Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBP24-114 a s = lu CA ca o cz z W a O = ov u LO lr fs. ° Z 'v ° O 0.4 o v x = (n O Zrow M 0.4 a � H r J G O , W W (Sr z Q � HA _ a s W °�° c0 C) o cn (� N 1 • o C) 0 % �o � , N v I to rn T F goci o v pq R+ = c_nIAO a U o a v .5 x = O Z W Z p V o O a� � vsO � x zcol Z o w y C7 A z p 04 V) o _ : Z = J J Z W C7 4 pd -p o � 5a A z O x � Z .. o w w � � a � u L < Z I a a W x° Job o BUILDING TMENT D [E C IEW E VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 KING STREET RYE BRooK,NY 10573 MAY 17 2021 (914)939-0668 FAX(914)939-5801 mM.[yehrook.org VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: J Approval Date: MAY U 24 # // Application# Approval Signature: `� ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: Disapproved: Date 4 C T 2 U 2021 BOT Approval Date: Case# Chairman: PB Approval Date: Case# Secretary: ZBA Approval Date: Case# Other: -In -errC 1 - Z Z S. Application Fee: Permit Fees: EXTERIOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Application dated: 5//J oZ is hereby made to the Building Inspector of the Village of Rye Brook,NY,for the issuance of a Permit for the construction of buildings,structures,additions,alterations or for a change in use,as per detailed fst/atement described below. 1. JobAddress: � � � d)►'Ut `^!'C'Le 2. Parcel Il)#: 3 — Zone: 1) 3. Proposed Improvement(Describe in detail): Fx �! t /5�raj (t +�) yAt,�a -�p ✓t (Gl � ��� �/`�' I!1$�/! �7CT�1 d� 19<�S � �l! L�ifn l✓t f..J 4. Property Owner: 1�{ f o /Jltl/ 4' pp_— ` Address: , N o t C` Eli' 4 e ,m t 1A Phone# Cell# 5 7!!D 9� a e-mail 5_Vt3)j4!(.<K (_0 List All Other Properties Owned in Ryrj Brook: Applicant: Sc`7N S�0'J'ilG°K Address: 5041C ti'S• 0&0'1� Phone# Cell# e-mail Architect: Address: Phone# Cell# e-mail Engineer: et 'Per Address: 4�✓e t SU+ I-e zlim Phone# / /��f�— ��� Cell# e-mail�Cni c U�t i't1Y S General Contractor: a `y�� ,7 e Address: /IKk/1S 2�LlP � C'�1PS /ar 1 Phone# L9f T-#97-,]a 7 T Cell# e-mail (1) 3/21/19 5. Occupancy;(1-Fam.,2-Fam.,CommerciaL,etc...)Pre-construction: Post-construction: 11l L-c C1 !6. Area of lot: Square feet: Z 1�( Acres: b- }s 7. Dimensions from proposed building or structure to lot lines: front yard: *A rear yard: right side yard: left side yard: other: 8. If building is located on a comer lot,which street does it front on: 9. Area of proposed building in square feet: Basement: 1"`fl: 2°d fl: 3Gd fl: 10. Total Square Footage of the proposed new construction: 11. For additions,total square footage added:Basement: 1'fl: 2nd fl: 3'd fl: 12. Total Square Footage of the proposed renovation to the existing structure: 13. N.Y.State Construction Classification: N.Y.State Use Classification: 14, Number of stories: Overall Height: Median Height: 15. Basement to be full,or partial: finished or unfinished: 16. What material is the exterior finish: 17. Roof style;peaked,hip,mansard,shed,etc: Roofing material: 18. What system of heating: 19. If private sewage disposal is necessary,approval by the Westchester County Health Department must be submitted with this application. 20. Will the proposed project require the installation of a new,or an extension/modification to an existing automatic fire suppression system?(Fire Sprinkler,ANSL System,FM-200 System,Type I Hood,etc...) Yes: No: (lfyes,applicant must submit a separate Automatic Fire Suppression System Permit application&2 sets of detailed engineered plans) 21. Will the proposed project disturb 400 sq.ft.or more of land,or create 400 sq.ft.or more of impervious coverage rNumng Stormwater Management Control Permit as per§217 of Village Code? Yes: Y No: Area: /(/O S 22. Will the proposed project require a Site Plan Review by the Village Planning Board as per§209 of Village Code? Yes: No: (if yes,applicant must submit a Site Plan Application,&provide detailed drawings) 23. Will the proposed project require a Steep Slopes Permit as per§213 of Village Code Yes: 7C No: (cf yes,you must submit a Site Plan Application,&provide a detailed topographical survey) 24. Is the lot located within 100 ft.of a Wetland as per§245 of Village Code? Yes: No: ((yes,the area ofwetland and the wetland buffer zone must be properly depicted on the survey&site plan) 25. Is the lot or any portion thereof located in a Flood Plane as per the FIRM Map dated 9/28/07? Yes: No: (ifyes,the area and elevations of the flood plane must be properly depicted on the survey&site plan) 2& Will the proposed project require a Tree Removal Permit as per§235 of Village Code? Yes: No: _ (rf yes,applicant must submit a Tree Removal Permit Application) 27. Does the proposed project involve a Home-Occupation as per§250-38 of Village Code? Yes: No: Indicate: TIER I: TIER II: TIER III: (fyes,a,Hrome Occupation Permit Application is required) 28. List all zoning variances granted or denied for the subject property: (�`OM f 29. What is the total estimated cost of construction: S / 0 d o Note:The estimated cost shall include all site improvements,labor,material,scaffolding,fixed equipment,professional fees,including any material and labor which may be donated gratis.If the final cost exceeds the estim red cost,an additional fee wi//be required prior to issuance of the CIO. 30. Estimated date of completion: 1 ; 1 (2) 3/21/19 BUILCETRYE TMENT © t� C E Q VIL BROOK 938 Ki NGOOK,NY 10573MQ� 17 2Q21 (914)9Ig 39-5801 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE VILLAGE CODE §216 • STORM SEWERS AND SANITARY SEWERS THIS AFFIDAVIT MUST BEAR THE NOTARIZED SIGNATURE OF THE LEGAL PROPERTY OWNER AND BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH ANY BUILDING OR PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION. ANY BUILDING OR PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED WITHOUT THIS COMPLETED AND NOTARIZED FORM WILL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) as: 31, Seth Slomiak , residing at, 9 High Point Circle,Rye Brook,NY 10573 (Print name) being duly sworn, deposes and states that(s)he is the applicant above named, and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this Affidavit of Compliance pertains at; 9 High Point Circle,Rye Brook,NY 10573 , Rye Brook, NY. (,lob Address) Further that all statements contained herein are true, and that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, that there are no known illegal cross-connections concerning either the storm sewer or sanitary sewer, and further that there are no roof drains, sump pumps, or other prohibited stormwater or groundwater connections or sources of Mow or infiltration of any kind into the sanitary sewer from the subject property in accordance with all State, County and Village Codes. 1natnre of Property ne ) Seth Slomiak (Print Name of Property Owner(;)) Sworn to before me this I q ilk day of , 20 "� ) (Notary 11 DAWD c I OVINE Nc -ru �'11'-,r . - of J Y 1, No.01 ,(J4.,_ C1n�Iifi��, ir7 !�-w Yor4 . "c y Commission E>pires 03/23/2w ( ) 3/21/19 This application must be properly completed in its entirety by a N.Y. State Registered Architect or N.Y. State Licensed Professional Engineer & signed by those professionals where indicated. It must also include the notarized signature(s) of the legal owner(s) of the subject property, and the applicant of record in the spaces provided. Any application not properly completed in its entirety and/or not properly signed shall be deemed null and void, and will be returned to the applicant. Please note that application fees are non-refundable. STATE.OF NEW YORK,COUNTY OF WES HESTER ) as: `�j I qA',d1Aft duly sworn, deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, (print name of individual signing as the applicant) and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the ©v1J VL-a-y— for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attorney,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief, and that any work performed, or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications, as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention&Building Code, the Code of the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. By signing this application, the property owner further declares that he/she has inspected the subject property, and that to the best of his/her knowledge there are no roof drains, sump pumps or other prohibited stormwater or groundwater connections or sour es of infiltration into the sanitary sewer system on or from the subject property. Sworn to before me this I 4 Sworn to befor me this /7 day of 0 day of , 20 Siqm6urc of Property er Signaturd f Applicant Seth Slomiak Jeffrey M. Gaspar,P.E. Print NaMnic of Pro a Owner Print Name of Applicant Notary ubltc Notary Public DAVID E. LEVINE Notary 7+tblic. Sate of New York No.02LE6004399 oitAlifi?d to New York County Commission Expires 03/23/2w (4) 3/21/19 RECEIVED December 14,2023 Approved 4-0 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION , APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE STEEP SLOPES PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE WHEREAS, property owners Seth & Elinor Slomiak submitted a request on dated November 19, 2023 to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board for an extension of the Steep Slopes Permit Approval issued by the Planning Board on October 14, 2021, in connection with the proposed regrading of the rear yard, extension of the rear retaining wall and other associated improvements on property located at 9 High Point Circle in the PUD Zoning District, Section 124.73, Block 1, Lot 25 as shown on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map (the "Property"); and WHEREAS,the Steep Slopes Permit was valid for a period of one year from October 14, 2021 to October 14, 2022; and WHEREAS, Village Code § 213-12.1)(1) authorizes the approval authority to issue extensions of previously granted Steep Slopes Permits; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Village Code § 213-12.D(1),where no work has commenced pursuant to the permit, the Planning Board may grant up to two ninety-day extensions and at the expiration of the second ninety-day extension the Planning Board may, in its discretion, find the permit to be null and void; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Village Code § 213-12.D(3) a request for an extension shall be made in writing to the Village Engineer at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, however, the time period for requesting an extension may be waived for good cause shown; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the particular circumstances involved and discussed the status of construction at its May 11, 2023 meeting and, pursuant to Resolution, authorized an additional extension of the Steep Slopes Permit effective through December 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Applicant renewed its request and the Planning Board reviewed the particular circumstances involved and discussed the status of construction at its December 14, 2023 meeting, however the Village Planning Board reiterated the requirement of submissions to be made to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works and the Village Planning Consultant as originally set forth in the approval resolution of October 14, 2021; and December 14,2023,Approved WHEREAS,if further extensions are to be approved in the discretion of the Planning Board, such extensions may consider the Applicant's compliance with comments and recommendations raised in the memorandum of James Natarelli, P.E., of Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, dated December 5, 2023,including but not limited to the following: a. Lower wall: i. Wall height is inconsistent with the design drawings and software output. ii. Retained soil weight calculation (Area No. 2) is inconsistent with the stated mass for retained soil. iii. Area No. 3 indicates an 11-ft height, however, 10 feet is used in subsequent "Ph" calculation. iv. Resisting moment for Area No. 2 indicates 3.5' moment arm. Based on 6-ft width on diagram, the moment arm should be 3'. b. Upper wall: i. Wall height is inconsistent with the design drawings and software output. ii. Area No. 1 appears to assume a 4-ft wall height (based on 150 psf weight) which is inconsistent with design drawings and software output. C. The number of geogrid layers for the new upper wall compared the software output must be revised to correlate. d. Computer generated calculations for surcharge pressure loading of upper wall to be submitted. e. Clarify Discrepancy regarding the use of a perforated drain and or weep holes. Details and actual designs shall correlate and show one or the other. f Detail regarding geotextile fabric on section C002 to be revised to include appropriate separation fabric and C004 to be updated. Provide material specifications on each detail. g. Lower wall retained soil height is inconsistent with the hand and software models. The maximum height to be utilized. WHEREAS, the request for an extension is a Type II action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and accordingly no further environmental review is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby waives the 30-day time period for requesting an extension for purposes of the pending request for an extension. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook hereby approves additional extensions of the Steep Slopes Permit which shall be applied beginning January 1, 2024, effective through September 30, 2024. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, if a further extension of the Steep Slopes Permit Approval is required, the Applicant shall submit a written request at least thirty (30) days prior to March 31, 2024, at which time the Planning Board will consider such request. December 14,2023 Approved 4-0 On motion by Mr. Grzan, seconded by Ms. Schoen, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer, called the roll: MR. GRZAN Voting Aye MR. KROM Voting Recused MR. MENDELSOHN Voting Absent MR. RETINER Voting Aye MR. RICHMAN Voting Absent MS. SCHOEN Voting Aye CHAIRMAN GOODMAN Voting Aye RECEIVED May 11, 2023 APPROVED 5-0 MAY 12 2023 VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE STEEP SLOPES PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, property owners Seth & Elinor Slomiak submitted a request to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board for an extension of the Steep Slopes Permit Approval issued by the Planning Board on October 14, 2021 in connection with the proposed regrading of the rear yard, extension of the rear retaining wall and other associated improvements on property located at 9 High Point Circle in the PUD Zoning District, Section 124.73, Block 1,Lot 25 as shown on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map (the "Property'; and WHEREAS, the Steep Slopes Permit was valid for a period of one year from October 14, 2021 to October 14, 2022; and WHEREAS, Village Code § 213-12.D(1) authorizes the approval authority to issue extensions of previously granted Steep Slopes Permits; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Village Code § 213-12.D(1),where no work has commenced pursuant to the permit, the Planning Board may grant up to two ninety-day extensions and at the expiration of the second ninety-day extension the Planning Board may, in its discretion, find the permit to be null and void; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Village Code § 213-12.1)(3) a request for an extension shall be made in writing to the Village Engineer at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date, however, the time period for requesting an extension may be waived for good cause shown; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the particular circumstances involved and discussed the status of construction at its May 11, 2023 meeting; and WHEREAS, the request for an extension is a Type II action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and accordingly no further environmental review is required. . r May 11, 2023 APPROVED 5-0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby waives the 30-day time period for requesting an extension for purposes of the pending request for an extension. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook hereby approves two 90-day extensions of the Steep Slopes Permit which shall be applied retroactively beginning October 14, 2022, effective through April 12, 2023. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook hereby approves additional extensions of the Steep Slopes Permit which shall be applied retroactively beginning April 12, 2023, effective through December 31, 2023. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, if a further extension of the Steep Slopes Permit Approval is required, the Applicant shall submit a written request at least thirty (30) days prior to December 31, 2023, at which time the Planning Board will consider such request. On motion by Ms. Schoen, seconded by Mr. Richman, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer, called the roll: MR. GRZAN Voting AYE MR. KROM Voting RECUSED MR. MENDELSOHN Voting AYE MR. RETINER Voting AYE MR. RICHMAN Voting AYE MS. SCHOEN Voting AYE CHAIRMAN GOODMAN Voting EXCUSED • RECEIVED OCT 15 2021 October 14, 2021 APPROVED 5-1 VILLAGE CLERK'S ME RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND STEEP SLOPES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Jeffrey Gaspar, P.E., on behalf of property owners Seth & Elinor Slomiak, as submitted Applications for the approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Permit for the proposed regrading of the rear yard, extension of the rear retaining wall and other associated improvements on property located at 9 High Point Circle in the PUD Zoning District, Section 124.73, Block 1, Lot 25 as shown on the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's Map (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the Approval Authority for this application pursuant to Section 209-1.A(2)(a) and Chapter 213 of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is a Type 2 Action pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requiring no further environmental review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed the following plans and application materials: 1. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated 5/13/21 and EAF Mapper Summary Report dated 5/19/21; 2. Application for Site Plan Approval; 3. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist; 4. Building Permit Check List & Zoning Analysis; 5. Exterior Building Permit Application; 6. Steep Slope Work Permit Application; 7. A letter dated April 6, 2021 from the BelleFair HOA; 8. Renderings of the proposed retaining wall; 9. Memorandum prepared by Veritas Engineering & Inspections dated September 21, 2021; 10. Tensar Software Output for "Existing Wall including surcharge of new wall 5'behind" prepared by Veritas Engineering& Inspections, dated September 8, 2021; 11. Tensar Software Output for "Proposed new upper wall set 5' behind lower wall" prepared by Veritas & Inspections, dated September 8, 2021; 12. The following engineering plans generally entitled, "Plans Prepared for 9 High Point Circle" prepared Veritas Engineering& Inspections: a. Sheet T001, "Title Sheet & Existing Plan," last revised 6/23/21; b. Sheet C001, "Proposed Site Plan," last revised 9/21/21; c. Sheet C002, "Elevations & Sections," last revised 9/20/21; d. Sheet C003, "Erosion Control Notes," last revised 9/21/21; e. Sheet C004, "Notes," dated 10/5/20; and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing was opened by the Planning Board on July 8, 2021 and the public hearing was continued to August 12, 2021, September 9, 2021 and October 14, 2021, at which time all those wishing to be heard on the Application were given such opportunity, and the public hearing was closed on October 14, 2021; and WHEREAS, due to public health and safety concerns related to the current COVID- 19 pandemic, the June 10, 2021 meeting of the Planning Board at which this application was heard, was duly noticed and held via videoconference in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code of the Village of Rye Brook and the Governor's Executive Orders which suspend the "in-person"requirements of the NYS Open Meetings Law and provide alternative means by which to conduct public meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board considered the Steep Slopes Work Permit standards set forth at Village Code § 213-6 concerning the disturbance of steep slopes on the Property which will involve the disturbance of 900 square feet of steep slopes on the Property for the regrading of the rear yard and extension of the rear retaining wall; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board, Village Planning Consultant, Village Engineering Consultant and Village staff have reviewed all application materials, including public comments; and WHEREAS, members of the Planning Board attended site visits on July 6, 2021,July 20, 2021 and July 22, 2021; and WHEREAS,the Planning Board is fully familiar with the application and the property. NOW THEREFORE BE, IT RESOLVED, that for the reasons stated herein, the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board hereby approves the Site Plan and Steep Slopes Work Permit to regrade the rear yard, extend the rear retaining wall and perform other associated improvements within an area of steep slopes on the Property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Board hereby waives that requirement for the submission of a Construction Management Plan pursuant to Village Code §209-2.B. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be revised to: a. Note the size of the proposed boxwoods at the time of planting with such size being to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works and the Village Planning Consultant. b. Note the species, size and location of flowering plants to be interspersed with the proposed boxwoods to supplement the screening of the proposed retaining wall to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer/Superintendent of Public Works and the Village Planning Consultant. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the weight of the imported retaining wall backfill specified in the retaining wall calculations shall be shown on the plans. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed review of the retaining wall calculations must be performed as the provided Tensar software output for the existing and proposed retaining walls is not sufficient. The design calculations to be performed by the Applicant's professional consultant shall be reviewed and approved by the Village Consultanting Engineer and shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Signature and seal of a licensed NYS professional engineer. b. Analysis of existing lower retaining walls with respect to their capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill.Analysis must include explanation of assumptions used to model surcharge. c. Subgrade bearing capacity requirements. Analysis must include the subgrade bearing capacity used in the calculations. d. Evaluation of the proposed footing depths of the retaining walls with respect to typical frost depth in this region. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, all comments from the Village's Consulting Engineer shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Village Consulting Engineer. 6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion, the completed wall installation shall be certified by a licensed NYS professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and shall include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: subgrade bearing capacity, backfill gradation, and compaction. Such certification and test results shall be to the satisfaction of the Village Consulting Engineer. 7. All existing and separating retaining wall blocks shall be inspected and repaired as needed and the areas of walls to be repaired shall be shown on the plans with the proposed scope of work to the satisfaction of the Village Engineering Consultant. 8. At no time shall drainage discharge directly onto adjacent properties from the wall drains. 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 motion by Ms. Schoen, seconded by Mr. Tartaglia, Mr. Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer, called the roll: MR. GOTTLIEB Voting AYE MR. GRZAN Voting NO MR. MILLER Voting EXCUSED MR. MORLINO Voting AYE MS. SCHOEN Voting AYE MR. TARTAGLIA Voting AYE CHAIRMAN GOODMAN Voting AYE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Public Notice is hereby given for a Site Plan Application & Steep Slope Permit Application submitted to the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board. The matter is scheduled for a Public Hearing before the Planning Board on July 8, 2021 at 7:30 p.m., at Rye Brook Village Hall, 938 King Street. Owner: Seth Slomiak & Elinor Slomiak Applicant: Jeffrey Gaspar, P.E. Premises: 9 High Point Circle (Parcel ID# 124.73-1-25) Application: Review of a Site Plan Application & Steep Slope Permit Application for the proposed re-grading of the rear yard, extend rear retaining wall, new rear landscape stairs, new fence atop new and existing retaining wall. The July 8, 2021 the Planning Board meeting will be held via videoconferencing and in-person, if permitted by the Governor's Executive Orders. