Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-14 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes APPROVED:5/I2/I6 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE HALL,938 KING STREET Thursday,April 14,2016-7:30 p.m. MINUTES 1. Review of minutes—November 2015,January 2016 and March 2016 Minutes AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2. Review of a FAH Rezoning Petition,Subdivision and Lot I 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 the property located at 259 North Ridge Street Rye Brook NY Parcel I.D. 135.35-1-11 Applicant requests an Adjournment PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Review of a Site Plan and Wetland Permit Application by 3 Edgewood Drive LLC, to tear down and construct a single-family dwelling for the property located at 3 Edgewood Drive, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.36-1-31 AMplicant requests an Adjournment 4. Review of a Site Plan Application by John Scarlato Jr AIA on behalf of Mr.and Mrs. Yellon for multiple additions to the existing structure for the property located at 6 Paddock Rd, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.34-1-22 5. Review of a Site Plan and Wetland Permit Application by John Defeo(Studer Design)on behalf of Mr.and Mrs Solomon for an in-ground swimming pool and patio with associated improvements for the property located at 54 Lincoln Ave,Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.49-1-5 6. Review of an Amended Site Plan Application and Subdivision Application by Rye Ridge Park, LLC(Jonathan Kallman)to construct parkland and parking for the property located at Bowman Ave,Rye Brook NY,Parcel I.D. 141.26-1-1.1 7. Review of an Amended Site Plan Application by Hilton Westchester to construct a tent structure for the property located at 699 Westchester Ave,Rye Brook NY,Parcel I.D. 135.74-1-8 LOCAL LAW CONSIDERATION 8. Review of a referral from the Board of Trustees regarding proposed legislation amending the Zoning Code regarding Home Occupations 9. Review of a referral from the Board of Trustees regarding proposed legislation amending the Zoning Code regarding fences,landscaped walls and retaining walls ACTION ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS NEXT MEETING MAY 12,2016 PRESENT BOARD Dominick Accurso,Jr. John Grzan Sal Morlino Jeffrey Richman Amy Schoen Dan Tartaglia Chairman Rob Goodman STAFF Mrs.Jennifer Gray,Village Counsel Mrs.Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed,Village Planning Consultant Mr.Mike Nowak,Jr.,Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works Ms. Shari Melillo,Planning Board Secretary 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. MINUTES 1. Review of minutes—November 2015,January 2016 and March 2016 Minutes There being no comments or questions,Chairman Goodman called for a motion to accept the minutes and on a motion made by Mrs.Schoen and seconded by Mr.Accurso,the minutes were 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 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2. 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 Page 2 dwelling on each lot,and Wetland and Steep Slopes Permit Applications,for the property located at 259 North Ridge Street Rye Brook NY Parcel I.D. 135.35-1-11 Applicant requests an Adjournment The applicant has been working with staff and consultants and is hoping to be on the btay Planning Board Agenda. CONTINUED BUSINESS 3. Review of a Site Plan and Wetland Permit Application by 3 Edgewood Drive LLC, to tear down and construct a single-family dwelling for the property located at 3 Edgewood Drive, Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.36-1-31 Applicant requests an Adjournment Currently,there is no update on this application but staff will attempt to find out the status before the next Planning Board meeting. 4. Review of a Site Plan Application by John Scarlato Jr AIA on behalf of Mr.and Mrs. Yellon for multiple additions to the existing structure for the property located at 6 Paddock Rd, Rye Brook NY,Parcel I.D. 135.34-1-22 Mr.John Scarlato,Engineer for the applicant,addressed the Board and gave a brief overview of the proposed application.Basically the owners are adding a second story to an existing 3 bedroom ranch style house with no basement. The footprint of the house is not changing and the style of the new home stays consistent with the neighborhood.Mr.Scarlato explained there are zoning issues that need to be addressed mainly with the garage which has an open building permit from 1955 and a deck that was never legalized. There are height set back issues and the garage will require a side yard setback as well. Mrs.Timpone Mohammed,Village Planning Consultant addressed the Board.She believes Mr. Scarlato has explained the issues with the application very well and has also done a very nice job with the plan itself.There are some minor issues remaining such as providing a tree preservation and protection plan for the site.The applicant has requested a waiver of the landscape plan and in her opinion,as there is no excavation or removal of fill,there really is no need for a landscape plan and recommends