walls, and other site modifications. According to the Applicant's consultant, an additional 11,000 square feet of impervious surface coverage could be added to the site and accommodated by the proposed stormwater management system. The Board of Trustees should consider 11 Approved: 4/14/16 adopting a local law similar to that adopted for the Arbors PUD to define the process and review standards for any increase in impervious surface coverage, or include in any approval resolution appropriate conditions for establishing such parameters. Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 As noted in the December 7, 2015 memorandum from Michael J. Izzo, Building and Fire Inspector, as well as the January 8, 2016 memorandum from F.P. Clark Associates, the PUD Site Plan is contingent upon certain revisions to the approved Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 Site Plans, subject to review by the Building Inspector, including the following: The Phase 1 and Phase 2 Site Plan shows International Drive with two traffic lanes in each direction. The PUD Site Plan shows the extension of International Drive (including the portion within Phase 1 and Phase 2) as containing only one traffic lane in each direction. Although the footprint for International Drive remains the same, the reconfiguration of the traffic lanes on Phase 1 and Phase 2 may require review and approval of an amended site plan for those parcels. According to the 12/7/15 memorandum from Mr. Izzo, two stone pillars located along King Street at the north end of the Phase 1/Phase 2 frontage must be relocated or removed to provide a minimum 20-foot clearance to serve as an unobstructed fire apparatus access road. Such revision may require an amendment to the approved Phase 1/Phase 1 site plan(s). Relocation of the existing trash enclosure and maintenance yard for Phase 1/Phase 2 may require an amendment of the approved Phase 1/Phase 2 site plan(s). Such amenities are currently in the same location as the proposed interior emergency access road and AFFH units. The Planning Board recommends that any approval of the PUD Site Plan should be conditioned upon the submittal of an application for an Amended Site Plan for Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 to accommodate these and any additional overall site changes that are precipitated by the proposed PUD Site Plan. 12 Approved: 4/14/16 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Board of Trustees approve the PUD Site Plan Application, including the requested floor area waiver, provided the following items are satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant: Demonstrate that surrounding properties will not experience pressure or flow issues as a result of the added demand on the water system. The Planning Board recommends the pressure tests referenced in DRE's January 13, 2016 memorandum should be performed prior to any approval of the PUD Site Plan. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, all outstanding comments of the Emergency Services Task Force in its December 7, 2016 memorandum shall be satisfied. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, submit 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. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the approved site plan(s) for Reckson Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be modified 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. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the note on the Landscape Plan should 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. 13 Approved: 4/14/16 Introduce a proposed Local Law (similar to that established for the Arbors development) or establish conditions that define the procedural and substantive standards for subsequent increases in impervious surface coverage within the PUD Site Plan up to a maximum of 11,000 square feet of impervious surface coverage beyond that shown on the PUD Site Plan. Discussion Chairman Goodman stated that this Board cannot resolve all the issues involved in an application such as this, but that it can address the larger ones. He then asked for comments from the Board. Mr. Grzan welcomed Mr. Goodman as Chairperson. He is in favor of this project, believes the quality of construction, creative design and affordable housing units are all good for the Village. He does however have a few concerns such as the size of the homes and the number of units. He knows the applicant has asked for a waiver for the gross floor area allowed per acre, but strongly believes that the number of proposed units is excessive. Chairman Goodman introduced David Heiser who is a member of the Board of Trustees and the liaison to the Planning Board. He believes that streaming video and Trustee Heiser's presence will help him bring some of the Planning Board's concerns back to the Board of Trustees. Mrs. Schoen added that in substance she agrees with Mr. Grzan but has concerns about the stand alone affordable units which she raised in the beginning of the process. She is not sure the project should be sacrificed for that reason, and agrees that the applicant has done an extraordinary job with the design of the project. She supports the report and recommendation on most of the issues. Mr. Richman is in support of the report as it stands. Mr. Tartaglia would like to echo Mr. Grzan and Mrs. Schoen's comments about how the affordable units are separated from the rest of the development, but would hate to see anything create an impediment to affordable housing units in the northern section of the Village. He feels the project is more than he would like to see, but he too is impressed with the developers and believes the proposed project is well done and it will be an asset to the community. He has no objection to including concerns in the report but would hate to see the project derailed. Mr. Accurso is in support of the application but is on record that the site will be overbuilt. There are too many units on the site. He believes the 35% increase in allowable floor area per acre is excessive and believes, if the waiver is granted, it will serve as a precedent. 