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. Further information on in-person attendance, if permitted, will be available on the Village website. The public can watch the live meeting on Cable TV, online from the Public Meetings link on the Village website (www.ryebrook.org), and through the Zoom App. If any interested members of the public would like to provide comments on an application, comments can be called in during the meeting at +1 (929) 205-6099, Meeting ID: 845 3736 8706 or provided through the written chat section of the Zoom meeting. Comments can also be emailed before and during the public hearing to Michal Nowak, Village Superintendent of Public Works, at mnowak@ryebrook.org. Please check the meeting Agenda posted on the Village website for further instructions to access the virtual meeting and for updated information. Additional information is available at the Rye Brook Engineering Department at (914) 939-0753. RECEIVED JUN 11 2021 June 10, 2021 Approved 6.0 VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SITE PLAN AND STEEP SLOPES PERMIT APPROVAL FOR 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD WHEREAS, Jeffery Gaspar, PE, on behalf of the property owners, Seth & Elinor Slomiak, has submitted Applications for the approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Permit for the proposed regrading of the rear yard, extension of the rear retaining wall and other associated improvements on the property located at 9 High Point Circle, SBL 124.73-1-25 on the Town of Rye Tax Map, in a PUD Zoning District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook will hold a public hearing on July 8, 2021 at 7:30 p.m. via videoconference in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code of the Village of Rye Brook and the Governor's Executive Orders which suspends the "in-person" requirements of the NYS Open Meetings Law and provides alternative means by which to conduct public meetings and hearings, to consider the above- referenced application; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Applicant is hereby directed to comply with Section 250-40 of the Village Code regarding notification of the public hearing. On motion by Mr. Morlino, seconded by Mr. Tartaglia, Mr. Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works, called the roll: MR. GOTTLIEB Voting Excused MR. GRZAN Voting Yes MR. MILLER Voting Yes MR. MORLINO Voting Yes MRS. SCHOEN Voting Yes MR. TARTAGLIA Voting Yes CHAIRMAN GOODMAN Voting Yes Y:ISharedl0fficesWYRlDataCocumentsCOCS215001RyeBrookl9 High Point Circle PHResolution Adopted.docx I �,;, D BUILP!*6 6'ARTMENTECENE VILL( E OF Ryidg4tOOK 938 KING"ET RYE BR6 K,NY 10573 MAY 17 2021 (914)9 t e r 39-5801 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK w BUILDING DEPARTMENT *********************************************************************************************************** FOR OFFICF USF ONLY. r BOT Approval Date: PB Approval Date: L l Z BOT Disapproval Date: PB Disapproval Date: Attach Resolution Hereto: BOT ] PB ] ZBA[ ] Chairman: L C o,p „v�,cLti SITE PLAN FEE: oo DATE PAID: ENVIRONMENTAL FEE: 00 DATE PAID: 6117L,2021 OTHER: *********************************************************************************************************** APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL Submission of this application does not assure placement on any Planning Board Agenda.The Applicant will be notified of such placement. *********************************************************************************************************** This application references but is not limited to the following sections of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook;§250 ZONING,§209 SITE PLAN REVIEW,§235 TREES,§107 DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS,§224 SWIMMING POOLS,§121 EXCAVATION&TOPSOIL REMOVAL, §118 EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL, §213 STEEP SLOPES PROTECTION, §219 SUBDIVISION OF LAND, §250-40 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. Applicants and their Design Professionals are strongly advised to review the above ,od i www.ryebrook.org prior to completing and/or submitting this application. APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE: Residential Dwellings- $325.00,plus$200.00 per additional dwelling unit. Non-Residential Buildings- $475.00,plus $30.00 per parking space. Planned Unit Development-$600.00,per acre PUD Amendment- $300.00 Site Plan Amendment- $575.00 Wetlands&Watercourse- $1,150.00,permit$250.00 Consultant Review(Escrow)Fee: Minimum fee$250.00-maximum fee$2,500.00 to be determined by the Village Engineer. „ I- 1 1 I � . r--:�,r loan_, _ lttornev, or es must he paid w separate checks made parable to the 1,711age of Rve Brook. 1. Site Address: 9 High Point Circle, Rye Brook,NY Parcel ID#: 124.73-1-25 Zone: PUD 2. Property Owner: Seth Slomiak Address: 9 High Point Circle, Rye Brook,NY E-Mail: SSlomiak@gmail.com Tel.#: 917-576-9602 Other: 3. Applicant: Jeffrey M.Gaspar, P.E. Address: 2 Overhill Rd.,Suite 400,Scarsdale, E-Mail: JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.con Tel.#:914-458-11 10 Other: 4. Design Professional: Jeffrey M.Gaspar, P.E. Address: 2 Overhill Rd, Suite 400,Scarsdale,) E-Mail:JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.con Tel.#: 914-458-1110 Other: 5. Designate to whom correspondence is to be sent: Applicant/Design Professional Note: If applicant is a"Contract Vendee",please attach a copy of the contract summary with financial and confidential terms deleted. 1 6/1/2020 6. Street which property abuts: High Point Circle 7. Does property connect directly into State or County highway?V NO O YES: 8. Is site within 500 feet of Village Boundary?40fNO ( )YES If yes note all bordering municipalities: 9. Total area of site: vq YT Area of site activity: C 10. Site coverage: > /-1 %; Building coverage: 11. Existing building size: N/A New/additional building size: N/A 12. Existing parking spaces: A New parking spaces: 14 13. Nature of proposed activity: Retaining wall construction and minor grading improvements. ****************************************************************************************** Please note that this application must include the notarized signature(s) of the legal owner(s) of the above-mentioned property, in the space provided below.Any application not bearing the legal property owner's notarized signature(s)shall be deemed null and void, and will be returned to the applicant. STATE OF NEW YO�RK^ COUNT�OF W STCHESTER ) as: en �Y V t duly sworn, deposes and states that he/she is the applicant above named, (print name of individual signing as the applicant) and further states that (s)he is the legal owner of the property to which this application pertains, or that (s)he is the Cp 1'y in -e�— for the legal owner and is duly authorized to make and file this application. (indicate architect,contractor,agent,attorney,etc.) That all statements contained herein are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief,and that any work performed,or use conducted at the above captioned property will be in conformance with the details as set forth and contained in this application and in any accompanying approved plans and specifications,as well as in accordance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention&Building Code,the Codeof the Village of Rye Brook and all other applicable laws,ordinances and regulations. Swom to befo a me this Sworn to before me this day of Q� day of , 20 Notary Public Notary Pt� li Si a of Pr weer Signature ph t Print Name of Property Owner Print Name of Applicint DAVln E. LEVIIN Nc-tary Public. ' - of N._ ,Yc)rk No 02LE6004399 Qualified in N,?w York Coun?y Commission Erpires 03/23/2w 2 6/1/2020 �yE BRnv� VILL 01±, OK 938 King S 10e `.`: .Y. 10573 MAY 17 2021 (914)93 F 39-5801 99b VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST This form shall serve as a checklist for site plan submittal and review by the Village of Rye Brook. The use of this plan review checklist by the applicant is to ensure compliance with the technical provisions of§209 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook entitled, Site Plan Review, pertaining to preliminary and final plan preparation. The Village Code is available on the Village Website at: www.ryebrook.org. Prior to the appearance before ANY meeting or hearing of the Planning Board,the applicant must comply with all Notification Requirements of Code Section 250-40. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. APPLICATIONS. Completed and signed including correspondences. 2. CHECKLIST. Completed and signed. 3. PLANS. Signed, Sealed & Dated. Four paper (4) copies and one (1) electronic version. One (1) record set with original signatures, dates and seals shall be provided and submitted with two (2) copies that clearly indicate the signatures,dates,and seals shown on the record set. 4. FEES: All application fees and Environmental fee. A separate check for filing fee and Environmental fee. 5. Environmental Assessment Form. Form available on the NYS DEC website and mapper. 6. Electronic Copy. Complete copy of all plans and shall be submitted electronically at time of submission. 7. Notarized Affidavit of Sign Posting&Mail Notification. (Applicant's signature)have read the Notification Requirements of Code Section 250-40 and will provide notification as required. IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICANT(S): Identification of Applicant: Engineer Applicant: Jeffrey M.Gaspar Address: 2 Overhill Rd.,Suite 400,Scarsdale, Tel. #: 914-458-1110 Fax:914-618-4765 E-Mail: JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.con Project Name: Slomiak Project Address:9 High Point Circle,Rye Brook,NY Current Property Owner: Seth&Elinor Slomiak Address:9 High Point Circle,Rye Brook,NY Tel. #:917-576-9602 Fax: E-Mail:SSlomiak@gmail.com IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY: Identifying Title: 1240730001025 Tax Designation: Section: 124.073 Block: ► Lot: 107 Zoning District:PUD Street which property abuts: High Point Circle Plan Submission Date: 5/13/2021 Site Plan Checklist Page 1 of 7 6/l/2020 Project Address 9 High Point Circle Y N NA PLAN REQ UIREMENTS O O 4 copies of plans prepared and signed by a registered Land Surveyor,Engineer or Architect. rO O One(1)electronic copy of all submitted plans and surveys. 00 O Topographic Survey stamped by New York State Land Surveyor with license number and seal. 1)17 O O Topographic survey scale of one(1)inch per twenty(20)feet or larger. 00 6 Section, block and lot numbers of the property taken from the latest tax records along with a copy of the most recent property card on file with the Town of Rye Tax Assessor's office. O O/H Name of the proposed subdivision plan. )6 00 Name and address of the owner of record. l6 O O Name and address of the applicant. O O 6 Deed reference(s). O O Names, addresses and signature of every Engineer, Architect, Land Surveyor or Soil Scientist whose professional seal appears on any site plan submitted to the Board. Id O O North arrow and scale. 160 O Location map at the minimum scale of 1"equals 1,000 feet. �O O Area of all lots,in square feet. O O Engineering notes on plans as stated in application packages. O O�& Copies of all existing and proposed deed restrictions or covenants applying to the property, including,but not limited to, covenants and agreements restricting the use and establishing future ownership and maintenance responsibilities for all private roads,recreation,and open space areas. 00 ,6 Any prior land use approvals with respect to the subject property. O O Date the plans were first drafted. Any revision(s)made to any of the sheets first submitted are to be so noted in the revision block. The revision block is to be placed on the originals of the revised sheets. Additional paper copies are to be made& submitted for the Planning Board&Building Dept.to replace those sheets previously submitted. �WO O Other existing site improvements,including,but not limited to,fences,landscape or retaining walls,landscaping & screening. 00 Location of all buildings and structures on the premises and approximate location of all neighboring buildings or structures within 100 feet of the lot line. O O Fees paid to The Village of Rye Brook Building Department. /6'O O Any revisions to plans shall be identified with a revision cloud and numbered revision triangle Y N NA ABUTTING PROPERTY INFORMATION O O W The names and addresses of all abutting property owners within 250 ft as indicated in the Municipal records. O O '0 Zoning and use of abutting properties noted on plans. O O k Shape,size,height and location of existing buildings and driveways within one hundred(100)feet of the site. O O//_ Location and description of existing easements within one hundred(100)feet of the site. O 00 Location of existing private or public trails within one hundred(100)feet of the site. O O � Location of existing roads,scenic roads and/or driveways within two hundred(200)feet of the site. O O 0. Location of proposed parkland.If none state nearest recreation facility O O /0 Location of existing septic system leach fields within two hundred(200)feet of the site. O O Ck Locations,dimensions,grades and flow direction of existing sewers,culverts,waterlines as well as other underground utilities within and adjacent to the property. Site Plan Checklist Page 2 of 7 6/l/2020 Project Address 9 High Point Circle O O�O The location of all existing watercourses,intermittent streams,wetland areas and springs,consistent with the definitions set forth in Chapter 245,Wetlands and Watercourses,of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. Y N NA PROPOSED SITE PLAN INFORMATION O O Sufficient, acceptable information to readily determine the location, bearing, and length of every street line, lot line, and property boundary line. O Location of all building setback lines. OV Topographic data at a minimum contour interval of 2'-0"increments,showing existing and proposed contours on the property and extending a minimum of 25 feet into all adjacent properties. O O P The location and characteristics of the different areas of vegetation,including the identification of all individual trees 12 or more inches in diameter at breast height("DBH"),protected trees of any size,as well as stands of trees and wooded areas, within areas of proposed disturbance, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 235, Trees, of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. O O 6- Location and proposed development of all buffer areas,including existing vegetative cover. O O Location and description of any zoning district and municipal boundaries including a zoning compliance chart for the existing and proposed lots. �l 00 Shape,size,height and location of all existing and proposed buildings. �1 00 Location and description of any existing and proposed easements. �)` 00 Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed streets,driveways,sidewalks,parking spaces,bicycle parking, loading areas and other facilities associated with the proposed use. O O/^ Identification of the location and amount of building area proposed for retail sales or similar commercial activity. 00 Location of existing and proposed utilities(water,sewer,gas,electrical,telephone,oil tank etc.). O O 40 Design and location of all existing and proposed wells,septic tanks and leach field systems,or methods of waste water disposal. 00 Location,type and size of all existing and proposed landscaping and screening including fences and walls. O O�0 Location,size and proposed screening of outdoor storage areas,if any. 00 Location, design and construction material of all existing or proposed site improvements, including drains, culverts, retaining walls,landscape walls and fences. O 0/0 Exterior lighting plan and proposed signs to be located on site,including sign orientation,size,height,and elevation view. O O )9( Storm drainage plan and plans for snow removal and storage. O O P Pedestrian and automobile circulation plan. 00 Construction drawings for pavements,walks,steps,curbing,drainage&other structures associated with the proposed use. O O�6 Erosion and sedimentation control plan,including installation details of proposed control measures,directive construction notations and a schedule for the installation and maintenance of proposed control measure. O O Description of measures planned to assure proper erosion and sedimentation control in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 118 entitled"Erosion and Sediment Control,"of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. O O W Drawing and computation for storm water detention design for a 25-year storm in accordance with the Westchester County Best Management Practices 00 Rock outcroppings and areas of steep slope consistent with the definitions set forth in Chapter 213,Steep Slope Protection, of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook. O O Location of any common lands and/or public lands. O O 0 Phasing or an estimated project construction schedule. 00 ,0 Supporting documents,including deeds,maintenance,condominium agreements,etc. Site Plan Checklist Page 3 of 7 6/1/2020 Project Address 9 High Point Circle 'f 'O O Location of proposed construction or area of disturbance and its relationship to any property line, easement, building, structure, road, wall, fence, sewage disposal system, well, wetland feature or tree exceeding six inches in diameter measured at a height of four feet from the ground O O Estimate of earthwork showing the quantity of any material to be imported to and/or removed from the site including a chart with the number/species and size of any trees to be removed. 000 Location and size of areas of soils by soil types in the area of proposed disturbance and to a distance of 100 feet surrounding the area of disturbance. O O )9 Cross sections of steep slope areas. 00 Retaining walls or like constructions,with details of construction. O O $X, Approximate boundaries of any areas subject to flooding or stormwater overflows, including areas of special flood hazard and coastal high-hazard areas, consistent with the definitions set forth in Chapter 130, Flood Damage Prevention, of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook.Approximate Wetlands and wetland buffer boundaries shall be clearly delineated. O O 9( Location of fire and other emergency zones,including the location of fire hydrants. O O )� Studies to include,but not necessarily limited to: environmental impact analysis,wildlife,traffic,stormwater management,recreation,public service,fiscal impact,visual impact and historic significance documentation,or a written request to waive the submission requirements for these studies. O `O Amount of any bonds required. 00 Amount of excavated material to be removed from site,if any. Y N NA OTHER(as applicable) O 0 ,0 Record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from state and county officials and local utility companies. O O/t Identification of any federal,state or county permits required for the project's execution,including project referrals, if any,&environmental review procedures mandated by Article 8,Environmental Quality Review,of the Environmental Conservation Law(SEQRA). 000 Any other information felt necessary by the Planning Board to allow the Board to proceed with consideration&to make an informed decision. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Notice to Applicants/Developers: At some point during the development review process your project may be referred to the Westchester County Planning Board for review and comment in accordance with state and county laws that require local planning boards, zoning boards of appeals and governing bodies to refer certain development applications to the County Planning Board. Referral to the County Planning Board may not occur until your project has progressed well along through the design process. Since the Planning Board's comments may impact project design, this checklist is provided to encourage early consideration of these areas of concern by applicants to avoid project changes later. For information on the County Planning Board review process and to access an electronic copy of this checklist, go online to www.westchestergov.com/planningreferrals or contact Lukas Herbert at lah5@westchestergov.com. I.COUNTY PLANNING BOARD POLICIES: Written policies underlie all recommendations of the County Planning Board. Westchester 2025-Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning,adopted by the County Planning Board on 5/6/08,amended 115110,can be found at ww.westchestergov.com/2025. ❑Westchester 2025:Policies should be reviewed to determine how they relate to the development proposal. II.IMPACTS TO COUNTY FACILITIES AND SERVICES: The County Planning Board coordinates the review of development projects with Westchester County departments to identify and address potential impacts on County services and infrastructure.In some situations,permits and approvals may be required that could change project design. Site Plan Checklist Page 4 of 7 6/1/2020 Project Address 9 High Point Circle ❑ Map of County Facilities: Review the State & County Roads and Parks map (which also includes county channel lines) to identify proximity to County facilities at: www.westchestergov.com/planningdocs/pdf naps/countystateroadsparks.pdf. Other useful map links for information about environmental features, septic/sewer map, county sewer districts map, etc can be found at: www.westchestergov.com/maps ❑ COUNTY ROAD: Applications for development on sites that abut a County road must be submitted for review by the County Department of Public Works. Information and forms can be found at: www.westchestergov.com/dpw/bidgpenn.htm. Former County Roads do not need review by the Department of Public Works,but will still likely trigger a review by the County Planning Board. ❑ COUNTY CHANNEL LINES: Applications for development on sites within 100 feet of a designated County Channel Line require a stream control permit from the County Department of Public Works. Information and forms can be found at: www.westchestergov.com/dpw/bidgperm.htm ❑ COUNTY PARK: New construction & land alteration projects adjacent to County parks are expected to address screening& buffer of new uses from the park, as appropriate. Stormwater should not drain from a developed site onto a County park without acceptable quantity and quality controls.County parks are designated as Critical Environmental Areas. ❑ SEWAGE TREATMENT AT COUNTY TREATMENT PLANT: Local municipalities are required to reduce and eliminate inflow and infiltration(I&I)into the sanitary sewage systems tributary to County treatment plants.New development will be expected to reduce I&I in relation to generation of new flow at a ratio of three to one. This requirement must be discussed with local officials. ❑BEE-LINE BUS SERVICE: Bee-Line bus stops serving a development site should be identified on plans or noted if located off-site. If a bus stop is located along the site's frontage, the applicant should contact the County Department of Transportation to discuss impacts and the need for improvements. Safe and separate pedestrian access should be provided to link a bus stop and sidewalk with building entrances. Information on County bus service and design guidelines can be found at: we stchestergov.com/transportation/image sB u s%20Servi c e%2OGui de 1 ines.pd f ❑FAIR AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Many municipalities require inclusion of fair & affordable units in new developments. Financial assistance to achieve fair & affordable housing development is available through Westchester County & other sources. Applications that include new residential units to be affirmatively marketed & sold or rented subject to fair& affordable housing provisions should be tied to Westchester County guidelines on affordability including income guidelines of eligible households that can be found at: http://homes.westchestergov.com/. If County funding is sought to develop fair & affordable housing,the County Board of Legislators must be included as an involved agency under SEQR. ❑RECYCLING: New buildings must contain a designated area of sufficient size for separation and storage of recyclables and trash. Building expansions should also include sufficient space for separation and storage of recyclables. For more information about County recycling requirements go to: www.westchestergov.com/enviromnent_recycling.htm ❑STORM SEWER SYSTEM: Any connections to a County storm sewer line will require a permit from the Department of Public Works in accordance with the County Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) law. Information & forms can be found at:www.westchestergov.com/dpw/bldgperm.htm Non-stormwater discharges to the County storm sewer system are prohibited. HI.DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The County Planning Board's land use policies focus attention on several aspects of development that may have intermunicipal and quality of life impacts.The list below includes areas most frequently commented on by the County Planning Board. ❑WATER: All development plans should include sufficient provisions for stormwater management, water quality measures and mitigation of flooding. ❑Plans should identify the major drainage basin or watershed the site is located in (Croton River, Upper Hudson River, Lower Hudson, Upper Long Island Sound,Bronx River and Lower Long Island Sound). An interactive map with watershed boundaries can be found at www.westchestergov.com/planning/maps&lists/drainbasinsl 1xl7.html ❑Watershed plans have been developed for several of the County's watersheds - the Croton, Indian Brook-Croton Gorge, Bronx River & Long Island Sound watersheds - that include specific recommendations that apply to development projects. See recommendations in watershed plans at: planning.westchestergov.