that the board waive the requirement.The current house was built in an era when zoning was changing but the plan provided is one that ties together this house and really doesn't increase,other than on second floor,the footprint of the building.The 360 sf not adding a tremendous amount of square footage to the home and not increasing the impervious surface either. Mr.Grzan does not agree that variances are minor and believes the size of the house is too big for the lot. Mr.Accurso believes the roof is different than the existing and increases the impervious surface.Mr. Scarlato disagrees but advises that they are capturing the runoff and have provided a storm water management plan. Mrs.Timpone Mohammed read the resolution setting the Public Hearing. Page 3 On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr.Grzan,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 Mrs.Jennifer Gray read the resolution referring the applicant to the Zoning Board. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr.Richman,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 5. Review of a Site Plan and Wetland Permit Application by John Defeo(Studer Design)on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Solomon for an in-ground swimming pool and patio with associated improvements for the property located at 54 Lincoln Ave,Rye Brook NY, Parcel I.D. 135.49-1-5 John Defeo, Landscape Architect addressed the Board on behalf of the Solomon's and gave an overview of the application. The house is located on Lincoln Avenue and currently there is an existing pool and patio. The proposal is to remove the pool and patio and replace them with a new gunite pool and a new patio with some additional small structures. There is a brook running through the property so they also require a wetlands permit. Mr.DeFeo discussed the memo he received from FP Clarke which requested a topographic survey and he requested that they only do the topo for the area around the pool. The wetland delineation—they were hoping to get through with the older one that they have—but they have requested a new one anyway. They have been in contact with the DPW of Westchester County as advised and will move the fence outside the channel lines as requested.Erosion control plan they are containing the site disturbance with silt fence and hay bales but he has concerns about the silt fence. Mrs. Timpone Mohammed, Village Planning Consultant responded that the comment regarding the silt fence was when the fence was in the channel—with moving the fence out of the channel—the silt control would no longer be required. As for mitigation, it does not necessarily mean planting — it could be cleaning debris out of the stream channel or removing invasive species which would count as mitigation against the loss of buffer. Page 4 Chairman Goodman asked about grading and how involved it is. Mr.Defeo responded that the grading is very slight as they are keeping the pool at the same elevation as it is now. He showed the Board on the plans where the grading will take place which ultimately would be about a foot difference. Mr. Tartaglia asked if the Board could do a site visit before the Public Hearing takes place to which the applicant responded yes...any time that was convenient for the Board. Mrs.Timpone Mohammed read the resolution setting the public hearing. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr. Richman,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 6. Review of an Amended Site Plan Application and Subdivision Application by Rye Ridge Park, LLC(Jonathan Kallman)to construct parkland and parking for the property located at Bowman Ave,Rye Brook NY,Parcel I.D. 141.26-1-1.1 Chairman Goodman advised that there should have been a sign posted regarding tonight's meeting but it was not and that would require the Board voting to issue a waiver on the sign.Chairman Goodman asked for the consensus of the Board. Mr.Tartaglia has an objection and is frustrated with this application and believes that the applicant has created a bad situation and to start this process without doing the proper notice when it is across from a school with hundreds of children sets a bad precedent in his opinion. Mrs. Schoen believes this is very clear in the code and more attention needs to be paid to detail as this is not the first time this applicant has come before this Board. Chairman Goodman believes this is a significant project for the Village but paying attention to the Board rules and the signage requirements needs to be adhered to especially since members of the public are probably going to be interested in this project. Mr.Silverman apologized for the oversight as he did not realize the mandatory sign was not put up as required.He added that this is an attempt to solve a problem—his client has stepped in and wants to do this project which includes enhancing the area and providing a public park for the community.He also advised the Board that Mr.Konigsberg has set a stipulation that the project be completed by July 30t`or the deal is off. Mrs. Schoen made a motion to waive the signage requirement and on a second by Mr.Richman,Mr. Nowak