14 Approved: 4/14/16 Chairman Goodman believes the inclusion of affordable housing in the project triggers the applicant's right to ask for the waiver. The point has been made about the board's concerns about the size of the units and that the site could be overbuilt. Chairman Goodman added that the jurisdiction over whether the waiver is granted rests with the Board of Trustees. His view is that this is a very good project and it contributes to the community in many ways. He understands that the waiver is not insignificant, but he, personally, likes the idea of larger units and believes this is a quality development. Ms. Gray asked Mr. Null with respect to steep slopes and grading how much fill was being imported into the site to which he responded that it is balanced cut and fill. No fill would be trucked in. Ms. Gray will revise the report to accurately report that. Mr. Accurso asked about the fact that 3 Board members want the affordable units dispersed throughout the site and that prospect that granting of the waiver would serve as a precedent for future developments Chairman Goodman responded that the Board of Trustees has discretion to waive the GFA per acre and that it would not be bound by precedent to grant a waiver in connection with another project. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Grzan, the report was approved when Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO NO MR. GRZAN YES MR. MORLINO YES MR. RICHMAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES Jennifer Gray, Esq. read the resolution referring the report to the Board of Trustees: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY SUN HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A PUD SITE PLAN FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rye Brook Planning Board hereby submits the attached Report and Recommendation to the Rye Brook Board of Trustees on an application by Sun Homes for approval of a PUD Site Plan for a residential community of 110 single-family dwelling units on real property located at 1100 King Street. 15 Approved: 4/14/16 On referring the report to the Board of Trustees, on a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Tartaglia, the resolution was approved when Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO NO MR. GRZAN YES MR. MORLINO YES MR. RICHMAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES Chairman Goodman added that the site plan for this application has been referred to the Board of Trustees; however, the Planning Board has jurisdiction over the steep slopes permit and asked for comments from the public. As there were none, Chairman Goodman called for a motion to continue the Public Hearing to the March meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Tartaglia and seconded by Mr. Richman, the Public Hearing was continued when Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. MORLINO YES MR. RICHMAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES • Review of a FAH Rezoning Petition, Subdivision and Lot 1 Site Plan Application for construction of two multi-family affordable dwellings on proposed Lot 1 (BOT Referral), Site Plan Applications for proposed Lots 2 and 3 to be improved with one market rate single family dwelling on each lot, and Wetland and Steep Slopes Permit Applications, for property located at 259 North Ridge Street, Rye Brook NY Parcel I.D. 135.35-1-11 Mr. Clark Neuringer, Architect for Mr. Larizza, addressed the Board. He gave a broad overview of the project noting the challenging site. He stated that the Board of Trustees asked if something could be done on this particular site and that they approached Mr. Larizza. He added that all of the affordable housing prior to this project is in the Port Chester School District, but this development would be in the Blind Brook School District. This site is on North Ridge Street and is slightly under 4 acres. Two of the proposed homes will be single-family freestanding buildings and the 8 affordable units will be 16 Approved: 4/14/16 attached townhouses located in two buildings. Each of the town homes would be 1250 sf with two bedrooms and walls out basement. One of the single family homes will be 2500 sf and the other will be 3200 s£ Each townhouse building would be 5000 sf, which is similar to some of the homes in Rye Brook. This application is a series of 4 applications and a rezoning petition, a subdivision, and 3 site plan applications. There are difficulties with the site which includes steep slopes and wetlands. Mr. Mastromonaco will present a plan that fully meets the requirements of Rye Brook and their consultants. He showed a drawing of what the site would look like pointing out that there is minimal impact to the existing street. He showed initial renderings of what they are proposing, to keep the project in harmony with the surrounding area. Mr. Grzan asked how there could be no significant impact to the road. He is very concerned about additional traffic on Ridge Street, especially at the curve in the road that is already a concern. Mr. Goodman noted that as a matter of procedure there are no decisions being made tonight—we have been asked by the Board of Trustees to make recommendations on the lots. He added that the Village has received and read email comments and memos from residents in the area of this proposed project. There will be a Public Hearing and the public will have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Neuringer responded to Mr. Grzan that the applicant is aware of the roadway concerns and has designed the driveway and entranceway to be safe. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed addressed the Board stating that her office reviewed the application and agreed that it is a complicated application because of overlapping jurisdiction as between the Board and the BOT. There will be a SEQRA review and it will look at all the potential impacts caused by this subdivision. Mr. Tartaglia asked who the lead agency is for this application, to which Mrs. Timpone- Mohamed responded that the Board of Trustees would likely to be lead agency, although the notice has not gone out yet. The Planning Board is an involved agency based on the steep slopes and wetlands permit applications, and the site plans for the two single family homes. Ms. Gray added that the lead agency has to determine if enough information has been provided to make a positive or negative declaration. The tasks currently before the Planning Board are site plan review on the two proposed individual, single family lots and advisory planning review on the remaining portions of the application for recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed continued her review of the application, and when she was finished M. Goodman advised the applicant to address the issues that remain open so that the next time the matter comes before the Board it will be looking at a completed application. 