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 1231& Itemid=2204 Site Plan Checklist Page 5 of 7 6/l/2020 Project Address 9 High Point Circle ❑Development that involves filling, creation of impervious surfaces or buildings and substantive loss of natural vegetation in a floodplain or flood prone area should be avoided. []Above ground, vegetated retention/detention basins or devices are preferred because they perform better, are easier to inspect and maintain and provide additional environmental benefits over subsurface structural devices. Any such treatments should not be constructed within wetlands or buffer areas around wetlands. ❑The development should treat and retain as much stormwater on-site as possible,particularly when the site is located in a drainage basin with known flooding problems. A Construction Stormwater Toolbox with tools and sources of technical information related to the construction activities and stormwater management best practices is available from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation at: www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8694.html ❑New development should include protection of aquatic resources. For more information about protection of aquatic resourc-es & buffer areas,go to:planning.westchestergov.com/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=1491&Itemid=2458 El Impervious cover should be minimized. Permeable paving surfaces should be used where feasible. Vegetative rain gardens should be used, particularly in areas of overland or channelized stormwater flow, to improve stormwater quality and reduce runoff volume. For more information,go to: www.westchestergov.com/stormwater ❑Buildings along coastlines and low lying area should consider the impacts of sea level rise. Specific consideration is required of potential impacts to surface and subsurface drinking water supplies. SITE LAYOUT.Aesthetic design,building orientation and community character should be considered in the site layout and building appearance. ❑In most locations,buildings should face the street and have pedestrian access from the street. ❑Commercial buildings should be located near the front street line with the majority of parking located in the rear of the building. Even gas stations and convenience stores should be upfront in a landscaped setting with parking,pumps and canopy toward the rear. El Buildings should be of pedestrian-scale when seen from the sidewalk. ❑Building facades should contribute to and enhance the character of the community. Driveway and pathway connections should be provided to adjacent sites when possible and crosseasements provided. ❑ STREETS. Street design should reduce unwarranted paving and promote connectivity. ❑New streets should connect with adjacent streets wherever feasible to prevent the proliferation of dead-end streets and promote neighborhood integration. El Connections could be vehicular or pedestrian/bicycle only,where appropriate. ❑Street widths should be minimized for streets with low traffic volume to reduce speeds and impervious surfaces.Lane widths of 12 feet are only appropriate for major roadways. ❑Driveway widths should be no more than 9 feet to reduce impervious surfaces. El Permeable paving surfaces should be used where feasible. ❑ GREEN TECHNOLOGY.New development should include as many green building elements as possible,such as:renewable building materials,energy efficient heating/cooling systems and fixtures,water saving devices,green roofs and permeable paving surfaces.Information can be obtained from the U.S.Green Building Council at: www.usgbc.org. ❑ LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING. The site improvements should enhance community character. Site Plan Checklist Page 6 of 7 6/1/2020 Project Address 9 High Point Circle JD Landscaping should consist of native plant species appropriate for the location. Invasive plant species should be prohibited. Invasive plant information available at: www.westchestergov.com/planning/environmental/Reports/InvasivePlantsBrochO8.pdf ❑ Pollutant tolerant plantings should effectively shield parking,loading areas and refuse collection sites. ❑ Site lighting should be provided at the lowest safe levels and lowest heights,avoiding all spillage off site. ❑ PEDESTRIANS. Safe,convenient and ADA accessible pedestrian access is provided. ❑ A sidewalk should be provided along the site frontage along each street. ❑ Direct pedestrian connections should be made from the front of the building to the sidewalk.Pedestrian crossings of drive-ways& parking lots should be minimized or avoided.If they must be provided,painted crosswalks should be provided through parking lots. ❑ ADA accessibility must be provided. ❑ BICYCLISTS.Provisions for bicyclists should be incorporated into project design. ❑ Bicycle parking should be provided in commercial and residential developments.Guidelines can be found at: www.apbp.org/resource/resmgr/publications/bicycle_parking_guide 1 ines.pd f ❑ If near a trailway or bicycle route,extra consideration should be given to bicycle accessibility such as bike lanes on internal roadways,bicycle parking and other amenities. ❑ Drive-thru lanes at uses such as banks and fast-food restaurants should also be accessible for bicycles. Waiver: Upon finding by the Building Inspector, Village Engineer, Planning Board or Board of Trustees that, due to the particular character or limited nature of development or change in use or to special conditions peculiar to a site,the submission of a final site plan,or certain portions of information normally required as part of the site development plan, is inappropriate or unnecessary or that strict compliance with said submission requirements will cause extraordinary and unnecessary hardship, such official or Board may waive such submission requirements wherever, in the opinion of such official or Board, such waiver will be consistent with the goal of promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. The findings for granting such waiver shall become a part of the public record. Any waiver request must be made in writing,and include sufficient detailed information for the appropriate authority to make an informed decision. Design Professional's Certification of Completion of Checklist I have fully reviewed the Village of Rye Brook's requirements and certify this application to be a complete submission. I understand that an incomplete plat or incomplete checklist shall be deemed an incomplete submission and shall be returned to the applicant upon determination of such by the appropriate authority. Name(Print) Jeffrey M.Gas ar,P.E. Q. f' Signature n Date "c^� 091905 A � eal Site Plan Checklist Page 7 of 7 6/l/2020 Short Environmental Assessment Form D [E C IE ��E Part 1 - Project Information MAY 17 2021 Instructions for Completing VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Part 1—Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part o t e application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 —Project and Sponsor Information 9 High Point Circle-Jeffrey M.Gaspar,P.E. Name of Action or Project: 9 High Point Circle Retaining Wall Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): 9 High Point Circle,Rye Brook,NY Brief Description of Proposed Action: Install retaining wall to raise and level grade in a portion of the rear yard. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 914-960-9101 Jeffrey M.Gaspar, P.E. E-Mail: JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.com Address: 2 Overhill Rd.,Suite 400 City/PO: State: Zip Code: Scarsdale NY 10583 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law,ordinance, NO YES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ❑ may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other government Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s)name and permit or approval: ❑ 3. a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 0.186 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? 0,02 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 0.186 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on, are adjoining or near the proposed action: ❑Urban ❑ Rural(non-agriculture) ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑✓ Residential(suburban) ❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture ❑ Aquatic ❑ Other(Specify): ❑Parkland Page 1 of") SEAF 2019 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ RI ❑ b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑� ❑ NO YES 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural landscape? ❑ ❑✓ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes, identify: ❑� ❑ NO YES 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? ❑ ❑ b. Are public transportation services available at or near the site of the proposed action? ❑ c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the site of the proposed ❑ action? 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ❑ a 12. a.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district NO YES which is listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places,or that has been determined by the ❑ Commissioner of the NYS Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places? b. Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑ archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory? 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? R] ❑ b. Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑ If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site.Check all that apply: ❑Shoreline ❑ Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands ❑ Early mid-successional ❑Wetland ❑ Urban ❑✓ Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats, listed by the State or NO YES Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑ ❑ 16. Is the project site located in the 100-year flood plan? NO YES RI ❑ 17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, ❑ ❑ a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑ ❑ b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? ❑ ❑ If Yes,briefly describe: 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that would result in the impoundment of water NO YES or other liquids(e.g.,retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain the purpose and size of the impoundment: ❑ ❑ -19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste NO YES management facility? If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: ❑ ❑ I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor/n e,, A �� 5`�` Date: ' Signature: Title: �/ ,g)A re,- PRINT FORM Page 3 of EAF Mapper Summary Report Wednesday, May 19, 2021 2:07 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist 1 124.65 '1 hr� project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental t 24.641 8 1 + 12465-1-81111111 i i assessment form(EAF).Not all questions asked in the EAF are 124. 41-7, ,r 124.65-1 33124.65-1-29t 1 t:-- 124.65-1 � i answered by the EAF Mapper.Additional information on any EAF {124'65=1-1 41 2 4.65-1-3212N65 1-3a124.65-1-28 `� 1 f Uf N T question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although 124.664_1-6; 124.65-iti31 r-s 2 .65 8T K the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to ~_\ 12.4.65-1-16`1--L-- PP P P 9 124.641-5,s �/4 > / 12 4�5 -83 I12 4.'65/1 DEC,you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order i }4 �124:65 1-17���124.65-1 25 12 A 6J_7 888 ?t to obtain data not provided by the Mapper.Digital data is not a 124.64 i-4 \ 12 4�65�1 22 12'4:65 1=26 `� tiro substitute for agency determinations. 124.65-1-23 t -i`*`- -.12473-1 1.6 124,64y it3 \124.62473 1-23 2'4.73 1�2112 .73+1-2O/r �12'4:73-.1 7 H /7 r 124.73-1;22 -u�12473=1-15 f \ r 124.65-1 19 i• \ I 24.73-2�17t, ! ` ltrma Mnntrrll 124.641-11�-� ` ` y R'OA D < a`24.73-1-14 124.T3-1-70121.65- 0 i r 124.73-2-9\aril 1 124.72-1-23 12�.73-.1-24�+ + '+ , F-I 1-24.T3=1 �ti �A_J3-2t11 124.73-2;8c, 124.72-1-22� X �� •_' 1 473-2-7� 124.72-1 24 24.73=2�19�1 r � n . h Torontc --i 124.73-1-26-� 124.�73-2�12124.73 2-5 124.72-1 21 -I 124.73-2-20 - 124.72 0 i---t '12 -27 1 4.73-2,,21'1A.7.3-2-3124.t�3-2-1 ' �'m'' Alh.rhy _ -A _-t �VV ���1 �24� 2`-4.�- , ["bolt B stars 1272 1�19�-' 124.73-1 28 1 4.7 :2-2.8- ��3t-� �� at I� V` 13-2-48-� Frovlaen lj 1 173:2 27 , - l:awlr,l 1A.72^1;�18 , 124,73-1-291t24.73-2- 0 -3 124.73-749ti2`.732,45 124.73 2-29 124.73-2-50' 124.72-1-'f7 -124.73-1-30- V '\ V -W � J.YQk i 5`7 ` l2 7. = .-61=`„ 124.73 2-6? l:oh n Pltp;burah Philadelphia Jamtin•.USGS. Intz�it ap�JI� P tEPIPPd Rfalk E51i Jal?an,P.4ETI, In o�c1 . �sri EP.iNr �ifiCan Esli Japan HET1 Esn hlna fHoncl Konjf,Esn 3l E 1'I TI131�a113.F i'C'q p�fl tE �,jf7tiQCfYCR1)l1fOl .f11C1 f1 {St� F 4q.Ci (?2n$U'2?CF:lap 71Tt111?41�'ilfill�l�l�t4l�iVl$11521"1.,I111111InitV Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environmental Yes Area] Part 1 /Question 7 [Critical Environmental Name-.Airport 60 Ldn Noise Contour, Reason:Exceptional or unique character, Area - Identify] Ag ency:Westch ester County, Date:1-31-90 Part 1 /Question 12a [National or State No Register of Historic Places or State Eligible Sites] Part 1 /Question 12b [Archeological Sites] No Part 1 /Question 13a [Wetlands or Other No Regulated Waterbodies] Part 1 /Question 15 [Threatened or Yes Endangered Animal] Part 1 /Question 15 [Threatened or Sedge Wren Endangered Animal - Name] Part 1 /Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] No Part 1 /Question 20 [Remediation Site] Yes Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 1 NOV 2 0 2023 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING 1)Ir PARTM ENT November 19, 2023 Dear Mr. Nowak and the Planning Board of Rye Brook, As per Rye Brook Code, we are requesting an extension of our current steep slopes permit as it relates to our property at 9 High Point Circle for an additional 9 months to ensure that the project is completed appropriately and under the most ideal conditions. This will allow for the work to be completed in the safest manner possible. Unfortunately, there are multiple factors that have put us in the current situation which I would like to outline for you and the Planning Board in full transparency. 1) Some of the questions asked from the Rye Brook Engineering consultant required significant research and coordination between our engineer and the companies that make the engineering software to be sure all calculations were in fact correct to be sure the project will be completed in the safest possible way. 2) Unfortunately, our engineer had some very serious health issues over the past year that forced him to be hospitalized for long periods of time. This is something I have recently been made aware of and obviously created unavoidable delays in communication. 3) Due to the aforementioned points 1 and 2, we have been pushed into a significantly colder time of the year where there are clear risks that may come along with disturbing soil and excavation during freezing temperatures, which we are looking to avoid. These risks include but are not limited to: (1) Erosion control; (2) Soil stabilization; and (3) Ground heaving from freezing. 4) If we were to push forward ASAP, and receive a permit in December 2023 to begin the work immediately and run into any unforeseen issues, we would not be able to complete the project by December 31, 2023. This could then cause more issues during the winter, which can cause serious hazards including but not limited to: (1) Ground/soil instability; (2) Unexpected erosion; (3) Unexpected changes in runoff; and (4) Unstable excavated areas. 5) If we acquired the building/work permit but cannot finish by December 31, 2023, this would then require us to reapply for a new permit leaving our property in an unsafe state for an extended period of time which is not something we or any neighbor would ever wa nt. We thank you for your consideration and understanding given some unfortunate and unexpected situations and again the understanding that we are doing our best to ensure that safety is our number one priority. Sincerely, Seth and Elinor Slomiak 570 Taxter Road, Suite 300 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Elmsford, NY 10523 (914)631-8600 phone (914)631-5769 fax An ' Enginccrs Company www.drepc.com www.aiengineers.com TO: Mr. Michal Nowak R [� [—' Village of Rye BrookID DEC - 8 2023 FROM: James Natarelli, P.E. VILLA&F CA R''r S BROOK DATE: December 5, 2023 F���� �� ;_'r,RTMENT SUBJECT: 9 High Point Circle Planning Board Application In reference to the above-mentioned project,this office has received (on November 22, 2023)and reviewed the following: 1. Memo prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated September 21, 2021 [sic] referring to "Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Memo—5-16-2023"; 2. Hand calculations prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated September 10, 2023; 3. Plans prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated October 5,2020 revised September 10, 2023; 4. Software output for retaining wall calculations prepared by Jeffrey Gaspar dated March 15, 2023; 5. "Table 3-1.Typical Engineering Properties of Compacted Materials" from NAVFAC DM-7. The comments from this office's May 16, 2023 memo(in italics) with follow-up comments (in bold)are as follows but are not limited to: 1. External stability calculations(sliding, overturning, soil bearing pressure)must be provided. Hand calculations have been provided. It appears that the design will work within acceptable factors of safety when the following corrections are made: a. Lower wall: I. Wall height is inconsistent with the design drawings and software output. ii. Retained soil weight calculation(Area No.2) is inconsistent with the stated mass for retained soil. iii. Area No.3 indicates an 11-ft height,however,10 feet is used in subsequent"Ph" calculation. iv. Resisting moment for Area No.2 indicates 3.5'moment arm. Based on 6-ft width on diagram,the moment arm should be 3'. b. Upper wall: i. Wall height is inconsistent with the design drawings and software output. ii. Area No. 1 appears to assume a 4-ft wall height(based on 150 psf weight)which is inconsistent with design drawings and software output. Improving Life. By Design. Mr.Nowak Rye Brook Planning Board Engineers rs 9 High Point Circle-Planning Board Application December 5,2023 Page 2 2. Existing retaining wall dimensions(including height, width,and depth of footing)as provided on the software calculations output must be consistent with the construction drawings and verified in the field. Design engineer's response to this comment on memo appears to imply that the he has re-run the software and checked the retaining walls with the wall height,footing dimensions,and number of geogrid layers that are shown on the plan's typical section. 3. The extent of existing geogrid(as measured from the rear of the lower retaining wall)and number of geogrid layers as indicated on the software output must be consistent with the construction drawings and verified in the field. Any modifications to the existing geogrid that might be needed to accommodate the proposed placement of the upper retaining wall must be indicated and calculations updated accordingly. The number of geogrid layers for the new upper wall is inconsistent with the software output. 4. It is unclear how the surcharge pressure was derived to simulate the load from the upper wall. Supporting calculations must be provided. Design engineer's response to this comment on memo implies that a separate calculation was done to determine surcharge. That calculation or analysis from separate software must be submitted for review. 5. A source must be provided for the properties of the retained soil that have been provided on the software output. Source has been provided and is acceptable. 6. The weight of the reinforced fill on the software output is indicated to be 125 pcf. The weight of the reinforced fill must also be indicated on the construction drawings. Weight of reinforced fill has been added to the plans. 7. Hydrostatic pressure must be accounted for in the design calculations. Design engineer's response to this comment on memo states that walls are fully drained and therefore hydrostatic pressure is neglected. See response to Comment 8 below. 8. The proposed retaining wall appears to have a single discharge location for a perforated drain. Drainage from the new retaining wall must not discharge in a concentrated fashion. The construction drawings must be consistent with the design calculations with respect to each proposed wall's number of perforated drainage pipes. All discharge locations must be shown on the construction drawings. Based on the description for Revision #4 on C002,the design drawings appear to intend for the removal of the perforated drain. However,the drain is still shown on the section, elevation,on the plan view,and mentioned in the notes on C004. If the design proposes to keep the perforated drain then this drainage must not discharge in a concentrated fashion. If the design proposes to remove the perforated drain pipe and rely only on the specified weep holes then the perforated drain must be removed from the plans and the software output must be updated to remove the relevant drainage pipes. Improving Life.By Design. Mr.Nowak T Rye Brook Planning Board Engineers 9 High Point Circle-Planning Board Application December 5,2023 Page 3 It should be noted that the completed wall installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity • Backfill gradation • Compaction Continuing the numbering from the previous memo,the following are additional comments based on the new submitted material: 9. Geotextile(filter fabric)is needed to separate the drainage fill behind the wall from the retained soil. Typical section on C002 must be updated to call out the geotextile. Specifications for the geotextile must be added to the notes on C004 where it is mentioned. 10. On C002 the"Lower wall retained soil height"is noted to be 5.8'. However,the elevations on the elevation view indicate a maximum height of 6.6'. The maximum height is the value that must be used on all hand calculations and software modelling. Upon receipt of amended plans addressing these comments,this office is prepared to continue its review. Improving Life.By Design. O` '(Lv la U�'� Y . 19 19 j.r+Gcy ,`v OY VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Jason A.Klein (914)939-0753 Christopher J.Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan R.Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J.Fischer Michal Nowak David M.Heiser Salvatore W.Morlino May 9,2024 Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of$652.19 as soon as possible. A spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tara A. Orlando Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals& Architectural Review Board Cc: Michal Nowak,Superintendent of Public Works Enclosure PROJECTADDRESS 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE PROJECI'NAME SLOMUK CCOUNT# 917-334-4807 CCOUNT START DATE: CCOUNT CLOSE DATE. Acct close date here INVOICE DATE INVOICE# HECK DATIE CHECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT DEPOSIT Balance Unpaid Invoices 5/14/2021 1672 VRB $ 2,500.00 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLP14 $ 720.00 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&3 S 725.00 7/22/2021 F4979.08-01 8/12/2021 1352 FPC S 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1356 DOLPH S 40.00 8/11/2021 F4979.08-02 10/22/2021 1367 FPC S 290.00 8/12/2021 71644 10/22/2021 1368 K&3 S 1,225.00 9/14/2021 72553 10/22/2021 1368 K&3 S 2,125.00 9/30/2021 21-75 10/22/2021 1366 DOLPH S 40.00 10/8/2021 1685 VRB $ 4,000.00 9/22/2021 F4979.08-03 11/9/2021 1371 FPC $ 362.50 10/8/2021 F4979.08-04 11/9/2021 1371 FPC S 145.00 10/12/2021 73380 5/13/2022 1406 K&B S 375.00 10/25/2021 21-77 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH $ 280.00 11/15/2021 74303 5/13/2022 1406 K&B 12/3/2021 21-80 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH S 800.00 12/15/2021 F4979.08-05 5/13/2022 1405 FPC $ 580.00 2/14/2022 22-84 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH S 1,040.00 4/22/2022 2102 VRB $ 4,070.00 12/22/2022 22-103 5/15/2D23 1454 DOLPH S 160.00 4/10/2023 2111 VRB $ 500.00 6/5/2023 23-119 12/22/2023 1472 DOLPH $ 1,760.00 7/14/2023 F4133.01-31 12/22/2023 1474 FPC $ 207.00 11/21/2023 1723 VRB $ 1,627.00 11/22/2023 1724 VRB $ 1,373.00 1/3/2024 23-134 2/22/2024 1477 DOLPH S 1,141.25 1/16/2024 98900 K&B S 425.00 3/13/2024 1737 VRB $ 193.25 2/23/2024 F4979.08-06 FPC S 150.00 4/2/2D24 24-137 DOLPH S 502.19 Reduced by Dolph Reduced by K&B for credits to Invoice#s 71644&72553(Credit Invoice#80058) $ 14,915.44 $ 14,263.25 -$652.19 $ 1,077.19 to - ,'aac�,W y OY VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Jason A.Klein (914) 939-0753 Christopher J.Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan R.Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J.Fischer Michal Nowak David M.Heiser Salvatore W.Morlino November 21,2023 Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of $3,000.00 prior to the next scheduled Planning Board meeting, December 14, 2023. Our office has not received the final invoices for this application however a spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tara A. Orlando Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals& Architectural Review Board Cc: Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works Enclosure PRO CTADDRESS 9 HIGH POM CIRCLE PROJECTNAVE SLOMUK ACCOUNT# CCOUNT START DATE: ACCOUNT QASE DATE. Aca close slate/xn INVOICE DATE INVOICE# CHECK DATI CHECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT I DEPOSIT Balance Unpaid Invoices 5/14/2021 1672 VRB $ 2,500.00 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLPH S 720.00 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&B S 725.00 7/22/2021 F4979.08-01 8/12/2021 1352 FPC S 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1356 DOLPH S 40.00 8/11/2021 F4979.08-02 10/22/2021 1367 FPC S 290.00 8/12/2021 71644 10/22/2021 1368 K&B $ 1,225.00 9/14/2021 72553 10/22/2021 1368 K&B $ 2,125.00 9/30/2021 21-75 10/22/2021 1366 DOLPH $ 40.00 10/8/2021 1685 VRB $ 4,000.00 9/22/2021 F4979.08-03 11/9/2021 1371 FPC S 362.50 10/8/2021 F4979.08-04 11/9/2021 1371 FPC S 145.00 10/12/2021 73380 5/13/2022 1406 K&B S 375.00 10/25/2021 21-77 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH $ 280.00 11/15/2021 74303 5/13/2022 1406 K&B 12/3/2021 21-80 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH 5 800.00 12/15/2021 F4979.08-05 5/13/2022 1405 FPC S 580.00 2/14/2022 22-84 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH S 1,040.00 4/22/2022 2102 VRB ; 4,070.00 12/22/2022 22-103 5/15/2023 1454 DOLPH $ 160.00 4/10/2023 2111 VRB ; 500.00 6/5/2023 23-119 DOLPH $ 1,760.00 7/14/2023 F4133.01-31 FPC S 207.00 Reduced by Dolph Invoice#s 71644&72107 Invoice#80058) S 12,697.00 ; 11,070.00 .00 i 1967.00 i . y • �yE DR tt�4.oj yJ V Cl��+i.uVJ.0 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Jason A. Klein (914) 939-0753 Christopher J.Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan R.Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J.Fischer Michal Nowak David M.Heiser Salvatore W.Morlino September 18,2023 2"d Notice Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of$1,627.00 as soon as possible. A spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tara A. Orlando Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals& Architectural Review Board Cc:Michal Nowak,Superintendent of Public Works Enclosure PRO ECTADDRESS 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE PRO CT NAME SLOMiAH CCOUNT# CCOUNT START DATE: ACCOUNT CIDSE DATE: Acd dare dak bens I WOICE DATE INVOICE# CRUX DATI CFIECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT DEPOSIT Balance Unpaid Invoices 5/14/2021 1672 VRB ; 2,500.00 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLPH f 720.00 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&B ; 725.00 7/22/2021 F4979.08-01 8/12/2021 1352 FPC f 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1356 DOLPH f 40.00 8/11/2021 F4979.08-02 10/22/2021 1367 FPC ; 290.00 8/12/2021 71644 10/22/2021 1368 K&B f 1,225.00 9/14/2021 72553 10/22/2021 1368 K&B ; 2,125.00 9/30/2021 21-75 10/22/2021 1366 DOLPH f 40.00 10/8/2021 1685 VRB ; 4,000.00 9/22/2021 F4979.08-03 11/9/2021 1371 FPC ; 362.50 10/8/2021 F4979.08-04 11/9/2021 1371 FPC ; 145.00 10/12/2021 73380 5/13/2022 1406 K&B ; 375.00 10/25/2021 21-77 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH ; 2WA 11/15/2021 74303 5/13/2022 1406 K&B 12/3/2021 21-80 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH ; 800.00 12/15/2021 F4979.08-05 5/13/2022 1405 FPC ; 580.00 2/14/2022 22-84 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH ; 1,040.00 4/22/2022 2102 VRB ; 4,070.00 12/22/2022 22-103 5/15/2023 1454 DOLPH f 160.00 4/10/2023 2111 VRB f 500.00 6/5/2023 23-119 DOLPH ; 1,760.00 7/14/2023 F4133.01-31 FPC ; 207.00 Reduced by Dolph Reduced by K&B for credits to Invoice#s 71644&72553(Credit Invoice#80058) 1 697.00 f 11070.00 -t1627.00 ; 1 967.00 `- yE 13R t1 1 ?.JJ V ry VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Jason A. Klein (914)939-0753 Christopher J.Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan K Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J.Fischer Michal Nowak David M.Heiser Salvatore W.Morlino August 11,2023 Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of$1,627.00 as soon as possible. A spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tara A. Orlando Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals & Architectural Review Board Cc:Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works Enclosure PRO CTADDRESS 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE PRO NAME SLOMIAK - CCOUNT# CCOUNT START DATE: CCOUNT CLOSE DATE: Arcs Aare data bere INVOICE DATE INVOICE# CHECK DATI CHECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT DEPOSIT Balance Unpaid Invoices 5/14/2021 1672 VRB ; 2,500.00 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLPH ; 720.00 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&B ; 725.00 7/22/2021 F4979.08-01 8/12/2021 1352 FPC ; 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1 1356 DOLPH ; 40.00 8/11/2021 F4979.08-02 10/22/2021 1367 FPC ; 290.00 8/12/2021 71644 10/22/2021 1368 K&B ; 1,225.00 9/14/2021 72553 10/22/2021 1368 K&B ; 2,125.00 9/30/2021 21-75 10/22/2021 1366 DOLPH ; 40.00 10/8/2021 1685 VRB ; 4,000.00 9/22/2021 F4979.08-03 11/9/2021 1371 FPC ; 362.50 10/8/2021 F4979.0&N 11/9/2021 1371 FPC ; 145.00 10/12/2021 73380 5/13/2022 1406 K&B ; 375.00 10/25/2021 21-77 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH $ 280A0 11/15/2021 74303 5/13/2022 1406 K&B 12/3/2021 21-80 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH ; 800.00 12/15/2021 F4979.08-05 5/13/2022 1405 FPC ; 580.00 2/14/2022 22-84 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH ; 1,040.00 4/22/2022 2102 VRB ; 4,070.00 12/22/2022 22-103 5/15/2023 1454 DOLPH ; 160.00 4/10/2023 2111 VRB ; 500.00 6/5/2023 23-119 DOLPH ; 1,760.00 7/14/2023 F4133.01-31 FPC ; 207.00 Reduced be Dolph Reduced by K&B for credits to Invoice#s 71644&72553(Credit Invoice#80058) 1 697.00 ; 11070.00 627.00 ; 1967.00 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Jason A.Klein (914)939-0753 Christopher J.Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan R.Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J.Fischer Michal Nowak David M.Heiser Salvatore W.Morlino February 6,2023 2"d Notice Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of $160.00 as soon as possible. A spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, �-I aL- 2 L Tara A. Orlando Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals & Architectural Review Board Cc: Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works Enclosure PRO CTADDRESS 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE PRO CTNAME SLOWAK ACCOUNT# ACCOUNT START DATE: ACCOUNT CLOSE DATE• Asd class dak hero INVOICE DATE IIWOICE# CHECK DATE CHECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT DEPOSIT Balance -Unpaid Invoices 5/14/2021 1672 VRB ; 2,500.00 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLPH ; 720.00 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&B ; 725.00 7/22/2021 F4979.08-01 8/12/2021 1352 FPC ; 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1356 DOLPH ; 40.00 8/11/2021 F4979.08-02 10/22/2021 1367 FPC ; 290.00 8/12/2021 71644 10/22/2021 1368 K&B ; 1,225.00 9/14/2021 72553 10/22/2021 1368 K&B ; 2,125.00 9/30/2021 21-75 10/22/2021 1366 DOLPH ; 40.00 10/8/2021 1685 VRB ; 4,000.00 9/22/2021 F4979.08-03 11/9/2021 1371 FPC ; 36150 10/8/2021 F4979.08-04 11/9/2021 1371 FPC ; 145.00 10/12/2021 73380 5/13/2022 1406 K&B ; 375.00 10/25/2021 21-77 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH ; 280.00 11/15/2021 74303 5/13/2022 1406 K&B : ImLot 12/3/2021 21-80 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH ; 800.00 12/15/2021 F4979.08-05 5/13/2022 1405 FPC ; 580.00 2/14/2022 22-84 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH ; 1,040.00 4/22/2022 2102 VRB ; 4,070.00 12/22/2022 22-103 DOLPH ; 160.00 Reduced by Dolph Reduced by K&B for credits to Invoice#s 71644&72553(Credit Invoice#80058) I ; 10,730.00 ; 10 570.00 -S160.00 ; 160.00 yE a tyy 4.o J J�V i� VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street, Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Jason A. Klein (914) 939-0753 Christopher J.Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan R Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J.Fischer Michal Nowak David M.Heiser Salvatore W.Morlino January 5, 2023 Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of $160.00 as soon as possible. A spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tara A. Orlando Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals& Architectural Review Board Cc: Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works Enclosure K Y � PRO CTADDRFSS 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE PRO CT NAME SLOMMX CCOUNT# CCOUNT START DATE: CCOUNT CWSE DATE: Act don dck ben INVOICE DATE INVOICE# CHECK DATE CHECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT DEPOSIT Balance Unpaid Invoices 5/14/2021 1672 VRB $ 2,500.00 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLPH f 720.00 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&B $ 725.00 7/22/2021 F4979.08-01 8/12/2021 1352 FPC $ 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1356 DOLPH $ 40.00 8/11/2021 F4979.08-02 10/22/2021 1367 FPC $ 290.00 8/12/2021 71644 10/22/2021 1368 K&B $ 1,225.00 9/14/2021 72553 10/22/2021 1368 K&B $ 2,125.00 9/30/2021 21-75 10/22/2021 1366 DOLPH j 40.00 10/8/2021 1685 VRB $ 4,000.00 9/22/2021 F4979.08-03 11/9/2021 1371 FPC $ 362.50 10/8/2021 F4979.08-04 11/9/2021 1371 FPC $ 145.00 10/12/2021 73380 5/13/2022 1406 K&B $ 375.00 10/25/2021 21-77 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH $ 280.00 11/15/2021 74303 5/13/2022 1406 K&B 12/3/2021 21-80 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH j 800.00 12/15/2021 F4979.08-05 5/13/2022 1405 FPC $ 580.00 2/14/2022 22-84 5/13/2022 1404 DOLPH $ 1,040.00 4/22/2022 2102 VRB $ 4,070.00 12/22/2022 22-103 DOLPH $ 160.00 Reduced by Dolph Reduced by K&B for credits to Invoice#s 71644&72553(Credit Invoice#80058) ;10 730.00 $10 570.00 -$160.00 ; 160.00 (�yrc. 1t(ta G4 Vu� V,.t1��W� VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S.Rosenberg (914)939-0753 Christopher J.Bradbury www.iyebrook.org TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan R.Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J.Fischer Michal Nowak David M.Heiser Jason A.Klein November 22,2021 Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of $2,365.00 (two thousand three hundred sixty five dollars)as soon as possible.Our office has not received the final invoices for this application however a spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, � QtCa.� CtA� Tara A. Gerardi Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals & Architectural Review Board Cc:Michal Nowak,Superintendent of Public Works Enclosure PRO CIAMMSS 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE PRO CTNAME SLOMIAK CCOUNF# CCOUNT START DATE: CCOUNT aDSE DATE: Art clan dak hen INVOICE DATE INVOICE# CHECK DATE CHECK# DIFIRIBUTED TO DEBIT I DEPOSIT Balance Unpaid Invoices 5/14/2021 1672 VRB ; 2,500.00 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLPH f 720.00 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&B ; 725.00 7/22/2021 F4979.08-01 8/12/2021 1352 FPC ; 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1356 DOLPH i 40.00 8/11/2021 F4979.08-02 10/22/2021 1367 FPC f 290.00 8/12/2021 71644 10/22/2021 1368 K&B ; 1,225.00 9/14/2021 72553 10/22/2021 1368 K&B f 2,125.00 9/30/2021 21-75 10/22/2021 1366 DOLPH ; 40.00 10/8/2021 1685 VRB ; 4,000.00 9/22/2021 F4979.08-03 11/9/2021 1371 FPC f 362.50 10/8/2021 F4979.08-04 11/9/2021 1371 FPC f 145.00 10/12/2021 73380 K&B ; 375.00 10/25/2021 21-77 DOLPH f 320.00 11/15/2021 74303 K&B f 1,700.00 8,865.00 ; 6,500.00 .00 ; 2,395.00 < 4C Ca JJi 1�w4 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S. Rosenberg (914) 939-0753 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.orQ TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan R.Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J. Fischer Michal Nowak David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein September 24,2021 Seth Slomiak& Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook, New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak& Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of $6,000.00 (six thousand dollars) prior to the next scheduled Planning Board meeting, October 14, 2021. Our office has not received the final invoices for this application however a spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tara A. Gerardi Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals & Architectural Review Board Cc: Michal Nowak,Superintendent of Public Works Enclosure PRO ECTADDRESS 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE PRO ECTNAML- SLOMIAK ACCOC7YT# -- ACCOLNTnART DATF_• ACCMINTCLOSE DATE: A,*a km l,,,Im INVOICE DATE INVOICE M CHECIE DATE CHECK 0 DISTRIBUTED TO DEBIT DEPOSIT I Ealame Unpaid Invoice Cam on Hand 5/14/2021 1672 VRB f 2.50M 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLPH f 7211d10 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&B S 725.1X1 7/22/2021 F4979.09-01 8/12/2021 13S2 FPC S 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1356 DOLPH S 4MM 9/11/2021 F4979.08.02 FPC f 290.00 9/12/2021 716" K&B f 112500 9/14/2021 72S53 KltA S ZM.00 f 5.922.S0 f 2.5M.00 -f3 422.50 f 3A40.00 11217.50 Qy D y . 19 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MAYOR 938 King Street,Rye Brook,N.Y. 10573 ADMINISTRATOR Paul S.Rosenberg (914)939-0753 Christopher J. Bradbury www.ryebrook.org TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT Susan R. Epstein OF PUBLIC WORKS Stephanie J.Fischer Michal Nowak David M. Heiser Jason A. Klein September 2,2021 Seth Slomiak& Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook,New York 10573 Re: Planning Board Escrow Account for 9 High Point Circle Dear Seth Slomiak&Elinor Slomiak: Your project escrow account currently has a negative balance which must be brought up to date. Please deposit with the Village, the sum of $1,297.50 (one thousand two hundred ninety seven dollars and fifty cents) as soon as possible. Our office has not received the final invoices for this application however a spread sheet outlining invoices is attached for your review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. The applicable section of Village Code requiring payment of professional fees by the applicant is included on the next page for your review and convenience. Sincerely, Tara A. Gerardi Secretary,Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals& Architectural Review Board Cc: Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works Enclosures i §47-2.Escrow accounts. [Adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook 8-9-1994 by L.L. No. 9-1994;amended in its entirety 10-27-2020 by L.L.No. 9-2020.Subsequent amendments noted where applicable.] A. An escrow account to pay such consultant's fees may be required where the Village deems it necessary to retain a consultant regarding the application for the following applications: (1)Applications requesting an interpretation of any provision of the Village Code; (2) Site plan applications in accordance with Chapter 209; (3)Special use permit applications in accordance with§250-6H; (4)Variance applications in accordance with §250-13; (5) Subdivision applications in accordance with Chapter 219; (6)Architectural review in accordance with Chapter 8; (7) Erosion and sediment control permit in accordance with Chapter 118; (8)Floodplain development permit in accordance with Chapter 130; (9) Steep slopes work permit in accordance with Chapter 213; (10) Permits to perform any regulated activity in a wetland in accordance with Chapter 245; (11)Tree removal appeal in accordance with Chapter 235;and (12)Any other application where the Village deems it necessary to retain a consultant regarding the application. B.The applicant shall submit a separate check in an amount to be determined by the Village Administrator or Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer,but not less than$250 nor more than$2,500,to be used to establish an escrow account,from which withdrawals shall be made to reimburse the Village for the costs of professional review services. C.The applicant shall be provided with copies of any Village invoice for such services as they are submitted to the Village.All costs charged to the applicant shall be those reasonable and necessary to the decision making function of the reviewing board as set/defined in§47-1B. D.The applicant shall be required, from time to time,to deliver additional funds to the Village for deposit in the escrow account if such additional funds are required to pay for professional consultation services rendered to the Village or anticipated to be rendered.This amount shall be determined by the reviewing board or the Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer based on an evaluation of the nature and complexity of the application. E. If such account is not replenished within 30 days after the applicant is notified,in writing,of the requirement for such additional deposit,the reviewing Board may suspend its review of the application. An application shall be deemed incomplete if any amount shall be outstanding. 2 F.In the event that any application before any Board or department is withdrawn prior to any actions being taken,the applicant is nevertheless responsible for any expenses incurred by the Village with regard to said application prior to such withdrawal. G.A deposit in escrow may be required at any stage in the application process,including but not limited to preapplication discussions with the applicant. H.The applicant shall be provided with copies of any invoice for consultant fees as they are submitted to the Village and with Village staff time records for services for which reimbursement is sought. I.Escrow funds shall be refunded to the applicant when the applicant formally withdraws the application from consideration by the permitting authority or when the applicant receives a final determination from the permitting authority;in either case,all reimbursable charges incurred by the Village shall be first deducted from the escrow account,leaving an unencumbered balance that is not required by the permitting authority to pay consulting costs attributable to the application. Fees collected in accordance with the Village Code shall not be refunded.After all pertinent costs have been paid,the Village shall refund to the applicant any funds remaining in the escrow account within 30 days from the date of the final determination issued by permitting authority or from the date the applicant notifies the Village,in writing, of the withdrawal of the application.If the applicant is indebted to the Village for any fees,the amount of money still owed shall be added to the real property Village tax of the property and shall become alien against the property if not paid within 30 days of written demand. J.A building permit nor certificate of occupancy or use shall not be issued unless all professional review fees charged in connection with the applicant's project have been paid by the applicant.In no case shall a building permit or certificate of occupancy be issued to the applicant if the applicant is indebted to the Village for any professional review fees in excess of the escrow. B.The imposition of escrow account fees are in addition to,and not in place of,other fee schedules currently in force. 3 PRO CTADDRESS 9 HIGH POINT CIRCLE PROJECT NAME SLONU AK ACCOUNT# ACCOUNT START DATE: ACCOUNT CLOSE DATE: Art ckre date bay INVOICE DATE INVOICE# CHECK DATE CHECK# DISTRIBUTED TO DEBrr DEPOSIT Balance Un d Iavoica 5/14/2021 1672 VRB ; 2,500.00 7/14/2021 21-71 7/23/2021 1349 DOLPH ; 720.00 7/12/2021 70533 7/23/2021 1350 K&B ; 725.00 7/22/2021 F4979.08-01 8/12/2021 1352 FPC ; 797.50 8/13/2021 21-73 8/25/2021 1356 DOLPH f 40.00 8/11/2021 F4979.08-02 FPC ; 290.00 8/12/2021 71644 K&B ; 1,22.5.00 f 3 797.50 ; 500.00 41,297.50 ; 1,515,001 Tara Orlando From: Michal Nowak Sent: Thursday,March 30,2023 3:07 PM To: Tara Orlando;Jennifer Gray Subject: FW:9 High Point Circle-Steep Slopes Extension FYI From:Seth Slomiak<sslomiak@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 30, 2023 2:36 PM To: Michal Nowak<M Nowak@ ryebrook.org> Cc: Elinor Slomiak<elinor.slomiak@gmail.com>;Jeffrey M. Gaspar, P.E.<JGaspar@veritasengineeringny.com> Subject: Re: 9 High Point Circle -Steep Slopes Extension Hi Mr. Nowak, Please take this email as a request to extend the steep slope permit for our application which our engineer can finalize the load diagram being requested. Also, please confirm that there will not be any charges for this as no consultants should need to be involved. Regards, Seth Slomiak On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 12:04 PM Michal Nowak<MNowak@ryebrook.ore>wrote: Mr.And Mrs. Slomiak, Your Steep slopes permit has expired for this project.The Village would like to get this on for the April 13 2023 Planning Board meeting to have an extension issued. For this to happen we need the following items: 1. An email requesting an extension for the steep slopes permit 2. Escrow currently is negative $160. We would need a deposit of$500 to provide a positive balance 3. We are still awaiting a load diagram from your engineer regarding the retaining wall Afkfwd 1..Nownk Superintendent of Public Works And Engineering ISA Arborist Village of Rye Brook 1 Tara Gerardi O L D From: Christopher Bradbury Sf-1° 06 O VV Sent: Monday,March 21,2022 5:12 PM To: Seth Slomiak Cc: Tara Gerardi;Mike Izzo;Michal Nowak Subject: RE: 9 High Point Circle New Plans received 2022-3-14 Hi Seth- I have reviewed your cover letter and comments on the bills and also have asked the three consultants to review the same and submit comments to me. I will let you know when I hear back. Taker care, Chris Bradbury From: Seth Slomiak<sslomiak@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 1:46 PM To: Michal Nowak<MNowak@ryebrook.org> Cc: Christopher Bradbury<CBradbury@ryebrook.org>; Tara Gerardi <tgerardi@ryebrook.org>; Mike Izzo <Mlzzo@ryebrook.org> Subject: Re: 9 High Point Circle New Plans received 2022-3-14 Thank you Michal for your help and response. We look forward to figuring this out and moving forward. On Mar 21, 2022, at 12:28 PM, Michal Nowak<MNowak@rvebrook.org>wrote: Mr. Slomiak Mr. Bradbury ultimately has the review and change capacity regarding this. I will touch base with him. Last week was budget filing so that took a lot of time. We will review your comments and see where that takes us. Mike From: Seth Slomiak<sslomiak@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 4:39 PM To: Michal Nowak<MNowak@rvebrook.org> Cc: Christopher Bradbury<C Brad bury@ryebrook.org>; Tara Gerardi <ttgerardi@rvebrook.org>; Mike Izzo <Mlzzo@rvebrook.org> Subject: Re: 9 High Point Circle New Plans received 2022-3-14 Ok so can you please review our letter and comments and come back to us as soon as possible. On Mar 14, 2022, at 4:31 PM, Michal Nowak<MNowak@ryebrook.org>wrote: 1 Mr. Slomiak, I was made aware that today your engineer dropped off plans to the Building Dept with additional information that was requested from our engineering firm. Please note that these plans will be on hold (not sent to Al Engineers for review) until we resolve the billing issue and or there is a positive balance in the escrow account. Sincerely, A 1.Nowak Superintendent of Public Works And Engineering ISA Arborist Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 P: 914-939-0753 x 2965 F: 914-939-5801 -Yu6&W e%&—J IEe Gad6eat of thin `UiPP,age" z L Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC 2 Overhill Road,Suite 400,Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel 914-458-1110 v4emas-JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNYcom ENGINEERING + INSPECTION www.Vei-itasHomeServices.com September 21,2021 Memorandum ,1i;�-) --- --�- p LAMS NOV 13 2023 DAT� : To: Mr. Michal Nowak -- _.-.__.-.-�-.-'TAT Village of Rye Brook From: Jeffrey M. Gaspar, P.E. E Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC 51 2023 1CC: Seth & Elinor Slomiak G I D P W In accordance with an in-person plan review at the Village of Rye Brook, a response memo by Hardesty and Hanover date 6/4/2021, below is a response to the comments dated June 7,2021. Comment Summary in black,Response in red. Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Memo—5-16-2023 1. External stability calculations(sliding, overturning, soil bearing pressure)must be provided. a. Attached please find calculations for sliding and overturning. 2. Existing retaining wall dimensions(including height, width,and depth of footing)as provided on the software calculations output must be consistent with the construction drawings and verified in the field. a. Retaining wall dimensions are consistent within the applicable factors of safety. 3. The extent of existing geogrid(as measured from the rear of the lower retaining wall)and number of geogrid layers as indicated on the software output must be consistent with the construction drawings and verified in the field. Any modifications to the existing geogrid that might be needed to accommodate the proposed placement of the upper retaining wall must be indicated and calculations updated accordingly. a. Actual construction details of existing lower retaining wall are to be verified in the field prior to new wall construction. Should actual conditions not match design assumptions, work will stop and design calculations will be revised. 