called the roll: MR.ACCURSO NO Page 5 MR.GRZAN YES MR.MORLINO YES MR.RICHMAN YES MRS.SCHOEN YES MR.TARTAGLIA NO CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES Motion passed—5-2 Mr.Silverman explained that this is an attempt to complete a park proposal that was offered by Mr. Konigsberg.It is complicated because of the subdivision proposal as this property is non-conforming for parking.There is no proposal to expand the shopping center but just a way to relieve and provide additional parking.The park itself is a nicer plan than originally proposed but there is a very short time frame on this.They will require wetlands and steep slopes permit and referral back to the Board of Trustees for site plan and also zoning variances are required. Mr.Ryan addressed the Board and gave an overview of the proposed project.He confirmed that the project will require several actions on behalf of the Board of Trustees as the strip portion was under separate approval.This plan will require a subdivision to separate the park from the parking spaces.It will also require 4 zoning variances which are frontage of the property—horizontal circle—allowable area underwater and this property is located in the Scenic Roads Overlay District.They will also require a variance for the additional parking space.The parking is for both the shopping center and the park usage. Mr.Ryan added that there are a number of elements K&M was responsible for and they are looking to take those over and enhance them.Water quality—a porous pavement—storm water pollution prevention plan—a dog park—a walking path—enhanced planting and restoration of the water's edge are all included in the plan. Mr.Tartaglia—all this was going to be part of a park which was originally 2.12 acres but is now 1.62 acres-.46 will be a parking lot and not to mention that 86%of the lot is under water. Mr.Silverberg understands the Boards frustration but explained that Mr.Konigsberg is pushing this with a short time frame because his Certificates of Occupancy for the units are being held up.We are trying to fix the problem and provide something good for the Village and his client as well. Mrs.Timpone Mohammed added that there are a few issues that need to be addressed such as a topographic survey,a preliminary subdivision plat and a tree preservation and protection plan for whatever trees will remain at the edges in the park which may now be possibly compromised.She is also concerned that this park does not become a maintenance headache for the Village.The design and detail take into account that this will be an area that in severe storm events may flood including the parking lot. The Village may want to have features in the park that are easily cleaned after a storm or easily replaceable.The applicant will also require a wetlands permit as Mr.Konigsberg's from his previous application has expired.In addition,the applicant needs to provide a calculation of new impervious surface on the strip and the type of mitigation proposed for that.Visual impacts are a concern as well with the expanded parking area proposed.Care should be taken in regard to lighting that it not be a commercial type as it is in the rest of the shopping center as there are homes close by to take into consideration. Chairman Goodman asked the applicant to comment on the steep slopes. Page 6 Mr.Ryan responded that there are steep slopes along the water's edge and will remain untouched except for stabilization.They are creating some steep slopes between the parking area and the lower level and it will be a vegetated slope as well as in the upland area created to enhance the landscaping. Mrs.Timpone Mohamed added that the County also wants the applicant to get a stream permit for the work they are doing which should be done after they receive approval from the Village. Mr.Accurso stated to the applicant that they have always maintained there are no problems with parking for the shopping center but yet here you are petitioning us for 54 more spaces.He suggests that instead of adding two spaces as proposed—eliminate 3 and have a green buffer and lose the need for the variance. He asked if the 54 spaces will give them the opportunity in the future to add more space to the shopping center. Mr.Silverman responded that they are not sure because of the FAR if any more space could be added to the shopping center.—we have demonstrated over the years that there is adequate parking for the usage and the additional parking allows things to move more freely around the parking lot. There is no intention at this time to add to the shopping center. Mrs.Timpone Mohammed read the resolution setting the Public Hearing. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr.Richman,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 5. Review of an Amended Site Plan Application by Hilton Westchester to construct a tent structure for the property located at 699 Westchester Ave,Rye BrookNY,Parcel I.D. 135.74-1-8 Mr. Steve Rabil,Attorney for the Hilton addressed the Board and gave an overview of the project which requests a temporary tent of 8200 square feet be erected and placed over impervious parking area. The tent would be in use lam to I Ipm and they are proposing to make up for lost parking spaces from a deal made with 800 Westchester Avenue. The tent would be a temporary structure with six months being the maximum length of time and would maybe be put back up next summer. Mr. Kai Fisher, General Manager of The Hilton added that this will be for feeding breakfast, lunch and dinner Monday thru Friday from September thru June. This basically is to service one client who has rented out 350 guest room and all the meeting space in the hotel for that length of time. The client is a large accounting firm that uses the space for training purposes.There are no night time activities—when dinner ends the use is done for the day. If we are not allowed to do this—the client would have to go to Stamford and the Hilton would lose the revenue. Mrs. Timpone Mohammed advised the applicant the while their correspondence talks about landscaping, it doesn't show up anywhere. They need to revise the site plan to show what type of planting they are proposing for that area.As for potential impacts, her concerned was the parking but they have indicated that this is not above the operation of the hotel—that in fact the whole hotel is being occupied by this one Page 7 particular group. She would like the applicant to provide more particulars about the operation of the tent for instance,the air conditioning,how will the food be prepared,will there be additional trucks coming to the site with generators and are there any impacts that might impact the neighboring properties The tent has a transparent roof—at night that would change the types of impacts the type of lighting a fabric tent would cause. Mr. Goodman told the residents present that they could come to the Public Hearing and vent their concerns and also to send written communication to this Board. He assured them they will be part of the process. Mrs. Timpone Mohamed continued she is also concerned about noise from possibly any equipment in or around the tent or activities within tent. The applicant should provide if music will be played and should assess the noise levels of any equipment and activities within the tent.As for the Scenic Roads Overlay District—the location of the tent being so far from Westchester Avenue as it is means it will not be seen from Westchester Avenue where it is proposed. Chairman Goodman noted that the distance from the tent to the homes is over 100 feet. Mr. Grzan added that parking and noise are his concerns and wants to make sure they will be addressed and the necessary information provided. Mrs.Timpone Mohammed read the resolution setting the Public Hearing. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and Mr.Richman,the resolution was approved and Mr.Nowak called the roll: MR.ACCURSO YES MR.GRZAN NO MR.MORLINO YES MR.RICHMAN YES MRS.SCHOEN YES MR.TARTAGLIA NO CHAIRMAN GOODMAN YES LOCAL LAW CONSIDERATION 6. Review of a referral from the Board of Trustees regarding proposed legislation amending the Zoning Code regarding Home Occupations Mrs.Gray explained what the proposed amendment would be noting this discussion came from the Building Department regarding enforcement matters. Someone who lives at a home temporarily could be operating a business and it makes it more difficult to enforce.This means the owner could be the object of the enforcement matter.The owner has to be a resident and currently it means you just have to live there but it doesn't explain what it means to"live"there. Amy feels that if you are having a home occupation you need to live in the home full time.The change in wording would assist the Village if a matter had to go to court.To have a home occupation you have to be the owner of record. Page 8 The change in wording makes it a little more stringent. David Heiser,Village Trustee asked for a home residence he assumed the owner had to be actually working in this home occupation—he assumed that the owner would actually be working there. That's what it was intended but it is not what is happening.People getting the permits should be living and working in their home. Adjourned to next meeting for further discussion 7. Review of a referral from the Board of Trustees regarding proposed legislation amending the Zoning Code regarding fences,landscaped walls and retaining walls Currently the section of code for this subject is only related to residential areas which eliminates the bifurcated regulation.It does contain specifics with respect to residential districts such as no barbed wire and no electric fences except for invisible pet fences....those things however are allowed in commercial applications.If you wanted those things at your home however,you could request a variance. Mr.Grzan suggested separating commercial from residential. Mrs.Gray suggested the Board identify which provisions in this section of code they have concerns with applying to commercial properties and have it ready for next month's meeting. Adjourned to next meeting for further discussion. On a motion made by Mrs. Schoen and seconded by Mr.Richman,the meeting was adjourned by unanimous voice vote at 10:09pm. Page 9