17 Approved: 4/14/16 Mr. Morlino asked if Ridge Street was still a county road to which Mrs. Mohamed responded that it was, and County DOT would have to approve the curb cuts. Mr. Grzan asked if the project could be reviewed simultaneously by both Boards as he would prefer it be done that way. Ms. Gray responded that there are certain aspects of the proposal that the Board of Trustees must act upon before the Planning Board can take final action. For example, subdivision approval must precede any approval by the Planning Board on the two single family home lots. Mr. Tartaglia suggested the Board of Trustees vote on rezoning before this applicant moves forward with anything else. After some discussion, Ms. Gray stated that a procedural path for the application had already been set, but if the Applicant wants to explore the pursuit of an alternative path the Applicant should submit that request in writing to the Village. Trustee Heiser addressed the Board and stated that there was a misrepresentation made by the applicant that he would like to clarify. Several years ago the Board of Trustees wrote a position paper on affordable housing— at no point in time did the Board of Trustees approach the applicant. Mr. Lou Larizza, Developer, apologized to anyone that thought that he misrepresented himself. He wants to do what is right for the municipality— if the Village does not want this—he won't do it. Chairman Goodman advised the applicant to work with the Village staff and consultants to address the remaining issued brought up by Mrs. Mohamed. Mr. Nueringer apologized for his choice of words. The matter was adadjourned to the February 11 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING • Review of a Site Plan Application by John and Tonia Annunziata, to construct additions to the existing single-family dwelling for the property located at 5 Argyle Road, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.51-1-50 There was a preliminary issue relating to the public notification signage. As this is a corner lot both frontages require a public notification sign. The applicant had only one sign up, which does not comply. The applicant installed the second sign but did not do so within the time period required by the Code. The Board must decide whether or not to waive the requirement of the second sign so this application can be heard tonight. 18 Approved: 4/14/16 Mr. Grzan makes a motion to waive, seconded by Mrs. Schoen, and approved by unanimous voice vote of the Board. Ona motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Grzan, the Public Hearing was opened when Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. MORLINO YES MR. RICHMAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES Mr. Mustacato addressed the Board stating that he believes they have reviewed and covered everything at the previous meeting and they have nothing to add at this time. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed added the plan requires variances but the variances are minimal. The area to be expanded is away from the scenic road and there is mature vegetation along the scenic road to partially screen views. The other variances are related to the rear yard which is already non-conforming, and the addition increases the non- conformity. However, it is in an area where the property next door has their driveway so there would be minimal impacts. The application must go before the Zoning Board to request the needed variances. If the Board moves to approve the application tonight, the approval will be conditioned on the ZBA approval of the variances required. As there were no further comments or questions, Mr. Grzan made a motion to close the Public Hearing and on a second made by Mrs. Schoen, the hearing was closed when Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. MORLINO YES MR. RICHMAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES Ms. Gray read the resolution: RESOLUTION CONSIDERING A SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION ON AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 5 ARGYLE ROAD 19 Approved: 4/14/16 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, John and Tonia Annunziata, property owners, submitted an Application for Site Plan approval to construct a side addition, including a rear patio, relocated driveway and extended front patio, at 5 Argyle Road in the R-10 zoning district and the Scenic Roads Overlay District, said premises being further identified as Section 135.5 1, Block 1, Lot 50 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the following plans and application materials in connection with the Application: 1. Short Environmental Assessment Form 2. Building Permit Check List and Zoning Analysis 3. Exterior Building Permit Application 4. Application for Site Plan Approval and Submittal Checklist 5. Property Survey, prepared by Richard A. Spinelli, Mamaroneck, N.Y. dated July 17, 2015 6. Waiver Request Letter from RMG Associates, Rye, N.Y. to the Rye Brook Village Engineer dated November 5, 2015 7. Architect's Plans, prepared by RMG Associates, Rye, N.Y.: U Sheet NumberU USheet InformationU Dated A-1 Location Map/Notes/Zoning Calculations 10/27/15 A-2 Site Plan/Tree Protection/Details 10/27/15 A-3 Front Elevation/Height Setback Calculations 10/27/15 A-4 Right and Rear Elevations 10/27/15 A-5 Existing First Floor Plan 10/27/15 A-6 Proposed First Floor Plan 10/27/15; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed a memorandum from the Village Planning Consultant, F.P. Clark Associates, dated December 8, 2015, concerning the application; and WHEREAS, Village Code §250-22G(1) requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet and the Applicant proposes a front yard setback of 26.5 feet on the south elevation of the home fronting Argyle Road, requiring a front yard setback variance of 3.5 feet; and WHEREAS, Village Code §250-22G(3) requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet and the Applicant proposes a rear yard setback of 10.2 feet, requiring a rear yard setback variance of 19.8 feet; and WHEREAS, Village Code §250-37B requires a maximum main building coverage of 20% and the Applicant proposes a main building coverage of 21.5%, requiring a main building coverage variance of 1.5%; and 20 Approved: 4/14/16 WHEREAS, on December 10, 2015 the Planning Board referred the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for consideration of the above-referenced variances, including any additional variances determined by the Building Inspector to be necessary; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was held on January 14, 2016, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the Application were given such opportunity, and the public hearing was closed on January 14, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is a Type II Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and accordingly, no further environmental review is required; and WHEREAS, the Village Planning Consultant, Village staff and the Planning Board have reviewed the information and submitted comments regarding the Application. NOW THEREFORE BE, IT RESOLVED, that upon recommendation of the Village of Rye Brook Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer, the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby approves the waiver requested by the applicant for the submission of a current topographic survey and lighting plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby approves the Application for Site Plan approval to construct a side addition, including a rear patio, relocated driveway and extended front patio, at 5 Argyle Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the above-referenced variances. If during the Zoning Board of Appeals' review of the variance application minor modifications are made to the Site Plan intended to reduce, eliminate or mitigate the requested variances, the Applicant is not required to return to the Planning Board for approval of such minor modifications. 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. On a motion made by Mr. Grzan and seconded by Mr. Tartaglia, the resolution was approved when Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. MORLINO YES MR. RICHMAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES 21 Approved: 4/14/16 CONTINUED BUSINESS • Review of a Site Plan and Wetland Permit Application by 3 Edgewood Drive LLC, to tear down and construct a single-family dwelling on the property located at 3 Edgewood Drive, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.36-1-31 • Application has been adjourned to the February 11, 2016 meeting Adjourned at request of the applicant. NEW BUSINESS • Review of a Site Plan & Steep Slopes Applications by Wilfred Rohde P.E. on behalf of Douglas and Lisa Levine, to legalize work performed without a permit including regrading and constructing retaining walls at the property located at 34 Bellefair Road, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 124.73-1-63 Wilford Rohde, PE, addressed the Board and gave an overview of the project. Mrs. Timpone-Mohamed stated that the site plan will require a steep slopes work permit and will be required to comply with the Village Code regarding steep slopes. Both existing walls will be removed. Removal of one of the walls will require some restoration work on the adjacent property. Mrs. Schoen asked if the other property owner has to come before us. Mrs. Mohamed responded no, because the amount of grading would be below 400 square feet. Mrs. Gray added that a temporary easement will be required on the adjacent property to do the work. There was a brief continued discussion regarding the stability of the wall and the deer fence. It was decided that the wall stability is not an issue, and the status of the deer fence would have to be taken up with the HOA. Mrs. Gray read the resolution: RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN AND STEEP SLOPES WORK PERMIT FOR 34 BELLEFAIR ROAD VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD 22 Approved: 4/14/16 WHEREAS, Douglas and Lisa Levine, submitted an application for approval of a site plan and a Steep Slopes Work Permit to regrade property and construct retaining walls at 34 Bellefair Road in a PUD zoning district, said premises being further identified as Section 124.73, Block 1, Lot 63 on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board shall hold a Public Hearing on February 11, 2016 at 7:30 p.m., at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider the application for approval of a site plan and Steep Slopes Work Permit; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) determines the Proposed Action to be a Type 2 Action requiring no further review pursuant to the requirements of SEQRA; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant is directed to comply with Section 250-40 of the Village Code regarding notification. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Morlino, the resolution was approved and Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR. ACCURSO YES MR. GRZAN YES MR. MORLINO YES MR. RICHMAN YES MRS. SCHOEN YES MR. TARTAGLIA YES CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES Chairman Goodman asked the Board to give thought regarding the minutes and applications and how to streamline things. The level of detail currently in the minutes is high and he would like to see it streamlined. Mrs. Schoen added that minutes should be what was done and not what was said. Mr. Tartaglia believes that if the applicant feels like they need stenographic minutes, they are welcome to do provide that for themselves. Chairman Goodman will add this to next month's agenda for discussion. Mr. Grzan made a motion to adjourn and on a second made by Mrs. Schoen, the meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m. by unanimous voice vote. 23