4. It is unclear how the surcharge pressure was derived to simulate the load from the upper wall. Supporting calculations must be provided. a. In individual analyses from proprietary software include surcharge pressure from the upper wall on the lower wall conservatively based on a soil mass sitting behind wall. 5. A source must be provided for the properties of the retained soil that have been provided on the software output. a. Attached please find NAVFAC DM7 soil properties chart. Veritas ENGINEERING+INSPECTION 6. The weight of the reinforced fill on the software output is indicated to be 125 pcf. The weight of the reinforced fill must also be indicated on the construction drawings. a. Analyses were performed include reinforced fill unit weight of 135 pcf. Drawings revised to indicate that, see detail 3/C002. See attached analyses. 7. Hydrostatic pressure must be accounted for in the design calculations. a. Walls are fully drained therefore hydrostatic pressure is neglected. Page 2 of 2 TM 5-818-1 /AFM U-3. Chap. 7 Table 3-1. Typical Engineering Properties of Compacted Materials Typical value of Casmreslon Typical Strength Characteristics _ Rapge or Range of At 2.5 At 7.2 Range of Msxlsum Optisua ket tsf Cohesion (Effective iypieal gubgrade Dry Unit Water, (20 psi) (50 psi) (As C0s- Cohesion Stress Coeffiatent of Modulus Group Weight, Content Percent of Original pected) (Saturated) Davelope) rerseabllity Purge of k AreNI Soil Type pcf Percent Neiaht par per des tt/gdil CHR Yalves L cu in. GW Well graded clean gray- 125-135 11-8 0.3 0.6 0 0 138 5 - In-` 40-80 300.-500 el., gravel-amd mixtures GP Poorly graded clean 115-125 14-11 0.4 0.9 0 0 137 10 1 30-60 250-400 gravel@, gravel-sand mix GM Silty gravels, poorly 120-135 12-8 0.5 1.1 .10-6 20-60 100-400 graded ........ ........... >3h gravel-sand- silt GC Clayey gravels, poorly 115-130 14-9 0.7 1.6 ........ ........... >31 >10 7 20-40 100-300 graded gravel-sand- clay SW Well graded clean sands, 110-130 16-9 o.6 1.2 0 0 38 >10 3 20-40 200-300 gravelly sands Sp Poorly graded clean 100-120 21-12 0.8 1.4 O 0 37 >10 3 10-40 200-300 sands, sand-gravel SN Silty sands, poorly 110-125 16-11 0.8 1.6 1050 420 34 5 - 10 5 10-40 100-300 graded sand-silt six SM-SC Sand-silt clay mlx.vith 110-130 15-11 0.8 1.4 1050 300 33 2 - 10 .......... slightly plastic fines SC Clayey sands, poorly 105-125 19-11 1.1 2.2 1550 230 31 5 . 10 7 5-20 100-300 graded sand-clay six ML Inorganic silts and 95-120 24-12 0.9 1.7 1400 190 32 10 5 15 or less 100-200 Clayey silts ML-CL Mixture of inorganic 100-120 22-12 1.0 2.2 1350 460 32 5 - 10-7 .......... 100-200 silt and clay CL Inorganic clays of lov 95-120 24-12 1.3 2.5 1800 270 28 10 7 15 or less 50-200 to Md. plasticity OL Organic silt. and silt- 80-100 33-21 ......... ........ ........ ........... ............ 5 or less 50-100 clays, 10v plasticity MR Inorgan lc clayey silts, 75-95 40-24 2.0 3.8 1500 420 25 5 - 30-T 10 or less 50-I00 elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high 80-105 36-19 2.6 3.9 2150 230 19 10 T 15 or less 50-150 plasticity ON Organic clays and silty T5-100 45-21 ........ ........ ....I...... .............. 5 or less 25-100 clays Notes 1. All properties are for condition of"standard Proctor" maximum density. except values of k and CBH which are for CE55 ,maximum density. 2. Typical strength characteristics are for effective strength envelopes and are obtained from ISBR data. 3. Compression values are for vertical loading with complete lateral confinement. ". 4. (>) indicates that typical property is greater than the value shown. ( ) indicates insufficient data available for an estimate. (NA VFAC DM-7) 3-3 ) PLAN NOV 13 2023 h BUILDING DLE-PARTMENT EZOZ/Si/£ :ale(] jedseg •W Aaa4ja[ :aau61sa4 :jagwnN }aaCoJd aaddn :aagwnN IIeM a) r-I AN '�ooag aA(j :uoijeaoj Cm aIaJID lu'Od gbIH 6 :u01.1e001 IleAA aamo-I :awe N 4aafoad o � N N N C N c e= E n o 'n w r �^�o s .v., o a ci r�n O to r N a W rt y rn c .` Mip N°iV W �o X o C C)u _o u - Uw �+^�n'� ° lu N o. +o Ev uE E v° n � v°n u m y=r O Ev W Q�'YYY a oo 'y�m ]N r M'n '°AA rein m .�.o'ry a �mw . oa I O O >.E c r._in u uu �t - r11 o wN vN p yN° m�''n� c ow.y� C C L u) m C 'o' o=`D�°2 avv �u >A — o�" v o'er a�"o U mn o mo ww=' N N 0 O aci n w n„ m O1m 0! m; mn o^ C G Cr m Cr. UI n U z ar_ ++ Q v 1A .N Q cc��o° QOv ooa �'n ca maj �¢ w a`o—'� Eov Y� in cu E mX C O roc N o m o L y m E t9 u ai "' c,. y c i. o c+J L o f U u c 'p O O 2 N a'n c a r�� ma o 4c a: oc o oco m e 00 om w e O �� vv� nq Q =� _� ` _�U m�Em u j �> o C C_ O N C1 cl o -OJ V1 rya y I ti 'i li Q p W'� m y0 Vl L y N V U O a o m 'n v) 3 m (O j C LU O v > m N � 3Q, 3 � c O x- E m O O N — (n '- t u L c cn U LO a o� o �--- G u; a m r X .� L.LA o of < � a rn j cv S ~ � � 3 � � co 3 W m .. j, o �< y —n � rn� C) { _ Ln v Qj cc v CJ; O N Os + �pX -r u >�J Z a u> cn (n > 0 E m in in CI; c --i o Crt: fu E. E o 'C �u) 220 0� J Q Q' � IZ L] ox 000 •1-4 N r1 'n Z O In V)V) 10 10 10 'o to ft),,h v L L w Ln Ln +fu ^ gg xasa ae;-Fq„ bhp LNO'O �£O � u•EE r°'�'� Fzg .C�yo C%mi IL CO mmm -Ssei Fa nZ E2S .€s`oy�ax _ea sV. %v � �Exegg aa, IVST' € % �. O% g8;t8 e� - �EXb" £go 5 0 0 rE"O rA tg x ` rE� M ti 3358'S 0Or v vco o m a°per �a=sa �xeg oho a U)'n m _ Wx cW� e�. t L� Es+Bs E9 .. cm�fi� �oY�n44g@E� n _pp`�5� 4Ee 'WN LE7;sE 3u 6tE5 cY QaEW`G` `s5 £ZOZ/ST/£ :alea - JedseE) •W Aaj;ja[ :jau6lsao :jagwnN 4oafoJd aaddn :.IagwnN IIeM w (V AN '100.J9 @A'd :uoljemo a @PJI:)lulod y61H 6 :uolae�o� 112,M aanno-1 :aweN IDafoad a`,-0 c ct o u a) E a� >C Q) c a/ Cl.0) O OJ C O V 7 m N a =v co a` ro N 3a y Ln O EL m 6 �- c +u (um U+E C 0 O � C i Ln C:5S 0 0 i all u!� O +-I y a O u n c �i �i O a v a — — LA 41._ i (O M C N a C c r ? Ol u E m p1 in in 0 0 i c$ aC d a a m II1 � ~ v � � u II O p a LL 3Ln Ln "110 .> Ln a a�.o LLn Ln 00 �L a�"-0)Ln Cuw0 " 00� 4- tf CL '� aw u Q Ln O I o 11 a0 a Ln a0 m II ro '�i p a0 II ^w to N0 75 g U)N kO Ln a1 J U a O=0 O II O Ln a O ri � OI.� �. I m O� o� a U II �I�O C II �Q II II i ce— (0 a5 C U O ro 0 0 II O _ w III Y a1 C O1LJ a1�Lil� II to X % y o �,•, u 0 ro N LLL M 0 L L II u cu j u m Z 4u 0)C (O N a1 toN t+ p 1 C-W p U ro �I fu U M .+>•' U ,� U,�-`�- C—V E N O t' aTI 0) m`m 00 1 C O 7 O O V y W vi of aa)Ri n�i'v.� L l u ao U a`m y 0- v'a) E c ��.�� II ti m rn°Jv C LU O '-' N p C V II Q C C m E Xx =�rz �~ II IQw in Ii..L�aL�L II a II m me w » 22����ia2a0�L�� m mma £ZOZ/ST/£ :ajea aedseq •w 1(aa449[ :aaubisao :aagwnN 4oa1oad aaddn :aagwnN IleM a (� AN '�ooag a/(b :uollemo (cur aIDJID aulod qb'H 6 :uolle:)o-I IleM aanno� :aweN 4oafoad v� a.v c 7 t d 00r, �DinV o °u — to Ln I, T v v � N C) mi o C) E w �a 7 00 t h Tc — N N N N i ` C a n LL a N O QJ C rp io a u 7 N V CD C CO h 0In V T N cc N Ln Ln � 3 j u N c W Ln u a V 00 .� T f, o E v N N N EL m °o O to LL u c �o L v to u C O LL u L Ln 0 0 0 0 0 r.O O 00 y.� O J N v O 0 7 V 0. d u Vf C a) v O v a - — Ln u va El c c N O 00 co W co co L T C 2) O7 U LL Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln E a in 'n v o 0 0 0 0 rn M M m rn L V 7 N d t '0't w a 0 0 0 0 C u_ N E 7 m � C N T N D a io I LL v ¢a L C 0 O U1 N E 7 rn h Ln M z v N V i L O LL N w � O E 7 ¢ ¢ Q Q Q Z u') V' M N FII c m C O L v E 0 v =) a)Lo U) EZOZ/ST/E :a4ed .fedseg •W A@.l4ja[ :jau6isaa :aagwnN 4oa[ad .raddN :.IagwnN IIeM cu AN '�ooae @A( j :uoiaeoo� 2 a1oJl:)4ulod gblH 6 :uoi4eoo-1 IIeM Jamo-I :awe 10a[ad v v a �t v ou U� O .-i d- n v v > E v NNMM 'Y N ac W V 11J � O N C .► y a V > N O . i ' Ln vm Ln u N 0 Ln N N n 00 01 .~-i r" CO N N E aL+ M V O O U-a- u tea. N r-} " c 0 Q) o C UL >Y Y N Ln r z am- w U "t N n tD 01 C aL O a m i0 1, .--1 z 0 m U.) rn W ink LD0 ~ r o v._ai O j > V a 7 7 N N V1 4 N.= N T f0 C c C CO 1-1 i In L >'c O lT U �- mN 00M E m in in N O a a s o Ln n N O aw_ CL00 N ry > II Q�1 m a N tO LL 0 u- M Q OCf� II u y Q m u II II w p u J tO kD w m+ V LL 0" y N N N N N mLL LL 21�Lp�v o °3L-mac 3 Ol L V N O II .�'Lo >t c in Q Y N ° V>= N u 3~Q I I I I w >L II a Ln33�LLL L u °° r^i `L°nNrn LL OMtpO rY 00 r1 tt n c -1 N N N v F 00 00 o a c .+ II ) i0 O o a � L ai L ° H� V iJ C C y C N N O ' pL C > N Ln 00 r1 U U M W v O W I� IT •--1 O) UD N N Ln O O a U) V M .-i O C 7 t ID N m II Lp m o.Ln 11 II II V v .. .n v v'I rn v a io 0e fD 0_a.'p L._ a 0 u •[ L L II 'y S LT In C p uj W rn v> >.� 'm Ln O Ln w'- > UO V V 0) E c 1-1NM N._ W 0 r4 J Q) Q a m�Lu a w LU c a LLnn T M N Q G1 l.7(f)Lf) Cr �(n lnL _ II �W II O II 11 i O 'C J6 cm i�iCT >� .� 1a II N NI v 1' N v 1i9 N O V)(n U) 0) 1 1 1C U amuf ENZ/ST/E :01eQ aedseg •w A@jjja[ :aau6isa4 :jagwnN Iaa[ojd # aaddn :.lagwnN IIeM a) L() AN '�ooa9 )Ad :uoi1eao-1 a DIDJID 4ulod 1461H 6 :uo14euo� II2M J9Mo-1 :aweN 4oaCo.ld v� a v � t Oa, u LL E avi T C � C _ I� ♦ p C aJ p QV al C LL = o00000000o a° ry N u o _ d at � N Ln c } 2 p E y M Ln mLn N M Ln f� m p u �1 I- C� -LJ Ln co N Ln N L!l 00 Oo .y d- Ul d i c In LD J o.0 (; �D m h Ln G� h [Y lD i > tT �. Ln N Lc N Ln .--a .-a n N Oo >-a1 N O r �D M co n 1\ N Ln �6 O to a.- N N tb O N N O V is al C N QJ M r,f� Ln tT u i, p L L U 0. 7 4J U) a v w ro o a`j c c v E D Ln Ln J O O O O O O O O O O c L l C _ 0 T O Ln O L m CO T u rol O C I� Ln N aJ L --i N N .--i mCDM co N+L' s c a M M M 8� Ln x ~ O `J fO c a ro L a O T 0) u w 0 v 00 V M n a) fV .-i o oo Ln u m N m 00 M N N W m Ln -I- (U— M 00 O N lD co V .i CDO V u u o N N O .--i n tt r,o iD n o (o (o u 0)0 (V N M M � a n c- m E U, 0 i C E 0 C N ro i o 00 Ln a E v LT ,-i Oi M N V N co oo .--i O o.0 Gi N a Ln O Ln M Ol oo M u 0 T C Ln n d' lc .--i N o Ln N o w +-1 N N N N N N v c 3 D >V a v r o C c 19 3 y N c .. O to O O M to CO N Oo .0 yUL., CD1� Ln 0 0) tD o Ln O .--i y >o 0 to Ln O 00 O O N m M CC N11 — N n M 00m V N m N I, N �.= tOj i N ,--� •-� N N N V I- In Ln �o f0 E c_ m d' a 3 0 o u v ? H y N + u .fl � Lo ai P-o L a vL cQ N .--1 I� LD V Ln N Ln N ul ` v 0 E (n O 0) V is O co L�1 V o 0� 'N o C 0 � p �O Ln �Y M M N N !V N v= p p o ry mai ocz po 0 ,8 C LT._ O LL Ln o > o U C a G o a1 o.,. O v O E U is u� me U o LO u 0 pL C >, Lo C ro z oo 1\ lD Ln C' M N O o a' 3 i u c L L 0 v aJ aJ in i—Ci (n U EZOZ/ST/E :OWC aedseE) •W Aaajja[ :jau6lsaa :jagwnN ID@IOJd * aaddn :aagwnN IIeM a AN '�OOae @Ald :uOIJeaO� m aloalD lulOd y61H 6 :UO14eao� IIeM J@'mO� :aweN IoaCoad v-0 -.v �t ` O V a � E a �c c C r a CL X Ln Ln Ln m Ln Ln to Ln Ln Ln n u N r N LU 3-09d N v a ti • C 0 a Qi 4 E fn U i � U C (UV O U1 O �O m n .� n N +'C C .-I .--1 .-1 .-I .--1 r-1 i a W Ln �' C i O O Z a` 2,_ a D O a N C v a N In O� Ln +-1 I4 V u .� O L � v n cD O co W •--� Ln O� N �O O >N a N i .X In Ln V f�'1 r`) N O v._ v mLn Lu O_ o u E ar o cn n J L Ln .--I Oc i- •--I r, V f-, N M O O1 f- 0 Ln M rV O) O) c L LU aai �N ax v� 0 . a 01 Cl V 0) a) Ln O N c j,a 'a N O S Ln .-1 Ln C s E a� � aim Q� a o.o.C: N Y L - m Ol m N V M m N Ln u a. N io z M rV +-r Ln �' V N U a rn N f V ,--� .--i .-� .-y - .--i .--i z n N U O O `�M V a N Q u a O O L� i Ut a Q C io U h OJ .--i Ln N C O •. 41 O tb n Ln V N O ,y r 00 N O v°o 4r1 u u m C u O 3 i r O Q x v O 0 u v a O V (7 T E (Il Ln � f- z i- Ln � N Ln I, r9 — u 0 ro . 0) V Z CD CO . It CDT �-+ C O O_ — O U1 rn m N N N N .� � (0 f0 C � 2 7 E O o 7 U O o O O E U v ° v U Ewa° — z o� m r� �o Ln ,I- rn rj o 6 C a C v0J m u a ° � +� U1 U £ZOVSi/£ :ale( aedseE) .W Aaallaf :aau6lsap :.iagwnN l:)aCoJd aaddn :aagwnN IIeM a r j AN '�ooagaAd :uollemo a 91DJID luiod 1461H 6 :uoileoo-j IIeM aaddN :aweN 4DafoJd L o n C N m O = at fo nVl OTC W o �u ry a o a�v � �nt•1 �MO N N a n - n o o� L�vr tom EEV O E v fo y v n u Ln Mvo a) LO a) cvn o av moo II �n n u o m� E I C C — a` . omnmo a) .O vc o L" '° c p CE Ni v a a X co Om c so a om 'p a) O ) n Q' V Nm 12 u ¢ O 0E o m E U° aw a = . ) u cp i a m N� m o in in OL ca) p � > o Ln oo rn a o c Ln (D a) (U � � o v U ° E� M 0 U (6 LO a) Z L y m L _ c o C/) U) CD L L O v Ln U r—- Z I (n LO _ a_ oy O LL 0 io � X .q y2o 0) z R rn; CDD a iv 0 N (A (A c = �v— o M t- OL a.- O j� — 0 O , = c ui ui N <� N O C 0 V aN 0 � c rncn0 >va y v uj N C N (0 e— a c e L� .�. X -C rn v' u Z >''� fn > > = E m in in O Z _.__..._.. J c 0 �ID IT {� m� E. 0 o Ln �Ln J Q L�`o �� 0- 0 Qj O n-0 a/x E coo un o Ln tiNM 00(.7 V)<nV) 10 10 M N 10 M, Ln a+L ; °FF frs g F g fo o CUP !H� $tea m CUP fix° PPz� 5!IN 2F_ c-ff O o.. I-" s"g � EP EK Sec 6�dx;fr�2 COL cue C y o "asi` ° o���s 5`f s�5ae oE,", v3O� sag 4� �a�g� �§o Inwww s&g ;ro [f]mmm = ,e eF=FpEaZ: „€FE -.E EA' agt, fi3Sq s=E �_°> s8E° .— e��w €g-xB kC€EeX fit a 3 N � �xi'' EoS-"z° =gse99gc "ya CIJ /N/�� N �' �r�i u�&a�'a g='�x_•s °���Ms3= =fie i+n W)_ zFC V� E29Bi-E O/.'. e� °ES � siu=r°x ry c o m S -;E;C�z q 14 0 („) p IVII�G a�� �oFE -` 'LL is(aAo pV C min OF QZEa t;a, E 3�.6 BE- Z w`nGS r 5E`s.F <z'II`T Z'.'° EZOZ/si/£ :area aedseq .W /Laa}}a[ :jau6lsad :jagwnN 4oaCoad yk aaddn :aagwnN IIeM w (�J AN '�Ooag a/Ld :uolIeoO-i a aloal:)aulod g61H 6 :uolleoO-1 IIeM aaddn :aweN 4oa[oad v� a.v C 7 t O V a) E a, T C � Q1 � C N a v O al C a u j N M a)— V O v u N c m w Ln O E M 0 0 0 U C y u N C N� O y C L W Ln a C N f0.O � O1 Z a' w a o r �C u C Ll LJ *k NO uai +7.+ i Ln v c C N C C C O T L ... E tp In Cn J C QY U r d g I v a— i $ �° 0 a o Ln N II o u � 'cT v II p a LL Ln Ln T Ln a � 10:-' a v� C7 cl u Ln r o 01u fob �rn �a u u N pa 11 'U O O -a C:, a M II a s r, -0 U- LL C C O I I w ti O II m v o a pp— o AAA �r�jC, �N vJ V 2' Oi0 II aJ a n Ol is I IILnoa0� vuII ` - m C II �Q r� vm atiJ a1 Jl0O II II 0 ^T> X ate.+ U �a.-i U 0 M N LL f0 O1-j L I I U a1 •U �= v0 =tofoo vQ(7—.- @ U o 0 u E a� x o�v v01 s a�i maw oL` LL U vlU� y u3 =ism a),(n `-'�m L a v o� w a) aJ O " O O�-. C-0 i m Ol J f0 U ��.a IQ O 0 (O Y U1 U L 0 LO `N w Ln CO Z r' — o o Ln st �a�-o,o,E �J cp u o > U a`mv _ .0)ai v— -cc - Mn Ln � auc•ci II Za a» i a, 3 w o�'-'�i U1 ~ rn Ol i w O C Ln II Q C C (0 f X x C C aJ~ II IQw i.i d QL�L IQa f0 N ro ui c Lu » =2����'a2aO�LLLL LL m mZ)a EZOVST/E aedseE) •W A@j4jar :jau6lsa4 :-iagwnN aaaCO-ld aaddN :aagwnN IIeM v (� AN '�OOJS @Ad :uOIWDOo m a)PJID aulOd IAH 6 :uoileao-1 IIeM aaddn :aweN P@[Oad N L C = N N O m GC O m �o Ln m 0 ' V I� O T,c H Q V N C u 0 c v � N 0 v O N C aQ N V CDC Q/-- v N (Im 00 S T N n m c M D 3-0 W o m O V cM v � �, Como 0 Ln LL _V C y m L V C U N O N Y L Ln Cy CDCDO CDO M.� m J Z Ql O 0�t a s o V OL 7 N N r E a to in J N CD O CD O O� is L V 7"- V1 O. t T- w a 0 0 0 O V N E :3 r C N T v O o_ t00 ' M Ln m w v O 'ifn O V V � ¢o_ L o� c J lO lO lO O a m 0 v 0 a� E z I, Lt 1 m z v Q) V L L Q LL QJ 0 E Q ¢ aQ Z V O m N N C E C y-� E i V E O C N v V7 U) � EZOZ/ST/E :alea .ledseE W Aaajja[ :jau6lsad :jagwnN ;oaCoad .iaddn :.jagwnN IIeM Lu 11, AN '�oojg aAd :uolleoo-1 a apaiD 4uiod g51H 6 :uoi;eoo-1 IIeM.laddn :aweN 1oa[oad v-a av �t cu O U Ln 00 t , E v C LD r,4 >'C O L T L C U N t! A la LL W a Q) CO y r a�j M N Q,- u O w u N . N•0 L 7 I!)Ln Ln 07 O N C 10 N N N O E p 0 m u- O !� Li a- -Fu v U L N C 0 p O O C 0 v Ln y u N f V M M c,L.. O O (N Q- LT LD � o O In m n N Ln N i M 4 M� O N •--I •--� 2 v O o a� LL°a' u c v ai O L L W a J.d L Ln N f0 t0 C C C v L > (M 0) U NN N .� M Ln .. E cm U1 Co J V) n U1 I co %D n 0 a a o ui wvLn v N,pa� a666 � > n a a ui W O II �p N1,0.^ )rM L.N � v a C II n Q Cvm II U° y 0 10'V II II v o E J LD LD �D LD N m U LL O v (N N N fV Co LL-C8 L0- LD iD LD LD O Q) O- C U 0 3:LL M O C L IVN y0 _ II C',6 > a Q x °1Ou>xN �3~Q II IIcc j >L II a Ln>3 LL Li LL LL U rN,4 C O ti n M v vl� C:) � aci H m � t m o c ,� II J �D l0 1p t0 ov v II c o v m c c ate., c v v N o .0 U v 1Q U U O W V CT 0 v v n arj 00 i� V rl) 1-1 O O o LO C N 17 Ni'� II II II j O vi M,N II U .. N v n Y z n a 1 C i ro (I Lf) O U rnv _o— v L" -C L II LT Lo N C 000 N LL L,-,>0 >? o tioNMC7 rn vva, >�p'ut N E c w L .>_ >xtv a v Z Q Q Q Q N L9(D(D0 N uu-rW aWW 19 C -0 t7MN .� U)(n Lni Qa OW II _O II II ` O C J YiiQ II li3 II -I Ln C X i p �_ LLOmm m m Q) LU 11 _ v v L- a+�+-.+J Y Y 2 In C,o . C_ C7 <co u £ZOZ/sT/£ :aje4 aedseg 'W Aaij4a[ :jau6lsap :jagwnN aoa.foJd aaddN :.ragwnN IIeM Lv LO AN 'Moog @A( j :uolleao-1 a aloal�lulod L461H 6 :uol1eao-1 IIeM aaddN :aweN 3aaCoJd v'0 a.v c �t E v >c o it ♦! a N.o 4 O 0 Luc m 000000000 a�� N .� v- o n� 3�u N a u)n r, 1 = ° E: M �i. �� �, o00000000 7Lv m (U� 0 1 da yMy Ln CY O Y 2 )Mn. o 7 O Ln Ln i- ^ N Ln M 0) O) V M Ln 00 N n Ln U) v v O Ln N co M m C 7 y N M N N 001 I � u � CO v v M It U) yc N Lna v� v V, L >` 0) _0) U E io io J 000000000 LL y V C w v N n 0 V) a L (m DCi 231 O L L-C,in M �O N rN N N Q)+-� ql vl O O 00 N O .Cul C > : ID .--i LT "I. N N ~ O OLD ^ ^ M to C y V N m LL 11 -T-0 > >._i O LT- O U) O A y N I, N u u�i rn m O 00 `� Ln N '7 O Ln V) M O v_ Ln riIDv u� 0.O 6 O N 11'1 In .-a T Ln 00 u v O N ~ N M to 00 f0 'ou Of O lV) N in C �a E (n a 0 �c E O c N P U O v , +� a) n �-+ N O O_E v o N .-1 O O ^ 00 "T Ln a o v cl � U) -1: 6 N %6 .* •-� O I M M N UP) M Ln Q>Y C Ln LO 0) N N Ln M N n W t0 ` - 7 0 w �--� -4 N N N N .--� vc 3� >Ua u w L O Lo LA U) C C Ca 3 i b to o Z O N 0) Ln V- 0 N N N C- N n r\ i p) y- O (n 00 y > 0- m +'' O) co n Lr) W .--L M N 7 O 0 7 O N Ln Ln 00 v a_ u �' Ln w N V- O0 01 .--� N N M E C fp V�1 U.G > 3- s u vL V)�. Fo- w - Z 'i Jm� N � m~ v y�i ,�V) In N N m .� ID In (n N ] v vi E L/j O.. N Na) N 1, Ln M u'o y M Cl) C O C y C y0 v OD O U) � M M (U O0 Uw m CL Of N 0 LL V) a > o'u y E v � a� > .o Umu� r U E _cm _ C u�^ m e >, Lp C Z O n O Ln 7 M N .-i o u ct" i O N ate-+ v 3 U) N j O ML w c�a +' o F-:5 V) U EZW/Si/E :a1e4 aedseE) •W AaajjaC :jau6lsaa :-iagwnN 1OaCOJd jaddn :aagwnN IIeM a lD AN '�OOag aA\d :u011eOO-1 a alaJIJ au'Od y61H 6 :uOIJeuO� IIeM aaddn :aweN 4:)afOJd v� �v c w �t v O V U1 � E v ?C D O � N O V } a v O �y v C ,J4 i0 xI N N N N N N N N N a O N p 1° N i Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Lrn 3 u � a) � N W '^ Mv • p E Y M Q r f0 i y (0 V lfl N I, N h UJ o co cl, tI � u O Q X p a� U1 VI C U QJ � O V M Ln M N LD p D N O Ln 'y .X Ln [t M M N C C Q, W ' L >, Q7 Q1 V `N EM ar L 'o .--1 cc C Il V ,--i n r C 01 N to Ln M N G� C) C t L O Y N Cl N Q X v � 0 . c M N N OJ h iD �D �D v `v Mj V M .--i O co u v, a .� of LD (q Ln iD ri C 7- N L N~ Q K U U1 >� N � L a� C t0 Q) C l0 N O �l6 C Ln* lD l6 M u D N.-• M N N '-1 .-y — ,--i .--i — L O V u O p V U Q r OJ p O C �n U1 Q C io u M O 41 V M Lf f V M O OJ y v o Q v CD ,--� O r'' O ,--� O p v o n Nu v E 2 u 9 O 3 u L O Q X O a u U1 D0 p v7 T y(u tEo T W N r, Ln — l0 Ln .� .� u p N N M N fl Ln M i, c a o M D1 ,y M i0 Ln ,I- M M c o aJ 'oio 1O c � v is E � � = LLLn 0 0 o E - 'o E v D U vfO � U E � E N-N — .. Z O CO I� Ln 'IT M N CDp � O C y0+ N O y 0 L V O H fa V Un 0 U Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC 2 Overhill Road,Suite 400,Scarsdale, NY 10583 S. Tel 914-458-1110 a . JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.com ENGINEERING + INSPECTION www.VeritasHomeServices.com �1e0irrvvi�rL. ZT ,✓l,� Memorandum ,5 _ To: Mr. Michal Nowak MAR - 8 2024 tJ Village of Rye Brook �_M VILLAGEE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENTFrom: Jeffrey M. Gaspar, P.E. Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC CC: Seth& Elinor Slomiak Below please find a response summary and narrative to comments received from Al Engineers dated 12-5-2023 Comment Summary in black,Response in red. Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Memo 1. External stability calculations(sliding, overturning, soil bearing pressure)must be provided. Hand calculations have been provided. It appears that the design will work within acceptable factors of safety when the following corrections are made: a. Lower wall: i. Wall height is inconsistent with the design drawings and software output. Upper wall total height- 6.6' +/-, exposed height 5.8' on drawings, hand calculations, and software outputs ii. Retained soil weight calculation (Area No. 2) is inconsistent with the stated mass for retained soil. See Revised Hand Calc iii. Area No. 3 indicates an 11-ft height; however, 10 feet is used in subsequent"Ph" calculation. See Revised Hand Calc. 1 1-ft height used throughout. iv. Resisting moment for Area No. 2 indicates 3.5' moment arm. Based on 6-ft width on diagram,the moment arm should be 3'. 0 See Revised Hand Calc. 3.5' is appropriate as it is the horizontal distance from the origin (rotation) point. b. Upper wall: i. Wall height is inconsistent with the design drawings and software output. All calculations and drawings indicate 4.7-feet within an acceptable variance. Veritas ENGINEERING+INSPECTION ii. Area No. I appears to assume a 4-ft wall height(based on 150 psf weight)which is inconsistent with design drawings and software output. Upper wall height is 4.7-feet (exposed)with 1-foot below grade within an acceptable variance. See Revised hand calcs. 2. Existing retaining wall dimensions(including height, width,and depth of footing)as provided on the software calculations output must be consistent with the construction drawings and verified in the field. Design engineer's response to this comment on memo appears to imply that he has re-run the software and checked the retaining walls with the wall height, footing dimensions,and number of geogrid layers that are shown on the plan's typical section. All pertinent existing retaining wall measurements including footing depth and size, geogrid layers, and reinforced fill shall be verified in the field, with documentation provided to the Village during construction, verifying that engineering calculation assumptions match field conditions. Should field conditions not match assumptions, work will not occur until additional information is provided to the Village's satisfaction. 3. The extent of existing geogrid(as measured from the rear of the lower retaining wall) and number of geogrid layers as indicated on the software output must be consistent with the construction drawings and verified in the field. Any modifications to the existing geogrid that might be needed to accommodate the proposed placement of the upper retaining wall must be indicated and calculations updated accordingly. The number of geogrid layers for the new upper wall is inconsistent with the software output. See Revised Detail 3/C002. 4. It is unclear how the surcharge pressure was derived to simulate the load from the upper wall. Supporting calculations must be provided. Design engineer's response to this comment on memo implies that a separate calculation was done to determine surcharge. That calculation or analysis from separate software must be submitted for review. Surcharge load in calculation software models weight of upper retaining wall as a surcharge load (of infinite length) set 5-feet(exposed height) behind the existing lower retaining wall. Less conservative options were considered, but this method was chosen to be as conservative as possible. 5. A source must be provided for the properties of the retained soil that have been provided on the software output. Source has been provided and is acceptable. Noted 6. The weight of the reinforced fill on the software output is indicated to be 125 pcf. The weight of the reinforced fill must also be indicated on the construction drawings. Weight of reinforced fill has been added to the plans. Noted 7. Hydrostatic pressure must be accounted for in the design calculations. Page 2of3 Veritas ENGINEERING, INSPECTION Design engineer's response to this comment on memo states that walls are fully drained and therefore hydrostatic pressure is neglected. See response to Comment 8 below. See response to comment 8, below. 8. The proposed retaining wall appears to have a single discharge location for a perforated drain. Drainage from the new retaining wall must not discharge in a concentrated fashion. The construction drawings must be consistent with the design calculations with respect to each proposed wall's number of perforated drainage pipes. All discharge locations must be shown on the construction drawings. Based on the description for Revision #4 on C002,the design drawings appear to intend for the removal of the perforated drain. However,the drain is still shown on the section,elevation, on the plan view,and mentioned in the notes on C004. If the design proposes to keep the perforated drain then this drainage must not discharge in a concentrated fashion. If the design proposes to remove the perforated drain pipe and rely only on the specified weep holes then the perforated drain must be removed from the plans and the software output must be updated to remove the relevant drainage pipes. Perforated drains and weep holes have been removed from plans. Water will weep through 12" crushed stone behind wall through front of wall to prevent hydrostatic loading. It should be noted that the completed wall installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity • Backfill gradation • Compaction Noted Continuing the numbering from the previous memo,the following are additional comments based on the new submitted material: 9. Geotextile(filter fabric) is needed to separate the drainage fill behind the wall from the retained soil. Typical section on C002 must be updated to call out the geotextile. Specifications for the geotextile must be added to the notes on C004 where it is mentioned. Mirafi 140N added to detail 3/C002 as a separation barrier between crushed stone and surrounding soils. 