HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-26 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes APPROVED:9/5/16
VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK
PLANNING BOARD
VILLAGE HALL,938 KING STREET
Thursday,May 26,2016-7:30 p.m.
MINUTES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1. Review of an FAH Rezoning Petition, and Subdivision and Lot I Site Plan
Applications for construction of two multi-family affordable dwellings on
proposed Lot I (BOT Referral),and Site Plan Applications for proposed Lots
2 and 3 to be improved with one market rate single family dwelling on each
lot, and Wetlands and Steep Slopes Permit Applications, for the property
located at 259 North Ridge Street,Rye Brook,NY,Parcel I.D. 135.35-1-11
PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS
PRESENT
BOARD Dominick Accurso,Jr.
John Grzan
Sal Morlino
Jeffrey Richman
Amy Schoen
Chairman Rob Goodman
EXCUSED Daniel Tartaglia
STAFF Mrs.Jennifer Gray,Village Counsel
Mrs.Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed,Village Planning Consultant
Mr.Mike Nowak,Jr.,Village Engineer/Superintendent of DPW
Ms.Shari Melillo,Planning Board Secretary
1
Chairman Goodman asked everyone to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance, introduced
the Planning Board and staff and explained the rules of procedure for the meeting.
Chairman Goodman called for the first item on the agenda.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Review of an FAH Rezoning Petition, and Subdivision and Lot 1 Site Plan
Applications for construction of two multi-family affordable dwellings on
proposed Lot 1 (BOT Referral), and Site Plan Applications for proposed Lots 2
and 3 to be improved with one market rate single family dwelling on each lot,and
Wetlands and Steep Slopes Permit Applications, for the property located at 259
North Ridge Street Rye Brook,NY,Parcel I.D.135.35-1-11
The Chairman summarized the purpose of the meeting,which was to get an update on the
status of the application.Although,the meeting was not a public hearing,the Chairman
allowed the public to speak.
Mr.Clark Neuringer addressed the Board for the applicant,noting that several meetings
with consultants and Village staff were held,during which issues of concern were
discussed and the applicant received clarifications and asked questions that allowed the
development of responses to issues raised at the meeting.
The proposed site plan for Lot 1 has the two largest buildings, each containing 4
residential units,which the applicant believes are in scale with the existing single-family
homes along North Ridge Street. Visually,from North Street,the new homes will be less
visible than other homes because they sit at a lower elevation than North Ridge Street.To
address the steep grade of the property, multiple layers of terraced walls with landscape
plantings are proposed behind the new buildings.
Although certain waivers from the Board of Trustees regarding the requirements of the
R-15 District related to setbacks and density are necessary,no variances would be
required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
They have developed a storm water management plan working with Mr.Dolph Rotfeld's
office,and they are very close to finalizing the plan.
Mrs.Schoen was concerned about the location of the Lot 1 access driveway on North
Ridge Street.She pointed out that the road curves in the area and she does not believe a a
car would have sufficient sight distance for the safety of drivers exiting or entering the
new development.
Mrs.Timpone-Mohamed advised the Board that she reviewed all the information
received from the applicant with regard to the sight distance issue along Ridge Street.
The traffic engineers at FPCA reviewed information provided by the applicant and new
information they gathered related to the existing volume of traffic on the road,and the
speed of the traffic.She explained that the amount of sight distance needed is related to
2
the elevations and alignment of the road,traffic volume,the speed of traffic,and the
volume of traffic entering and exiting the access drive. After reviewing all the
information and doing their own analysis,the traffic engineers believe that the current
location of the access drive for Lot 1 cannot provide sight distance adequate for safety. It
may be necessary to reconsider the subdivision and site plans to resolve the issue.
Mrs.Mohamed went on to say there are certain areas of potential impacts that have been
resolved by the information and analyses provided by the applicant, such as flooding,
wetlands,water resources,and the impacts to area schools. Other areas of concern that
are not resolved are the proposed flood lights for night lighting,and impacts from
construction.She recommended residential-style lamp posts with shielded light sources
for night lighting,and the provision of a draft construction management and logistics plan
to deal with construction impacts.
Mr.Nowak addressed Dolph Rotfeld's memorandum regarding the proposed storm water
management plan.He noted that the plan proposed is complex because of the size and
configuration of the lot and its drainage patterns.There also are the constraints of
NYSDEC requirements.The preliminary stormwater management plan shows that,in
theory,stormwater run-off quantity and quality would be addressed.However,a
completed stormwater management plan is necessary to verify if the plan would provide
quantity and quality management on the site.
Mr.Accurso believes the new buildings are not in keeping with the neighborhood.He
also asked about the parking capacity,to which Mr.Larizza responded there would be 24
parking spaces.
Mr.Grzan believes the big issue to be the safety of the driveway,and he inquired about
the rear entry into the units at the basement level.
There was a brief recess,after which comments from the public were heard.
Public Comments:
Steve Grossman.251 North Ridge Street,voiced concerns regarding the speed of traffic
on North Ridge Street and the existing unsafe roadway conditions in the area.He believes
the application should not go any further.
Michele Fredman, 11 Eagles Bluff,noted that there are 18 households from the area in
attendance,and there are many others who couldn't make it.She asked the Board to think
very hard about the planning aspects of the project. Though Rye Brook may be under
pressure to build affordable housing,she urged the Board to review the planning issues
and considerations seek resolution of identified impacts. She is very concerned about
flooding because the property gets inundated with water when it rains.She urged the
Board and the applicant to follow good planning practices.Personally interested in the
terraced walls and the screen plantings to be installed on the terraces,she urged inclusion
of maintenance of the screen plantings and the greenspace in the plan,which will require
access to the terraces.The parking lots and the lighting will impact the adjacent homes
3
whose back yards face the property.There is a lot of rock on the property that may
require blasting,which should be reviewed. She also talked about fire protection,and the
safety of any fill to be placed on the site.
Steven Effler,274 North Ridge Street,was concerned about waivers that may be granted,
and that the affordable housing would not be within walking distance to transportation,
schools,and shopping.
Rob Lewis,Hillandale Road-former resident on Eagles Blufi stated that storm water is
a huge issue for the area.He is concerned about the impacts on the adjacent residences
downhill from the project.Looking towards the project from below magnifies the height
of the buildings and walls which is a visual impact on the surrounding area.
Anthony Zaino,the Landscape Architect for the applicant advised the Board that 77 trees
would be removed from the site during construction and that the Village Code requires
replacement plantings which the landscape plan would provide.
Dave Brady,9 Eagles Blufi feels the real problem is the traffic on Ridge Street which is
the major artery through the Village.
Mr.Chin,257 North Ridge Street,wanted to point out that most affordable housing in
Westchester is located within walking distance to transportation,which is not the case for
this project.
Chairman Goodman stated that there are issues and considerations that need to be
addressed by the applicant,so the application is adjourned to the July 14,2016 meeting.
There being no further business,on a motion made by Mrs.Schoen and seconded by Mr.
Morlino,the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pm by unanimous voice vote.
4