10. On C002 the"Lower wall retained soil height" is noted to be 5.8'. However,the elevations on the elevation view indicate a maximum height of 6.6'. The maximum height is the value that must be used on all hand calculations and software modelling. All modeling software matches existing conditions. See revised hand calculations using 6.6' height of wall. Page 3of3 Project No: P- ,4 ��T V4Sheet No: of erita • MAR - 8 2024 fay ENGINEERING INSPECTION __ Date: ,L v. VILLAG'�:. E;ROOK 1 ) BUILDING y 3 MASS q y es ,ash )7� (SEA /G '�1 �a C c -c Per) uAl� I,C<f! fir, 3 lye '3 = 3 � c fiFi a - Sao ���'� ,�dNpISS3,�p y all y>w /sT � V �� � so o�, Project No: GJ y G ` r��S/'�-r _ L L) Sheet No: of : � s Bv: �r ENGINEERING INSPECTION Date: 14 �Ll , OF Ewy , r cL- Sr^O 5 Project No: Sheet No: of, -7- - &a. 4w By ENGINEERING INSPECTION Date: /—e SAPL: VAC �--AJ L" kJ L) <7 4-0 V T I N L 00� CIO 0 Project No: Shect No: of, B1 : ' ENGINEERING INSPECTION Date: h' A 1 � r �J i y s LJ ��,OF NEW?, CAP M. C ��� r cr_ W F`ti V= J'F 1905 �A'�OFESSIONP� Project No: a s Sheet No: of By: ENGINEERING INSPECTION Date: Of NEW 4 1%§IgCI5 ts Y- �' rocscience /v/"' � ��� •,�jir� ,`it J U N 2 3 2022 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT 'CompoundStabilityCheck Friday, June 17, 2022 Slide2 Analysis Information CompoundStabilityCheck Project Summary File Name: CompoundStabilityCheck.slmd Slide2 Modeler Version: 9.022 Project Title: 9 High Point Circle - 20220617 Analysis: Compound Stability Check Author: Vikas Cinnam Comments Rye Brook, NY 10573 Currently Open Scenarios Group Name Scenario Name Global Minimum Compute Time Group 1 ® Bishop Simplified: Upper Wall Toe 2.920860 00h:00m:00.203s Lower Wall Toe Bishop Simplified: 00h:00m:00.191s 1.667820 Combined Compound Bishop Simplified: OOh:00m:02.92s Stabili 1.489710 General Settings Units of Measurement: Imperial Units Time Units: days Permeability Units: feet/second Data Output: Standard Failure Direction: Right to Left Analysis Options All Open Scenarios \�,0 F NEW n Z 0 905 FESS10 K:Lo\9 High Point Circle\CompoundStabilityCheck 2/8 CompoundStabilityCheck Friday, June 17, 2022 Slices Type: Vertical Analysis Methods Used Bishop simplified Number of slices: 50 Tolerance: 0.005 Maximum number of iterations: 75 Check malpha < 0.2: Yes Create Interslice boundaries at intersections with Yes water tables and piezos: Initial trial value of FS: 1 Steffensen Iteration: Yes Surface Options All Open Scenarios Surface Type: Circular Search Method: Grid Search Radius Increment: 40 Composite Surfaces: Disabled Reverse Curvature: Invalid Surfaces Minimum Elevation: Not Defined Minimum Depth: Not Defined Minimum Area: Not Defined Minimum Weight: Not Defined Materials "P�E0F Nr;y r Fp CL- 190 �V A��FESS IONa�'�, K:Lo\9 High Point Circle\CompoundStabilityCheck 3/8 Com pound 5tabiIityCheck Friday, June 17, 2022 Facing Material Color Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight [Ibs/ft3] 145 Cohesion [psf] 200 Friction Angle [deg] 40 Water Surface Assigned per scenario Ru Value 0 Lower Wall Reinforced Fill Color ❑ Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight [Ibs/ft3] 125 Cohesion [psf] 0 Friction Angle [deg] 34 Water Surface Assigned per scenario Ru Value 0 Upper Wall Reinforced Fill Color ❑ Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight [Ibs/ft3] 135 Cohesion [psf] 0 Friction Angle [deg] 34 Water Surface Assigned per scenario Ru Value 0 Foundation Soil Color ❑ Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight [Ibs/ft3] 125 Cohesion [psf] 0 Friction Angle [deg] 34 Water Surface Assigned per scenario Ru Value 0 Retained Fill Color ❑ Strength Type Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight [Ibs/ft3] 125 Cohesion [psf] 0 Friction Angle [deg] 34 Water Surface Assigned per scenario Ru Value 0 Materials In Use �P�E OF NEy,y C v r n � W �p 0 1905 FESS VA K:Lo\9 High Point Circle\CompoundStabilityCheck 4/8 Com pound StabilityCheck Friday, June 17, 2022 Material Upper Wall Toe Lower Wall Toe Combined Compound Stability Facing Material ® , Lower Wall f. Reinforced Fill Upper Wall ❑ Reinforced Fill Foundation Soil j Retained Fill Support Uxii00 Color ■ Type Geosynthetic Force Application Passive (Method B) Force Orientation Tangent to Slip Surface Strip Coverage (%) 100 Long Term Design Strength 1281 Ibs/ft Anchorage Slope Face Connection Strength Input Constant Connection Strength 1281 Ibs/ft Input Type Friction Angle &Adhesion Shear Strength Model Linear Adhesion 0 psf Friction Angle 28.3511 Material Dependent No Use External Loads in Strength Computation Yes Global Minimums © Group11 - Upper Wall Toe Method: bishop simplified FS 2.920860 Center: 35.744, 118.051 Radius: 9.240 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 31.547, 109.820 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 44.303, 114.570 ;E OF F Resisting Moment: 45085.7 lb-ft DrivingMoment: 15435.8lb-ft �EY 0 Passive Support Moment: 12001.9 lb-ft Maximum Single Support Force: 1281 lb Total Support Force: 1299.11 lb J, Total Slice Area: 39.0973 ft2 �p� 1905 Surface Horizontal Width: 12.7559 ft Surface Average Height: 3.06504 ft �FESSIONA��� K:Lo\9 High Point Circle\CompoundStabilityCheck 5/8 CompoundStabilityCheck Friday, June 17, 2022 e Group 1 - Lower Wall Toe Method: bishop simplified FS 1.667820 Center: 27.831, 119.590 Radius: 16.900 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 21.755, 103.820 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 43.968, 114.570 Resisting Moment: 162012 lb-ft Driving Moment: 97139.7 lb-ft Passive Support Moment: 22539.3 lb-ft Maximum Single Support Force: 1281 Ib Total Support Force: 1333.81 lb Total Slice Area: 94.1654 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 22.2124 ft Surface Average Height: 4.23931 ft © Group 1 - Combined Compound Stability Method: bishop simplified FS 1.489710 Center: 29.362, 120.720 Radius: 17.284 Left Slip Surface Endpoint: 25,741, 103.820 Right Slip Surface Endpoint: 45.514, 114.570 Resisting Moment: 144131 lb-ft Driving Moment: 96750.8 lb-ft Total Slice Area: 96.834 ft2 Surface Horizontal Width: 19.7731 ft Surface Average Height: 4.89727 ft Global Minimum Support Data ® Group 1 - Upper Wall Toe Method: bishop simplified SRO.O F NFL y F5 Z � �O 1905 V� 2FESS iooP K:Lo\9 High Point Circle\CompoundStabilityCheck 6/8 CompoundStabilityCheck Friday, June 17, 2022 Number of Supports: 9 UX1100 Support Type: Geosynthetic Start(x,y) Length (ft) L Inside SS L Outside SS Li (ft) Lo(ft) Force (lb) (ft) (ft) 36.3248, 5.11 2.89251 2.21749 2.89251 2.21749 1281 109.49 36.4303, 5.11 5.07677 0.0332318 5.07677 0.0332318 18.1066 110.83 36.5358, 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 112.17 36.6412, 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 113.51 30.8832, 5.06668 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 103.49 30.9692, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 104.82 31.0551, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 106.15 31.1411, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 107.48 31.2271, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 108.81 e Group 1 - Lower Wall Toe Method: bishop simplified Number of Supports: 9 UX1100 Support Type: Geosynthetic Start(x, y) Length (ft) L Inside SS L Outside SS(ft) (ft) Li (ft) Lo (ft) Force (lb) 36.3248, 5.11 5.05216 0.0578403 5.05216 0.0578403 42.8062 109.49 36.4303, 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 110.83 36.5358, 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 112.17 3.5.1 2, 113.5 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 30.8832, 5.08 2.0821 2.9979 2.0821 2.9979 1281 103.49 30.9692, 5.08 5.07305 0.0069533 5.07305 0.0069533 10.0079 104.82 31.0551, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 106.15 1.48 1, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective `PEE OF Nf107 /y yp 31.2271, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective * `` 9so 108.81 © Group 1 - Combined Compound Stability Method: bishop simplified 091905 V� A��FESS IONP�'�� K:Lo\9 High Point Circle\CompoundStabilityCheck 7/8 CompoundStabilityCheck Friday, June 17, 2022 Number of Supports: 9 UX1100 Support Type: Geosynthetic Start(x, y) Length (ft) L Inside SS L Outside SS Li (ft) Lo (ft) Force (lb) (ft) (ft) 36.3248, 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 109.49 36.4303, 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 110.83 36.5358, 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 112.17 36.6412, 5.11 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 113.51 30.8832, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 103.49 30.9698, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 104.83 31.0558, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 106.16 31.1418, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 107.49 31.2278, 5.08 Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective Not Effective 0 108.82 0 FOf r y FOA 1 05 �v Esslo' K:Lo\9 High Point Circle\CompoundStabilityCheck 8/8 ?AR V o W La Q � E v � z" C) N d - v U a o /CENSOQ�O z O (n c QJ 7 T O E O U _N l0 C) N N O _ o N 2 V o 4, o 0 CD _c d _ � M rl _ Q1 N - G1 � N —Ce) k o F— N N O O CD LO O ' N I� O M ` - d (O _ C C U _N 0 M Y _O C M 4 CD fECD y co E—cc:))' ii N h _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - O in 0 Ln O Ln O Ln 0 Ln O In O n 0 In O Ln O In O N O Ln O _ O N I- O N N [� O N Ln h O N Ln h O N In [-, CD NU-) to r- O L" O O O O 1-1 .-/ r-1 r-I N N N N M'1 /M In In in to Ln' l0 jw - 1 a bFMt z 9'L1l sz 9 Ul Nl 510L 9 L s"m ® ❑ ❑ ❑ � 3v3v * LICE NSF�QLn u z s 0 fv U o Ln n E N ai 7 m C Q! Z3 � Q O U 0 V �D O - N N O N v Ln o F co 77 C O _ a Ql O O m O Ln_ SS i -N _ M O 1- N (V f0 O (V n co J �D rl O I u N Y N � N � C 3 y, N N O N t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �J O t.ry O lf) O if7 O lf1 O Ln O LC] O H O 11') O Ln O ifl O N OLo O u 0 N Ln r- O N N r� O N Ll [- O N Ln r� O N Ln r� O N N r- O W 0 0 0 0 r-I rl rl -4 N N N N M M M M -;T 3' Q' T Ln Ln to Ln l0 41 W z roFM i, w - -�-- 1 — 011 54l 011 S l SA I;x I A A €E � � _ z - o lip — -< O LO M VI * L��� s - ^ -leLn v o u z z _ 0 O LO m 0 v C T O O U - tp O - N N O fV v _o 2 v u m U _ U - C 0 _ a _Ln - M (O h O C N 7 N O O a N U UJ 10 C C at E u U to M Y O O O O O O _ O CO m 00 `® N .F..'., - } m (q 1 w + F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �. O l!') O In O In O in O In O H O lf') O N O lf'1 O uo O L1 O Ln O ro 0 N Ln r- O N Lo r- O N Ln r- O N LO !- O N Ln I- O N Ln r- O 44 O O O O r-1 r-i r-I N N N N 1M 1� 11 M C' C C, c-* Ln* Ln to n DO N ro � � W OZl 5ll 011 5 L REFERENCES CALCULATIONS RESULTS CODE REFERENCE Project No.:2046-9 High Point Circle Date:7/2012022 Lower Wall Analysis By:JGaspar Rev.:0 INPUTS: OF NEW 4U AUG - 2 220 091905 o sad- �° _ OFESSol V LLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPA TMENT lr Stem: Layer Height Base width Top width Front offset Back offset 1 5.750 6.000 6.000 0.000 0.000 Stem total height:H,t,,,, —5.75 ft Footing: Base thickness:Hh,,,, =1 ft Heel width:14'h_1 =0 ft Soil: Substructure: Layer Height Unit weight Friction angle Cohesion Allowable pressure Soil-concrete friction Name ft kip/ft' ksf ksf 1 3.281 0.125 34.000 - 4.000 0.480 Foundation Soil Total subsoil height:H,,,;,._1, =3.28084 ft Active: Layer Height Unit weight Friction angle Cohesion Inclination Name ft kip/ft' ksf 1 6.750 0.135 38.000 - 0.000 1 Backfill ReportRETAINING WALL unique Design Total active soil height:H,m;.am;,, =6.75 ft Loads: Active: Load Id Type Magnitude Length start pos. OF NEW Y `- kip ft ft C9 M. 1 1 Uniform 1 0.600 0.000 0.000 1 '� SOIL PROPERTIES: r n w � w Active soil: Principles of Foundation l 1905 Engineering,Braja Das, Active earth-presssure coefficient Simplified for the case of Horizontal Granular Backfill with Vertical Back Face K.., 7th Ed.-Eqn.7.19 OFESSO, 1+ 1—sin(38') — K.,t = —0.23788 1+sin(38') Equivalent Rankine active earth pressure coefficient Equivalent Rankine earth pressure coefficient for all the layers K_ K.,;-h; Ka, H,m;,am;,K K. _ 6.75 ft 157 ft =0.23788 6.7 ACTING FORCES: Vertical forces: Self-weight of the structure: Stem wall weight:P=,y<.. m,..j< •A,;_ =0.145 kip/ft3•34.5 ftl =5.0025 kip/ft Base weight:P=ry a�<;<.f•m;•s Am., =0.12 kip/ft3•6 it' =0.72 kip/ft Self-weight of the soil: 7„„;.m;a,.; •Al_h_; =0.135 kip/ft3•0 ftl=0 kiplift Total active soil weight:P m;,., =0 kip/ft Superimposed loads resultants: Surcharge resultant(uniform):P,=q.<;;,r,i •L.m;.,,; =0.6 kip-0 ft=0 kip/ft Total vertical force downwards:E P.m;,.; =5.7225 kip Horizontal forces: Rankine active force Rankine Active horizontal resultant force per unit length,due to retained earth The Reinforced Concrete Design P.<m.;.<d.i =Po.I•H-;_,_.I +s•'Y,a;;ami_i •H m7 Handbook,ACI SP- P..R;.;.<e.� =0 ksf•6.75 ft+2-0.135 kip/ft'-6.75 ft'-0.23788 =0.7316 kip/ft 17(14),Vol.2 Total horizontal force(active soil):P, ,.;.<d.n.;z..(a =0.731602 kip/ft The Reinforced Concrete Design Rankine active force Calculate the Rankine active resultant force per unit length,due to superimposed loads P, Handbook,ACI Sp- 17(14),Vol.2 P,aa;/o„..� =qad;.,,1 •H,aa,amn.•K., P„, ,,;f, ,,,; =0.6 kip•6.75 ft•0.23788 =0.96343 kip/ft Total horizontal force leftwards:E Pi,o.;:.a;d 1,p_d, =1.695028 kip STABILITY CHECKS: Overturning: Restoring moment DesignRETAINING WALL unique The self-weight of the retaining wall and the soil,the distributed load above the heel,the passive soil weight and its associated horizontal pressure,if considered,tend to counteract the overturning moment.Moments taken about the front edge of base(toe): Stem wall moment:Al=P dr,,.,..t,,,, -_-5.0025 kip/ft•3 ft.=15.007 kipft ! W OF NE Base moment:Al=P dr,,.r,M., _ 0.72 kip/ft 3 ft=2.16 kipft P,` y Active soil weight moment(layer 1):AI--P,,;,.,,r •dr,,,,,„,,,,,,r —0 kip/ft 0 ft—0 kipft � It 7t Surcharge moment(load 1):Al P 'd;—r„,I- —,,-n„r,,..i --0 kip/ft-6 ft_0 kipft Total restoring moment:E AIR —17.1675 kip a ft m � Overturning moments 1905 The horizontal components of the active soil lateral pressure tend to overturn the retaining wall about the front edge of the base(toe): OFESS104 Active pressure moment(layer 1):Al—P.ryr„;„,d.r dl„,.,_„r„,,,,d =0.7316 kip/ft•2.25 ft— 1.6461 kipft Surcharge earth pressure moment:Al=P.„„,1„,,„,j •dl—r..-h 9,.r =0.96343 kip/ft-3.375 ft=3.2516 kipft Total overturning moment:A111TA1 —4.897669 kip+ft Stability requirement against overturning The Reinforced Concrete Design Factor of safety FS Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),Vol.2 FS AIR Afm m 17.167 kipft OVERTURNING: FS— PASS 4.8977 kipft 3.5052 > 1 FS:3.51 Bearing: Soil Pressure Resultant Distance To calculate soil pressure,the location of the vertical resultant force must be determined. The Reinforced Concrete Design Soil pressure resultant distance a Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),Vol.2 a P.rr;r„I 17.167 kipft—4.8977 kipft a 5.7225 kip =2.1441 ft The Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook,ACI Sp- Soil pressure resultant eccentricity e 17(14),Vol.2 r 2 e 6 ft 2.1441 ft—0.85586 ft 2 Uplift check Check if the resultant falls within the middle third of the base. K'M,.,, 6.0000 ft UPLIFT CHECK 1: —1 ft e=0.856 ff PASS 6 6 Ratio:0.856 Applied soil pressure distribution The Reinforced Concrete Design Minimum soil pressure q„,;,, Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),Vol.1 6-e 1,f.,- 1 ft (1 Wb.- RETAINING WALL unique Design ) Repoft _ 5.7225 kip 6•0.85586 ft UPLIFT CHECK 2: qm° 6 ft•1 ft 1 6 ft ) =0.13747 ksf>0 ksf PASS Value:0.14>0 The Reinforced Concrete Design Maximum soil pressure q,,,,,, Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),vol.2 OF NEW Y Pr ti-I 6.e l CO ����V M. Ci q,, : = We...•1 ft (1+ Wb,,-/ F 5.7225 kip 6.0.85586 ft 6 ft•1 ft 1+ 6 ft ) =1.77 ksf 1— ck� Stability requirement against bearing capacity failure 2� Z The Reinforced i,'� 1905 Concrete Design Handbook,ACI SP- Factor of safety FS P� 17(14),Vol.2 OFES SO' FS= qwl..h.i q,,_ FS= 4 ksf _2.2599 >2 BEARING:PASS 1.77 ksf FS:2.26 Sliding: Horizontal frictional resisting force The Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook,ACI SP- Horizontal frictional resisting forceµ E P 17(14),Vol.2 µ P µ P=0.48 •5.7225 kip=2.7468 kip Total horizontal acting force Pn,,.i_ont.1 frft_,ds =1.695028 kip Stability requirement against sliding The Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook,ACI SP- Factor of safety FS 17(14),Vol.2 FS= E Ph—..(.I ff..,.d. FS— 2.7468 kip =1.6205 >1 SLIDING:PASS 1.695 kip — FS:1.62 ReportRETAINING WALL unique Design • REFERENCES CALCULATIONS RESULTS • CODE REFERENCE Project No.:2046-9 High Point Circle Date:7/20/2022 Upper Wall Analysis By:JGaspar Rev.:0 INPUTS: / OF N E(l,L4 y� , DEE LE 1 1� I r r W 0 091905 VILLA E OF RYE BROOK � �FESSIONP� BUILDING DEPARTMENT r Stem: Layer Height Base width Top width Front offset Back offset 1 4.000 6.000 6.000 0.000 0.000 Stem total height:H —4 ft Footing: Base thickness:Hi,,,, —1 ft Heel width:W,_, —0 ft Soil: Substructure: Layer Height Unk weight Friction angle Cohesion Allowable pressure Soil-concrete friction Name ft kip/ft3 ksf ksf 1 3.281 0.125 34.000 4.000 0.480 Foundation Soil Total sub soil height:H„ 1.,,,b =3.28084 ft Active: Layer Height Unit weight Friction angle Cohesion Inclination Name ft kip/fts ksf 1 5.000 0.135 38.000 -1 0.000 Backfill Total active soil height:H,,,,�,„�,,,., —5 ft Loads: Active: z Load Id Type Magnitude Length Start pos. kip ft ft 1 I Uniform I 0.00ol o.0001 0.000 OF NE(,y y ;,•. 0 M. ids SOIL PROPERTIES: * 4 ,._•p Active soil: r_ Principles of Foundation � W Engineering,Braja Das, Active earth coefficient Simplified for the case of Horizontal Granular Backfil/with Vertical Back Face K,,,� m =�7th Ed.-Eqn.7.19 �, .�- �( 091905 K OFESSION 1-sin(38 ") 0.23788 1+sin(38 ") Equivalent Rankine active earth pressure coefficient Equivalent Rankine earth pressure coefficient for all the layers K,,, Z K_-h, K,,. - H-1,,,,,,,. 1.1894 ft K" - _0.23788 5 ft ACTING FORCES: Vertical forces: Self-weight of the structure: Stem wall weight:P=7,,,,,,T,n„j_ A,j,.,,, =0.145 kip/ft'-24 ft' =3.48 kip/ft Base weight:P=ry,,,,,,,, f,9 .Amp. -0.12 kip/ft" 6 ftz -0.72 kip/ft Self-weight of the soil: -r-a a..i -A.,„i �;, . =0.135 kip/ft' 0 ft2=0 kip/ft Total active soil weight:Pn;,. =0 kip/ft Superimposed loads resultants: Surcharge resultant(uniform):P =q � i L, i =0 kip 0 ft=0 kip/ft Total vertical force downwards:�Prrnrnl 4.2 kip Horizontal forces: Rankine active force Rankine Active horizontal resultant force per unit length,due to retained earth The Reinforced Concrete Design P.-.-,d.1 -Pn.IH.,,d,,.r,..i + s 17(14),Vol.2 • are;,,.i -H Handbook,ACI SP- p „ �,e.e -0 ksf-5 ft-1 i 0.135 kip/ft'•5 ft2 x •0.23788 =0.40193 kip/ft Total horizontal force(active soil):P,,,„—,,d.h,.r tW =0.401428 kip/ft The Reinforced Concrete Design Rankine active force Calculate the Rankine active resultant force per unit length,due to superimposed loads P. Handbook,ACI SP- p „,f>., 17(14),Vol.2 P.,,;f .,,.e =4,,,,,,.,e •H a.arr. Ka. P,,......f,„,,,.1 =0 kip-5 ft-0.23788 =0 kip/ft Total horizontal force leftwards:E Ph_,,erfe,,,,,.e, =0.401428 kip STABILITY CHECKS: Overturning: Restoring moment The self-weight of the retaining wall and the soil,the distributed load above the heel,the passive soil weight and its associated horizontal pressure,if considered,tend to counteract the overturning moment.Moments taken about the front edge of base(toe): i RETAINING WALL unique e Stem wall moment:Al—P dl,,.,.„r,, =3.48 kip/ft•3 ft—10.44 kipft • Base moment:Al—P•dr,.,,,,w,„,. —0.72 kip/ft 3 ft—2.16 kipft Active soil weight moment(layer 1):Af—P,,,,_i dr,,,,„ _.i 0 kip/ft•0 ft—0 kipft Surcharge moment(load 1):Al—Pr dr,,.,,,,,r;,, „„,,.r,,,,,,.r —0 kip/ft-6 ft 0 kipft OF NEw Y Total restoring moment:F,All, — 12.6 kip•ft �11 M. Overturning moment co The horizontal components of the active soil lateral pressure tend to overturn the retaining wall about the front edge of the base(toe): Lu ' 11 Active pressure moment(layer 1):Af—P,,„r;,,d.i -dl,,,,.„1--d —0.40143 kip/ft•1.6667 ft—0.66905 kipft 2 gc�u F Z t� mig05 Surcharge earth pressure moment:Al—P,,, J, ,.r •di,,.,,,„,,,h,,,T..r —0 kip/ft•2.5 ft=0 kipft � �OFESSIONP Total overturning moment:Afcnr,v —0.669046 kip•ft Stability requirement against overturning The Reinforced Concrete Design Factor of safety FS Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),Vol.2 All? FS= Af(rr.0 12.6 kipft OVERTURNING: FS-- 0 66905 kipft _18.833 PASS> I FS:18.83 Bearing: Soil Pressure Resultant Distance To calculate soil pressure,the location of the vertical resultant force must be determined. The Reinforced Concrete Design Soil pressure resultant distance a Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),Vol.2 Ale—Afo7.v a— S P.n„„r a— 12.6 kipft—0.66905 kipft _2.8407 ft 4.2 kip The Reinforced Concrete Design Soil pressure Handbook,ACI SP- resultant eccentricity e 17(14),Vol.2 2 e 6 ft _2.8407 ft-0.1593 ft 2 Uplift check Check if the resultant falls within the middle third of the base. Wi„,„, 6.0000 ft UPLIFT CHECK 1: —1 ft >e-0.159ft PASS 6 6 Ratio:0.159 Applied soil pressure distribution The Reinforced Concrete Design Minimum soil pressure q,,,,,, Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),Vol.2 Prrl„nl 1 6-c ww,., -1 ft ( W&I., 4.2 kip 6-0.1593 ft UPLIFT CHECK 2: qm'° 6 ft•I ft —6 ft ) =0.58849 ksf>0 ksf PASS Value:0.59>0 The Reinforced Concrete Design Maximum soil pressure q,,,,,, Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),Vol.2 OF NEWY P„t—i 6-e q,n.., = wm_-I/t �1+whn g�P �(>EV M. G, 'Af 4.2 kip + 6-0.1593 ft 7C 7C 6 ft.-1 ft �1 6 ft —0.81151 ksf -- Stability requirement against bearing capacity failure tn� � The Reinforced C`y� �191)5 Concrete Design Handbook,ACI SP- Factor of safety FS r-, 17(14),Vol.2 OFESSkoNP FS— 9.,d 4 ksf BEARING:PASS FS= 0.81151 ksf —4.9291 >2 FS:4.93 Sliding: Horizontal frictional resisting force The Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook,ACI SP- Horizontal frictional resisting force µ P 17(14),Vol.2 µ1:P= µYP=0.48 -4.2 kip=2.016kip Total horizontal acting force Ph,,..; e.l i,f,_,d, =0.401428 kip Stability requirement against sliding The Reinforced Concrete Design Factor of safety FS Handbook,ACI SP- 17(14),Vol.2 PEP FS— E Ph——1 1 fn,, 6 FS— 2.016 kip _5.0221 >1 SLIDING:PASS 0.40143 kip FS:5.02 Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC 2 Overhill Road,Suite 400,Scarsdale,NY 10583 Ver:ftas Tel 914-458-1110 JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.com ENGINEERING + INSPECTION www.Veritas H omeServi ces.com 3 � Memorandum �- To: Mr. Michal Nowak � �;n Village of Rye Brock / � r From: Jeffrey M. Gaspar, P.E. MAR 4 2022 c®1 Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC BV<<p��O [Ry E Q1RGO cP,gRTM`rVT CC: Seth &,Elpor Slom'ak In accordance with an in-person plan review at the Village of Rye Brook, a response memo by Hardesty and Hanover date 6/4/2021,below is a response to the comments dated June 7,2021. Comment Summary in black,Response in red. I a/l--/a I Dolph Rotfeld Eneineerin2 Memo }' 1) All retaining wall calculations(including the Tensar software output)must be signed and sealed by a New York State-licensed professional engineer. a. See attached signed and sealed calculations. 2) Existing retaining wall dimensions(including height and depth of footing)as provided on the Tensar software output must be verified in the field. a. A note was added to T001 that existing retaining wall dimensions including height of footing, depth of footing, length of geogrid and spacing of geogrid shall be identified by an engineer currently licensed and registered in NYS. Verification that the existing conditions meet or exceed the design assumptions are to be verified with documentation to be provided the Village. 3) The extent of existing geogrid(as measured from the rear of the lower retaining wall)as indicated on the Tensar software output must be verified in the field. Any modifications to the existing geogrid that might be needed to accommodate the proposed placement of the upper retaining wall must be indicated and calculations updated accordingly. a. A note was added to TOO that existing retaining wall dimensions including height of footing, depth of footing, length of geogrid and spacing of geogrid shall be identified by an engineer currently licensed and registered in NYS. Verification that the existing conditions meet or exceed the design assumptions are to be verified with documentation to be provided the Village. 4) It is unclear how the surcharge pressure was derived to simulate the load from the upper wall. Supporting calculations must be provided. a. The surcharge of 700psf on the lower wall assumes 135pcf average at 5' height (675psf)with an additional factor of safety. Veritas ENGINEERING+INSPECTION 5) A source must be provided for the properties of the retained soil that have been provided on the Tensar software output. a. Foundation/retained soil of the existing wall was classified based on a hand dug test pit 24" deep and cross referenced with USDA Soil maps (see attached). The soil was classified as SM by USCS and identified as WdC by USDA indicating a sandy loam which is consistent with the USCS classification. Engineering properties of SM-type soils were taken from NAVFAC DM 7.2 (attached) indicating a bulk density of 1 1 Opcf to 125pcf(125pef was chosen)and a friction angle of 34 degrees(34 degrees chosen). b. New Wall Reinforced fill is indicated on the drawings to be NYSDOT Type 4 Aggregate. This material classifies as a GW carrying a minimum friction angle using NAVFAC DM 7.2 of 38 degrees (34 degrees was chosen to be conservative)with a bulk density between 125pcf and 135 pcf(13 5 pcf was chosen). 6) The weight of the reinforced fill on the Tensar software output is indicated to be 125 pcf. However,the weight of the reinforced fill on sheet C002 of the plans indicates a compacted density of 135 pcf. Plans and calculations must be consistent. a. See revised Tensar output. 7) A basis must be provided for neglecting hydrostatic pressure on the Tensar software output. a. Hydrostatic pressures on the wall are neglected due to the nature of the wall. The permeability of the reinforced fill is extremely high(<10% passing#200 sieve),there is 12"of crushed stone immediately behind the retaining wall units with any excess water to escape via the perforated pipe at the bottom of the crushed stone or through the front face of the retaining wal I units. Note neglecting hydrostatic pressure this is the typically accepted practice for drained segmental retaining walls. 8) The proposed retaining wall appears to have a single discharge location for a perforated drain. Drainage from the new retaining wall must not discharge in a concentrated fashion. a. Only nominal amounts of water will ever discharge through the perforated pipe, however the design was changed to add discharge points through the front face at 5' oc. 9) In order for this office to complete its review a force/load diagram must be provided for applied partial load factors(as indicated on the Tensar software output)showing all forces acting on the wall with points of application. a. To be submitted separately. 10) It is unclear how ultimate bearing pressure and factored ultimate bearing pressure were determined on the Tensar software output. Soil bearing capacity must be verified in the field. a. Soil bearing capacity was assumed based on NYS IRC Table R401.4.I. Bearing capacity will be No grading is proposed or will occur off-site. Topographic changes were revised for clarity. Page 2 of 2 Tensar software output Tensar Calculations in accordance with: LRFD • rloading) Client: Slomiak Project: 9 High Point Circle - Existing Lower Wall As-built Analysis Existing wall including surcharge of new wall 5'behind. Tensar _ Structural Systems _ D Mesa®Retaining Wall System MAR 4 2022 VIL BUI D NG r7 RYE BROW L EPAR77VIEPqT IMPORTANT NOTES(Final Design) (1)This Tensar Software Output has been prepared by a Tensar affiliate or by LICENSEE to enable the application of Tensar Geogrids to be evaluated.The calculations are derived from a standardized software program which generally follows AASHTO or NCMA methodologies and which has been modified to incorporate certain properties of Tensar®products. (2)Any mechanically-stabilized earth structure involves various engineering,design,material,construction and end-use considerations.Many of these are site specific,such as(but not limited to)terrain and grading,watertable,the nature and strength of the foundation and backfill soils,compaction of the backfill,surface and subsurface water control and drainage,the presence of utilities and other elements in or around the structure,use of proper equipment and construction practices during installation,neighboring construction activity,load factors,other environmental factors and the like.This printout provides certain limited information to a final design,and does not itself constitute a design or plan suitable for actual construction. A final engineered design and plan,with drawings and installation details and requirements,signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer,is required prior to construction. (3)This printout,and any final design and plan,includes certain assumptions regarding onsite conditions which must be verified by others at the site both before and during construction. Adherence thereto by the owner and those other contractors specifically engaged to be onsite for assessment and testing,construction,supervision,quality control and other assistance is required for the proper installation,safety and performance of the structure(Tensar does not provide such onsite services except and to the extent specifically engaged and compensated for doing so under a written contract signed by Tensar). Tensar is a registered trademark. Method of The calculation method used in this Design Analysis is the tie-back wedge method for MSE walls analysis given in Section 11.10 and other referenced sections of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,5th Edition(2010). Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 1 of 9 Design prepared by 2 Overhill Rd. Telephone 914-458-11110 Suite 00 Designer Fax Scarsdale.NY 10583 Designer E-mail JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.com h _ softwareTensar Tensar •il@ Version 2.10.02 Calculations • •. - • 1 1loading) Input data and Section Project: 9 High Point Circle-Existing Lower Wall 1,625lb/W,DL 6.75 na&mm 77 1.00 5.5° 85.5° 6.00 Tensar Structural Systems Mesa®Retaining Wall System Static loading case All dimensions in feet Scale 1:50 Fill/foundation Soil zone Drained/ c, properties 4), Vbulk Design soil undrained (IbMt-) (°) (lb/ft') strength Reinforced fill Drained 0 34.0 135.0 parameters are peak values Retained fill Drained 0 34.0 125.0 Foundation soil Drained 0 34.0 125.0 Surcharges No Load acts from x (ft) To x (ft) Load(lb/ft') Live load/Dead load 1 4.92 299.92 625 Dead load x coordinates are measured from the top of the reinforced fill block. Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 2 of 9 Tensar, Tensar software output TensarSoil@ Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD • loading) Water Location Height of water level above datum (ft) r„ pressure data In front of structure No water pressures Within fill No water pressures NA Verification Mechanism Result Max/Min Critical case OK? of external stability Eccentricity +1.19 R +/-1.50 ft Static,B OK Sliding on base 1.225 1.000 min B OK Bearing 5.398 1.000 min OK Verification Mechanism OK? Mechanism OK? of internal stability Rupture check OK Pullout check OK Internal sliding OK Connection check OK Reinforcement Tensar No of Starting Vertical Finishing Coverage Ci layout Geogrid layers level(ft) spacing(ft) level(ft) N Starting and finishing levels UX1100 2 4.00 2.00 6.00 100 0.8 are related to datum UX1100 1 2.00 - 2.00 100 0.8 UX1100 1 0.67 - 100 0.8 Applied partial Load combination limit state Static loading load factors As given in (Strength 1) Section 3.4, Minimum or maximum Max Min Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 DC(dead load of facing) 1.25 0.90 EH(horizontal and vertical components of 1.50 0.90 force on back of MSEW) EV(vertical load of MSEW) 1.35 1.00 ES(vertical dead loads above or behind 1.50 0.75 MSEW) WA(water load) 1.00 1.00 LL(live traffic load) 1.75 0.00 LS(live surcharge) 1.75 0.00 Reference 9 High Point Circle (J1, Date Mar 14 2022 Page 3 of 9 ii. ' Tensar, Tensar software output TensarSoilO Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD • loading) Applied partial Load combination limit state Static loading material and resistance (Strength 9 I) factors Soil strength parameters 1.00 As given in Section 10.5.5, Sliding soil-to-soil 1.00 in general but Eccentricity e<B/4 soil Section 11.5.6 and Table e<38/8 rock 11.5.6-1 for Bearing resistance 0.65 MSEW Geogrid tension failure 0.90 Geogrid pullout 0.90 Connection failure 0.90 Further Further information,specifications and bill of quantities System overview information descriptions for this Tensar Earth Retaining Structure Installation guide relevent to are given in the following documents which form part Case histories this of this Design Analysis Tensar Earth Retention The current versions of these documents may be found by following the website linkto"Tensar System Documentation"in the Help menu of the TensarSoil@ program For program users who do Tensar International Corporation For program users who do Tel:+1 770 3442090 contact your nearest Tensar Fax:+1 770 3442089 representative or distributor E-mail:web@tensarcorp.com Web:www.tensarcorp.com Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 4 of 9 c. aV; =y;-> Tensar software output Tensar. TensarSoil@ Version1 1 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD(AASHTO 2010)(static loading) Detailed calculation results The following tables provide the detailed results from the design Analysis, including geogrid design data, together with both external and internal analysis results. External stability-unfactored calculated forces Forces are calculated as per Section 11.10.5.2. Note:negative forces are upwards and to the right Loading direction Units Vertical Horizontal Forces in or above reinforced block: Soil mass lb/ft 4656.1 Facing lb/ft 550.0 Dead loads lb/ft 105.4 0.0 Live loads lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure on base lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure on face lb/ft 0.0 0.0 Forces behind reinforced block: From soil Ib/ft -56.7 720.3 From dead loads lb/ft -84.0 1067.1 From live loads lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure lb/ft 0.0 0.0 External stability-eccentricity and overturning Calculations carried out as per Section 11.10.5.5(11.6.3.3& 10.6.3.3). Loads and moments given below are factored. LRFD does not require an overturning calculation. Calculation Units Static loading Total vertical load on base lb/ft 5040.2 Total moment on base about centreline IbfUft 6.011 Eccentricity ft +1.19 Limit(s) ft +/-1.50 OK? OK Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 5 of 9 a\" Tensar software output ,' Tensar, •jl@ Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD(AASHTO 2010)(static loading) External stability-sliding Calculations carried out as per Section.Loads and moments given below are factored. Calculation Units Static loading Horizontal driving force Ib/ft 2681.0 Horizontal resisting force Ib/ft 3399.7 CDR(sliding) 1.268 Requirement > 1.0 OK? OK Additional sliding check For inclined structures an additional sliding check is Carried out with the back of the reinforced soil block defined by a series of steeper lines until the lowest R*/Q*value is obtained. Critical inclination of wall back deg 90.000 Horizontal driving force Ib/ft 2996.7 Horizontal resisting force Ib/ft 3670.8 CDR(sliding) 1.225 Requirement z 1.0 OK? OK External stability-bearing capacity check Calculations carried out as per Sedan 11.10.5.4(10.6.3&11.6.3),using Meyerhof load distribution to take into account eccentricity.The effect of load inclination is omitted in accordance with Section C10.6.3.1.2a. Calculation Units Static loading Ultimate bearing pressure is calculated using unfactored loads Total vertical load on base Ib/ft 6920.3 Total horizontal load on base Ib/ft 2681.0 Total moment on base about centreline Ibft/ft 5.095 Factor Nc 42.164 Factor N q 29.440 Factor N y 41.064 Effective length L' It 4.73 Ultimate bearing pressure Ib/ry' 12144.8 Factored ultimate bearing pressure Ib/ft' 7894.1 Factored applied bearing pressure Ib/ft' 1462.4 CDR(bearing capacity) 5.398 Requirement z 1.0 OK? OK Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 6 of 9 TensarTensar software output TensarSoil@ Version1 1 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD(AASHTO 2010)(static loading) Geogrid reinforcement design data Strength values quoted are per metre width of geogrid, and do not take into account percentage coverage Geogrid strength and connection strength are calculated following Section 11.10.6.4. The connection strength values given are for the facing system indicated on Page 2. Design temperature('C) 20 Design life(years) 75 Maximum particle size of fill=3/4" Tensar Ultimate Creep Durability Installation Tensile Design Connectior data geogrid strength factor factor damage resistance strength (lb/ft) factor (lb/ft) Tult RFcr RFd RFid T Ta CRult CRCR UX1100 3974 2.56 1.1 1.1 0.9 1154 1.0 0.33 Geogrid coordinates and design data Levels are measured from the datum and horizontal location is measured from the toe of the wall Tensar Level Left Right Length Coverage Pullout geogrld end end Interaction factor C I a P (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) •/ uX1100 6.00 1.36 6.47 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 4.00 1.21 6.31 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 2.00 1.05 6.16 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 0.67 0.94 6.05 5.11 100.0 0.800 Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 7 of 9 Tensar software output Tensar, •il@ Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD(AASHTO 2010)(static loading) Internal Stability Calculations carried out as per Section 11.10.6.2(load on geogrid),Section 11.10.6.3(pullout check) and Section 11.10.6.4(rupture and connection check). Geogrid Data Factor of safety Tensar Level Length Sv Cov Tal Tmax CDR CDR CDR geogrid (ft) (ft) (Ins) % (lbtft) (Ibtft) tension pullout conn UX1100 6.00 5.11 21 100 1283 229 5.04 1.32 4.71 UX1100 4.00 5.11 24 100 1283 351 3.29 3.39 3.08 UX1100 2.00 5.11 20 100 1283 442 2.61 5.92 2.44 UX1100 0.67 5.11 16 100 1283 440 2.63 8.72 2.45 Minimum requirement 21.0 21.0 z1.0 Internal sliding check-sliding on geogrids LRFD does not include a specific requirement or definition for checking sliding on geogrids,so calculations are carried out as per the external sliding check,Section 11.10.5.3(10.6.3.4).Loads given below are factored. Geogrid Data Static loading Tensar Level Cov Ci Driving Resisting CDR geogrid (ft) % forces forces Sliding (lb/ft) (Ibtft) UX1100 6.00 100 0.800 191 1622 8.48 LIX1100 4.00 100 0.800 831 2427 2.92 UX1100 2.00 100 0.800 1661 3224 1.94 UX1100 0.67 100 0.800 2320 3750 1.62 Minimum requirement 21 0 Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 8 of 9 (i Tensar software output Tensar •il®R Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD(AASHTO 2010)(static loading) The following tables give all forces and moments used in the external stability calculations for all load cases Calculation of forces,and moments about centre of base of reinforced soil block. Vertical Horizontal Forces un- Load Load un- Load Load (lb/ft) factored CaseA CaseB factored CaseA CaseB Earth pressures on the back of reinforced soil block due to self weight of soil and loads on backfill: Soil -57 -85 -77 720 1080 1080 Deadloads -84 -126 -113 1067 1601 1601 Live loads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Self weight of the reinforced block and loads applied above and within it: Soil 4656 6286 4656 0 0 0 Facing 550 688 495 0 0 0 Deadloads 105 158 79 0 0 0 Live loads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 5171 6920 5040 1787 2681 2681 from vertical forces: from horizontal forces: Moments un- Load Load un- Load Load Ibft/ft factored CaseA CaseB factored CaseA CaseB Earth pressures on the back of reinforced soil block due to self weight of soil and loads on backfill: Soil 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.6 2.4 2.4 Deadloads 0.3 0.4 0.4 3.6 5.4 5.4 Live loads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Self weight of the reinforced block and loads applied above and within it: Soil -3.3 -4.5 -3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Facing 1.3 1.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deadloads -0.4 -0.5 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Live loads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals -1.9 -2.7 -1.8 5.2 7.8 7.8 Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 9 of 9 :: an TensarTensar software output TensarSoi*Version1 1 Calculations in accordance with: • • 1 1loading) Client: Slomiak Project: 9 High Point Circle - Proposed New Upper Wall Analysis - Rev. 1 Proposed new upper wall set 5'behind lower wall Tensar -el Structural Systems Mesa®Retaining Wall System MAR 14 2022 VIL LA t,: 9 eUIL NGOF RYE 8 UEPARTMONT IMPORTANT NOTES (Final Design) (1)This Tensar Software Output has been prepared by a Tensar affiliate or by LICENSEE to enable the application of Tensar Geogrids to be evaluated.The calculations are derived from a standardized software program which generally follows AASHTO or NCMA methodologies and which has been modified to incorporate certain properties of Tensar@ products. (2)Any mechanically-stabilized earth structure involves various engineering,design,material,construction and end-use considerations.Many of these are site specific,such as(but not limited to)terrain and grading,watertable,the nature and strength of the foundation and backfill soils,compaction of the backfill,surface and subsurface water control and drainage,the presence of utilities and other elements in or around the structure,use of proper equipment and construction practices during installation,neighboring construction activity,load factors,other environmental factors and the like.This printout provides certain limited information to a final design,and does not itself constitute a design or plan suitable for actual construction. A final engineered design and plan,with drawings and installation details and requirements,signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer,is required prior to construction. (3)This printout,and any final design and plan,includes certain assumptions regarding onsite conditions which must be verified by others at the site both before and during construction. Adherence thereto by the owner and those other contractors specifically engaged to be onsite for assessment and testing,construction,supervision,quality control and other assistance is required for the proper installation,safety and performance of the structure(Tensar does not provide such onsite services except and to the extent specifically engaged and compensated for doing so under a written contract signed by Tensar). Tensar is a registered trademark. Method of The calculation method used in this Design Analysis is the tie-back wedge method for MSE walls analysis given in Section 11.10 and other referenced sections of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,5th Edition(2010). Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 1 of 9 Design Telephone:prepared by 2 Overhill Rd. Designer E-mail:JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.com Designer Fax Scarsdale,NY 10583 7,, `; * yt - • iJ • 1 1 CalculationsTensar, Tensar software output • • 1 1loading) Input data and Section Project: 9 High Point Circle-Proposed New Upper Wall 5.75 m 1.)0 8 5• 85.5• 6.00 Tensar Structural Systems Mesa®Retaining Wall System Static loading case All dimensions in feet Scale 1:25 FillMoundation Soil zone Drained/ c' properties Ybulk Design soil undrained (Ib/ft') (^) (Ib/ft3) strength Reinforced fill Drained 0 34.0 135.0 parameters are peak values Retained fill Drained 0 34.0 125.0 Foundation soil Drained 0 34.0 125.0 Water Location Height of water level above datum (ft) r pressure data u In front of structure No water pressures Within fill No water pressures NA Reference 9 High Point Circle OP !Nt . Date Mar 14 2022 Page 2 of 9 �? Tensar • 11 Calculations • •• • • 1 1loading) Verification Mechanism Result Max/Min Critical case OK? of external stability Eccentricity -0.01 ft +/-1.50 ft Static,B OK Sliding on base 3.480 1.000 min B OK Bearing 10.257 1.000 min OK Verification Mechanism OK? Mechanism OK? of internal stability Rupture check OK Pullout check OK Internal sliding OK Connection check OK Geogrid coordinates and design data Levels are measured from the datum and horizontal location is measured from the toe of the wall Tenser Level Left Right Length Coverage Pullout geogrid and end interaction factor Ci a p (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) UX1100 4.67 1.26 6.37 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 3.33 1.15 6.26 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 2.00 1.05 6.16 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 0.67 0.94 6.05 5.11 100.0 0.800 Applied partial Load combination limit state Static loading load factors As given in (Strength 1) Section 3.4, Minimum or maximum Max Min Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 DC(dead load of facing) 1.25 0.90 EH(horizontal and vertical components of 1.50 0.90 force on back of MSEW) EV(vertical load of MSEW) 1.35 1.00 ES(vertical dead loads above or behind 1.50 0.75 MSEW) WA(water load) 1.00 1.00 LL(live traffic load) 1.75 0.00 LS(live surcharge) 1.75 0.00 Reference 9 High Point Circle ;+ Date Mar 14 2022 Page 3 of 9 't. Tensar, Tensar software output •il@ Version 2.10.02 Calculations1loading) Applied partial Load combination limit state Static loading material and resistance (Strength 1) factors Soil strength parameters 1.00 As given in Section 10.5.5, Sliding soil-to-soil 1.00 in general but Eccentricity Section 11.5.6 e<B/4 soil and Table e<3B/8 rock 11.5.6-1 for Bearing resistance 0.65 MSEW Geogrid tension failure 0.90 Geogrid pullout 0.90 Connection failure 0.90 Further Further information,specifications and bill of quantities System overview Information descriptions for this Tensar Earth Retaining Structure Installation guide relevant to are given in the following documents which form part Case histories this of this Design Analysis Tensar Earth Retention The current versions of these documents may be found by following the website linkto"Tensar System Documentation"in the Help menu of the TensarSoil@ program For program users who do Tensar International Corporation For program users who do Tel: +1 770 3442090 contact your nearest Tensar Fax: +1 770 3442089 representative or distributor E-mail:web@tensarcorp.com Web:www.tensarcorp.com Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 4 of 9 t: Tensar software output Tensar TensarSoil@ Version1 1 I Calculations in accordance with: LRFD • loading) Detailed calculation results The following tables provide the detailed results from the design Analysis, including geogrid design data, together with both external and internal analysis results. External stability-unfactored calculated forces Forces are calculated as per Section 11.10.5.2. Note:negative forces are upwards and to the right Loading direction Units Vertical Horizontal Forces in or above reinforced block: Soil mass lb/ft 3966.3 Facing Ib/ft 450.0 Dead loads lb/ft 0.0 0.0 Live loads Ib/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure on base lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure on face lb/ft 0.0 0.0 Forces behind reinforced block: From soil lb/ft -41.1 522.7 From dead loads lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From live loads lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure Ib/ft 0.0 0.0 External stability-eccentricity and overturning Calculations carried out as per Section 11.10.5.5(11.6.3.3& 10.6.3.3).Loads and moments given below are factored. LRFD does not require an overturning calculation. Calculation Units Static loading Total vertical load on base lb/ft 4315.8 Total moment on base about centreline Ibft/ft -0.031 Eccentricity ft +-0.01 Limit(s) ft +/-1.50 OK? OK Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Mar 14 2022 Page 5 of 9 Y Tensar, Tensar software output TensarSoil@ Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD • loading) External stability-sliding Calculations carried out as per Section . Loads and moments given below are factored. Calculation Units Static loading Horizontal driving force Ib/ft 784.0 Horizontal resisting force Ib/ft 2911.0 CDR(sliding) 3.713 Requirement z 1.0 OK? OK Additional sliding check For inclined structures an additional sliding check is carried out with the back of the reinforced soil block defined by a series of steeper lines until the lowest R*/Q*value is obtained. Critical inclination of wall back deg 90.000 Horizontal driving force Ib/ft 876.3 Horizontal resisting force Ib/ft 3049.7 CDR(sliding) 3.480 Requirement > 1.0 OK? OK External stability-bearing capacity check Calculations carried out as per Section 11.10.5.4(10.6.3&11.6.3).using Meyerhof load distribution to take into account eccentricity.The effect of load inclination is omitted in accordance with Section C10.6.3.1.2a. Calculation Units Static loading Ultimate bearing pressure Is calculated using unfactored loads Total vertical load on base Nit 5855.3 Total horizontal load on base Ib/ft 784.0 Total moment on base about centreline Ibft/ft -0.573 Factor Nc 42.164 Factor N q 29.440 Factor N y 41.064 Effective length L' ft 6.00 Ultimate bearing pressure Ib/ft' 15398.9 Factored ultimate bearing pressure Ib/ft' 10009.3 Factored applied bearing pressure Ib/ft' 975.9 CDR(bearing capacity) 10.257 Requirement z 1.0 OK? OK Reference 9 High Point Circle Q r (V't f; Date Mar 14 2022 Page 6 of 9 09`9u Tensar software output Tensar TensarSoil(O Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD(AASHTO 2010)(static loading) Geogrid reinforcement design data Strength values quoted are per metre width of geogrid,and do not take into account percentage coverage Geogrid strength and connection strength are calculated following Section 11.10.6.4.The connection strength values given are for the facing system indicated on Page 2. Design temperature(°C) 20 Design life(years) 75 Maximum particle size of fill=3/4" Tensar Ultimate Creep Durability Installation Tensile Design Connectior data geogrid strength factor factor damage resistance strength (lb/ft) factor (lb/ft) Tult RFcr RFd RFid T Ta CRult CRCR UX1100 3974 2.56 1.1 1.1 0.9 1154 1.0 0.33 Internal Stability Calculations carried out as per Section 11.10.6.2(load on geogrid),Section 11.10.6.3(pullout check) and Section 11.10.6.4(rupture and connection check). Geogrid Data Factor of safety Tensar Level Length Sv Cov Tat Tmax CDR CDR CDR geogrid (ft) (ft) (Ins) % (lb/ft) (Ibt t) tension pullout corn UX1100 4.67 5.11 21 100 1283 98 11.82 4.36 11.05 uX1100 3.33 5.11 16 100 1283 166 6.95 6.87 6.50 UX1100 2.00 5.11 16 100 1283 258 4.48 8.02 4.19 uX1100 0.67 5.11 16 100 1283 349 3.31 9.18 3.09 Minimum requirement 21.0 Z1.0 Z1.0 Reference 9 High Point Circle "'-. ; Date Mar 14 2022 Page 7 of 9 :S. `9 ;ari TensarTensar software output •i)(9)Version 2.10.02 Calculations • •. e e 1 1loading) Internal sliding check-sliding on geogrids LRFD does not include a specific requirement or definition for checking sliding on geogrids,so calculations are carried out as per the external sliding check,Section 11.10.5.3(10.6.3.4).Loads qiven below are factored. Geogrid Data Static loading Tensar Level Cov Ci Driving Resisting CDR geogrid (it) % forces forces Sliding (lb/ft) (lb/ft) UX1100 4.67 100 0.800 28 1725 61.98 UX1100 3.33 100 0.800 138 2275 16.43 UX1100 2.00 100 0.800 333 2821 8.46 UX1100 0.67 100 0.800 613 3364 5.49 Minimum requirement al.0 The following tables give all forces and moments used in the external stability calculations for all load cases Calculation of forces,and moments about centre of base of reinforced soil block. Vertical Horizontal Forces un- Load Load un- Load Load (lb/ft) factored CaseA CaseB factored CaseA CaseB Earth pressures on the back of reinforced soil block due to self weight of soil and loads on backfill: Soil 41 -62 -56 523 784 784 Deadloads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Live loads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Self weight of the reinforced block and loads applied above and within it: Soil 3966 5355 3966 0 0 0 Facing 450 563 405 0 0 0 Deadloads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Live loads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 4375 5855 4316 523 784 784 Reference 9 High Point Circle r Date Mar 14 2022 Page 8 of 9 .1r_ accordanceTensar Tensar software output Calculations in • loading) from vertical forces: from horizontal forces: Moments un- Load Load un- Load Load Ibft/ft factored CaseA CaseB factored CaseA CaseB Earth pressures on the back of reinforced soil block due to self weight of soil and loads on backfill: Soil 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.5 1.5 Dead loads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Live loads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Self weight of the reinforced block and loads applied above and within it: Soil -2.7 -3.6 -2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Facing 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dead loads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Live loads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals -1.5 -2.1 -1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 Reference 9 High Point Circle "''- Date Mar 14 2022 Page 9 of 9 _fir 570 Taxter Road,Suite 300 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Elmsford, NY 10523 p (914) 631-8600 phone ( fax An ®Engineers Company www.drepc.com www.aiengineers.com TO: Mr. Michal Nowak Village of Rye Brook FROM: James Natarelli, P.E. D DEC 10 2021 DATE: December 10, 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK SUBJECT: 9 High Point Circle BUILDING DEPARTMENT Building Permit Application In reference to the above-mentioned project,this office has received (on November 23, 2021) and reviewed the following: 1. Memo prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated September 21, 2021; 2. Plans prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated October 5, 2020 revised October 18, 2021; 3. Bellefair Retaining Wall Design plan prepared by Spectrum Skanska, Inc. dated May 21, 1998 revised June 15, 1998; 4. Tensar Software Output for"Existing Wall including surcharge of new wall 5' behind" prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated September 8, 2021; 5. Tensar Software Output for"Proposed new upper wall set 5' behind lower wall" prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated September 8, 2021. In consideration of the Building Permit application for the abovementioned project,this office has reviewed the items listed above. Our comments are as follows, but not limited to: 1. All retaining wall calculations (including the Tensar software output) must be signed and sealed by a New York State-licensed professional engineer. 2. Existing retaining wall dimensions (including height and depth of footing) as provided on the Tensar software output must be verified in the field. 3. The extent of existing geogrid (as measured from the rear of the lower retaining wall)as indicated on the Tensar software output must be verified in the field. Any modifications to the existing geogrid that might be needed to accommodate the proposed placement of the upper retaining wall must be indicated and calculations updated accordingly. 4. It is unclear how the surcharge pressure was derived to simulate the load from the upper wall. Supporting calculations must be provided. 5. A source must be provided for the properties of the retained soil that have been provided on the Tensar software output. Improving Life. By Design. Mr.Nowak Rye Brook Planning Board Engineers 9 High Point Circle-Building Permit Application December 10,2021 Page 2 6. The weight of the reinforced fill on the Tensar software output is indicated to be 125 pcf. However,the weight of the reinforced fill on sheet C002 of the plans indicates a compacted density of 135 pcf. Plans and calculations must be consistent. 7. A basis must be provided for neglecting hydrostatic pressure on the Tensar software output. 8. The proposed retaining wall appears to have a single discharge location for a perforated drain. Drainage from the new retaining wall must not discharge in a concentrated fashion. 9. In order for this office to complete its review a force/load diagram must be provided for applied partial load factors (as indicated on the Tensar software output) showing all forces acting on the wall with points of application. 10. It is unclear how ultimate bearing pressure and factored ultimate bearing pressure were determined on the Tensar software output. Soil bearing capacity must be verified in the field. It should be noted that the completed wall installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity • Backfill gradation • Compaction Upon receipt of amended plans addressing these comments,this office is prepared to continue its review. Improving Life. By Design. AUG 2 7 2021 MOSS & KALISH , PLLC VILLAGE OFRYE BROOK COUNSELLORS AT LAW BUILDING DEPARTMENT 122 EAST 42N0 STREET MARK L.KALISH NEW Y O R K, NY 1 0 1 6 8-0 0 9 8 NASSAU OFFICE GARY N.MOSS 500 OLD COUNTY,SUITE 206 DAVID B.GELFARB' --- GARDEN CITY,NY 11530 --- TELEPHONE: (212) 867-4488 ___ .LAMES SCHWARTZMAN T E L E C O P I E R: (2 1 2) 9 8 3-5 2 7 6 writer's e-mail: 'ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW JERSEY E-MAIL: LAWYERS@MOSSKALISH.COM gelfarb@mosskalish.com August 27, 2021 Via e-mail to tgerardi@ryebrook.org and first-class mail Honorable Chairman Robert Goodman and Members of the Village Planning Board AUb 3 U 2U21 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street VWGECLEM'S OFFICE Rye Brook, New York 10573 Re: Seth Slomiak and Elinor Slomiak Site Plan Application and Steep Slopes Permit Application 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook, NY 10573 Parcel ID No. 124.73-1-25 Dear Honorable Chairman Goodman and Members of the Board: This office represents the Bellefair Homeowners Association, Inc., 24 Bellefair Boulevard, Rye Brook, New York (the "Association"). We understand that the Planning Board has asked for the Association's position with respect to the ownership of, and obligation to repair and maintain, a retaining wall at and around the rear of the premises known as and located at 9 High Point Circle (the"Premises" or"9 High Point Circle"). As the Planning Board is aware, the owners of 9 High Point Circle, Seth Slomiak and Elinor Slomiak, have submitted the referenced application (the "Slomiak application") to the Board to perform work at the Premises, including regrading of the rear yard, extending an existing retaining wall, constructing a railing/guard on the retaining wall and constructing rear landscape steps (collectively, the "Work"). The application for permits and approval to perform the Work is the subject of continued proceedings before the Planning Board. We understand that the Planning Board will take up the matter again at its September 9, 2021 meeting. For purposes of this discussion, we will assume that any retaining wall at the rear of the Premises, whether currently present or to be constructed, is solely on the Premises and not on land owned by the Association (i.e. so-called "common property"). We understand that the Work will be solely on the Premises and in relatively close proximity to the property at 6 Heritage Court. Honorable Chairman Robert Goodman August 27,2021 Page 2 We respectfully refer the Planning Board to the Subdivision Notes (the"Notes"), dated April 12, 1999, for the Approved Subdivision Map for Bellefair(also dated April 12, 1999). The Notes are the 13'h document linked to the July 8, 2021 Planning Board public hearing on the Slomiak application. The Notes are also set forth at pages 63 & 64 of the Agenda Packet for that meeting. The Notes state that the Association is responsible for maintaining, inspecting and repairing retaining walls within Bellefair, at least to the extent that such walls were constructed by around 2000. Note 7 states that "[t]he Association shall be responsible for regular inspections, maintenance and necessary repairs. No lot owner shall make any attempts to repair or replace any retaining wall or prohibit access to [the developer] or the Association to perform the duties noted above." The final sentence of Note 7 states that"[t]he retaining walls referred to will be as shown on the Final As Built Plans filed with the Village of Rye Brook and the Bellefair Homeowners Association." The Association understands the foregoing to mean that if a given retaining wall is on the as- builts, i.e. was constructed by around 2000, then, in such case, the Association is responsible for maintaining it. On August 5,2021,the undersigned spoke with Ms.Tara Gerardi,the Secretary to the Planning Board. Ms. Gerardi, who was very helpful, explained that there were no as-builts for Bellefair as a whole. Rather, the appropriate action would be to examine the surveys that were filed with the Building Department with respect to the individual lots in Bellefair. The survey for 9 High Point Circle that is dated March 7, 2000 does not show the retaining walls at or around the border of 9 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Court. A copy of that survey is enclosed herewith for your reference. Please note that the later survey for 9 High Point Circle, which was filed on October 20, 2020 and is stamped"AS-BUILT DOCUMENT",depicts"concrete uniblock retaining walls"at the rear of the Premises. Those walls are not on the earlier survey. Accordingly, it would appear that the retaining walls currently at the rear of 9 High Point Circle was constructed between 2000 and 2020. Incidentally,the later survey depicts steps leading down from the deck at the Premises,which were not in the earlier survey. The earlier survey shows a wood deck, and the later survey shows a composite deck.A copy of the 2020 survey that was filed with the Building Department is enclosed herewith for your reference. Based upon the foregoing, it is the position of the Association that it is not responsible for maintaining the retaining walls at the rear of 9 High Point Circle. The Association takes that position irrespective of whether the Work is performed or not. Given that there was no retaining wall present in or around 2000, the Association is not responsible for maintaining any such wall at the rear of the Premises. Please note that the Association takes no position with respect to,and this letter is not intended to be construed as advocating any position with respect to, whether the Board should approve the Slomiak application. Honorable Chairman Robert Goodman August 27, 2021 Page 3 If the Association may be of any further assistance with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, David B. Gelfarb cc: Bellefair Homeowner's Association, Inc. (via e-mail) Open SpOce POrce/ 9 Lot 106 \\ O3 aRs' $ o < Lot 118 'if 'Olay 00 \ �� �°°�� tea• $ � � \ rn 00-1d C5 AS' o A 0° Z 5t0 No.9) (oo, / / Ads o3p0 00 i 3 ZI,k�'y; N \ / Q o N go Lot 117 n � � o$ " °p ` Lot 108 !p/ o, 1 Lot Areo = 8098 sq.& 1� Survey of Property prepared for Bellefair Home 8� Land Company in the Village of Rye Brook Town of Rye Westchester County, N .Y. Scale 1 "=20' May 19, 1999 Foundotan Survey CkYober /, /999. Faro/,Survey Arareh7, 1tNM. the pv+rmises being Lot 107 os shorn on o mop enbYAsd 7Rmsed S&AOW.V as Ar o/ prepared for the 9M/efoii Home&Zone`commny"abted LMc. 7 /998, lost revised Feb. /. /999 and 1900,4W /2 1999 as County 00*Ago No. 26LM Note, Uthity inlormotro shorn hereon os per County Clml'/top Ab. PSI" ?Jnoulhonied otlemtiaas or adMions to o surrey mqa a o .>obtion of sertron 7209, sub—division 1, o/Me New York State Edurntian Lor. CtNy Copros o/the onpno/sunvy marked wiM Me And si~,a asked or embossed sea/sft#be consdersd o Ime and mhe copy. CerhrKol/onS ndicoted herein signify Mot Mms survey was prepared ar aecorA ftv InPh the r ex sl iry code o/prorL;ce for Lond Surveys adopted by the New YonF SAte,lxsoc tilde o/ �� Profes.'" /Lond Surveyors Said cen'iYrcobons show nrn to Me person/or wham the surrey is prepared on), one on h!s A*W to the M/e Compony, veminento/ yy orrd hnnab inshtution hsled hereon, and to the assignees o/the �auhYulan. 11T,C.IIKWS' A/P£NOT MWSF£R1 C ro ALY!/I D Z dNSAIUI✓QYS CaP�.SEOCl7VT OIMERS. 76 Afdmoroneck Avenue clm ght(c/-/999 word Corpentei Engineers hx AO Alghls Absrnve /Yhile P/oi75• N.Y. /0601 O —41 —41 —41 100.0, J,10 Z \vn` Sj°rye,,� 102. .WAYAMy�y►� MAI o w -pP w ° �• "2222 \ 14A JOY, $ AW w 00 73 a .1'. Nl {{ i� a l00 4s� ,` �° ~ -10' " �8 N AMA. LM rr.I' t 108 N aw,' � Lo cb� � 1 f\ vn 2 Stoty 7I 1 (No11ss -s9 Survey of Property prepared for Seth �& Ellnor SlemmCmk in the Villcge of Rye Brook Town of Rye Westchester County , N .Y. Scale 1 "=20' May 19, 1999 Fino/Surwry Ahrch - 1000. Su�y brought to dote and Certifncntfon odd.d July 27, 2014 Surwy brought to able cF Fbrtio/Topoyrr7phy oobL-d Sept 9, 2070. _ 7Ae promises being Lot 107 os shoMn an o mop e4h7ted Yerised Subdlk+ton Mop o/ DMORUMENT 9s//e%ir propored fat the bk//efoii Nome &Land Company'doted Lk�c. 7, 799d fast rodsed Feb. 1, 7999 and A/6d A"/ 72 199Y as Coany Cl&*ARo�Ipft 26.= M vent&Lbtum:Aesumed rot,/Aw =4t79a sp. T Or 0 1,W ocrwr I`fl II fI OC T 2 0 M�r11�1ff11 D SLbrurfx.stu tuns and their encnwcArnmits, rY any.sL onr rwt sMMn/r renx (UCV 71 utAwunr vYevlwr:—a v#s to o,ur,.y m°o y o .:owrron of moon Tro9, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK sub—dYrsan 2, of Me Abe ro*stole Fdueotnn tow BUILDING DEPARTMENT 0/y cowls a/ron tM wigino/surroy m .rtA tM/and rurreyors.nMd or e+Massed a.o/SAW/b. sriferrd o true and wVefe cgoy C.rfiY,rolwvrs indicated A--signAy that this survey roe LC•eparsd with lM r"Lh( •y/- N--,�(" .0�0 e.oslinq C0W o/p l—A>-L.Re S r>.ys—14oMd by Me No, r.*S1b V Aesx t—o/ Pia/exriww/Lond Surroya s. Sold C-MT tk s'w//r to M.pwsnn Mr than M..urrsy is Pn w-d oMy, and—A.b.Ao/f!a tM hYb Lbrnpany, go'--moto/ogwuyy one Wrdrirq . uuhlulriron"Me Ae , and to lM osergne.s of M./-01"T iota hoe (:ERpf7G17KiKS 76 Momoroneck Avenue AW M7r/WAaWl�70 AAOMOW AKsn7u7KWs OR SLMtSLV0fWr 0Mn2 S. N/hi/e Plains, N Y 10601 C0,0kr ht(C) 7999-MI4r-2aV NMI'CwpenMr engineers. Arc. N/R,01s/Hrsenw! Job # 39881—41004-41273-41573-50784-55031 E:\BeIIefair\dwg\Lot107.dwg �rdes ty 555 Theodore Fremd Ave.,Suite C-301 Rye, NY 10580 &Hanover T:914.967.6540 www.hardestyhanover.com CC FE-MED MEMORANDUM OCT - 8 2021 To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the FVILLAGE-- RYE BROOK Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook BUILDING DEPARTMENT Date: October 8, 2021 Subject: Slomiak Residence-9 High Point Circle -Application for Approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Permit As requested, we have reviewed applications, correspondence and plans submitted by Jeffery Gaspar, PE, on behalf of the property owners, Seth & Elinor Slomiak, for approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Permit for the proposed regrading of the rear yard, extension of the rear retaining wall and other associated improvements on the property located at 9 High Point Circle, SBL 124.73-1-25 on the Town of Rye Tax Map, in a PUD Zoning District. Property Description The property is currently developed with a two-story residence with a retaining wall in the rear yard, driveway and curb cut. Review We have reviewed application materials and plans that include the following items: 1. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated 5/13/21 and EAF Mapper Summary Report dated 5/19/21; 2. Application for Site Plan Approval; 3. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist; 4. Building Permit Check List & Zoning Analysis; 5. Exterior Building Permit Application; 6. Steep Slope Work Permit Application; 7. A letter dated April 6, 2021 from the BelleFair HOA; 8. Renderings of the proposed retaining wall; 9. The following engineering plans generally entitled, "Plans Prepared for 9 High Point Circle" prepared Veritas Engineering & Inspections: a. Sheet T001, "Title Sheet & Existing Plan," last revised 6/23/21; Hardesty &Hanover engineering that moves you b. Sheet C001, "Proposed Site Plan," last revised 9/21/21; C. Sheet C002, "Elevations & Sections," last revised 9/20/21; d. Sheet C003, "Erosion Control Notes," last revised 9/21/21; e. Sheet C004, "Notes," dated 10/5/20. Please note that our review is limited to planning and environmental issues. We offer the following comments regarding the application: 1. SEQRA. The Proposed Action is a Type II action with regard to SEQR because it involves the construction of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density. 2. Steep Slopes Permit. Construction of the retaining wall extension will require 900 square feet of disturbance to the existing steep slopes on the property. Approval of a steep slopes work permit will require compliance of all grading and filling with the requirements of Chapter 213 of the Village Code. 3. Landscaping.The Applicant is proposing to screen the upper retaining wall with boxwood plantings. The size of the boxwoods at time of planting should be noted on the plans. 4. Renderings. We have reviewed the renderings of the proposed retaining wall provided by the Applicant. Based on our review, it appears that the renderings accurately demonstrate the appearance of the proposed wall.We do note that the landscaping shown on the rendering does not match what is proposed by the Applicant. However, the purpose of the rendering was to depict the retaining wall, not the landscaped screening. We look forward to discussion with the Board. Sarah L. Brown, AICP Senior Planner cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Jeffrey Gaspar, P.E., for the Applicant 570 Taxter Road,Suite 300 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Elmsford, NY 10523 (914) 631-8600 phone An Engineers Company (914) 631-5769 faxwww.drepc.com www.aiengineers.com TO: Mr. Michal Nowak Village of Rye Brook n (C�E FROM: James Natarelli, P.E. !J OCT 12 2021 DO DATE: September 29, 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK SUBJECT: 9 High Point Circle BUILDI14G DEPARTMENT Site Plan Application In reference to the above-mentioned project,this office has received (on September 29, 2021)and reviewed the following: 1. Memo prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated September 21, 2021; 2. Plans prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated October 5, 2020 revised September 21,2021; 3. Tensar Software Output for"Existing Wall including surcharge of new wall S' behind" prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated September 8, 2021; 4. Tensar Software Output for"Proposed new upper wall set 5' behind lower wall" prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated September 8, 2021. In consideration of the proposed site plan application for the abovementioned project,this office has reviewed the items listed above. It is the opinion of this office that sufficient information has been provided by the applicant at this time to support the applicant's proposal to install a new retaining wall as depicted on the submitted documents. It is also the recommendation of this office that a detailed review of the submitted calculations and assumptions for the retaining wall be conducted by the Village prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. It is recommended that this review include, but not be limited to,the applicant addressing the following: 1. The weight of the imported retaining wall backfill specified in the retaining wall calculations must also be indicated on the plans. 2. The Tensar software output for the existing and proposed retaining walls is not sufficient on its own for design calculations. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit a detailed review must be done of the retaining wall design calculations. The design calculations shall include but not be limited to the following: • Signature and seal of a licensed New York State professional engineer. • Analysis of existing lower retaining walls with respect to their capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill. Analysis must include explanation of assumptions used to model surcharge. Improving Life. By Design. Mr.Nowak Rye Brook Planning Board ®engineers 9 High Point Circle-Site Plan Application September 29,2021 Page 2 • Subgrade bearing capacity requirements. Analysis must include the subgrade bearing capacity used in the calculations. • An evaluation of the retaining walls' proposed footing depths with respect to typical frost depth in this region. Additionally, the completed wall installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity • Backfill gradation • Compaction Upon receipt of amended plans addressing these comments,this office is prepared to continue its review. Improving Life.By Design. Hardesty 555 Theodore Fremd Ave.,Suite C-301 Rye, NY 10580 &Hanover T:914.967.6540 www.hardestyhanover.com DDMEMORANDUM JUL - 2 2021 To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook BUILDING DEPARTMENT Date: July 1, 2021 Subject: Slomiak Residence—9 High Point Circle —Application for Approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Permit As requested, we have reviewed applications, correspondence and plans submitted by Jeffery Gaspar, PE, on behalf of the property owners, Seth & Elinor Slomiak,for approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Permit for the proposed regrading of the rear yard, extension of the rear retaining wall and other associated improvements on the property located at 9 High Point Circle, SBL 124.73-1-25 on the Town of Rye Tax Map, in a PUD Zoning District. Property Description The property is currently developed with a two-story residence with a retaining wall in the rear yard, driveway and curb cut. Review We have reviewed application materials and plans that include the following items: 1. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated 5/13/21 and EAF Mapper Summary Report dated 5/19/21; 2. Application for Site Plan Approval; 3. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist; 4. Building Permit Check List &Zoning Analysis; 5. Exterior Building Permit Application; 6. Steep Slope Work Permit Application; 7. A letter dated April 6, 2021 from the BelleFair HOA; 8. The following engineering plans generally entitled, "Plans Prepared for 9 High Point Circce" prepared Veritas Engineering & Inspections, last revised 6/23/21: a. Sheet T001, "Title Sheet & Existing Plan," b. Sheet C001, "Proposed Site Plan," Hardesty &Hanover engineering that moves you C. Sheet C002, "Elevations & Sections," d. Sheet C003, "Erosion Control Notes," e. Sheet C004, "Notes." Please note that our review is limited to planning and environmental issues. We offer the following comments regarding the application: 1. SEQRA. The Proposed Action is a Type II action with regard to SEQR because it involves the construction of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density. 2. Steep Slopes Permit. Construction of the retaining wall extension will require 900 square feet of disturbance to the existing steep slopes on the property. Approval of a steep slopes work permit will require compliance of all grading and filling with the requirements of Chapter213 of the Village Code. 3. Landscaping. a. The Applicant is proposing to screen the upper retaining wall with boxwood plantings. The size of the boxwoods at time of planting should be noted on the plans. b. The plans note that one existing tree is proposed to be removed. The caliper inches of the tree should be noted on the plans. If the tree has a DBH of 10 inches or greater, a replacement tree will be required. We look forward to discussion with the Board. Sarah L. Brown, AICP Senior Planner cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Jeffrey Gaspar, P.E., for the Applicant Y:1SharedOfficesWYR\Data\Docunerts\DOCST5OaRyeBrookl9 High Poirt Circle pme2do x H( de l,y 555 Theodore Fremd Ave.,Suite C-301 Rye, NY 10580 &Hanover T:914.967.6540 www.hardestyhanover.com MEMORANDUM D FJUIN M V To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the 4 2021 Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Date: June 4, 2021 Subject: Slomiak Residence—9 High Point Circle—Application for Approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Permit As requested, we have reviewed applications, correspondence and plans submitted by Jeffery Gaspar, PE, on behalf of the property owners, Seth & Elinor Slomiak, for approval of a Site Plan and Steep Slopes Permit for the proposed regrading of the rear yard, extension of the rear retaining wall and other associated improvements on the property located at 9 High Point Circle, SBL 124.73-1-25 on the Town of Rye Tax Map, in a PUD Zoning District. Property Description The property is currently developed with a two-story residence with a retaining wall in the rear yard, driveway and curb cut. Review We have reviewed application materials and plans that include the following items: 1. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated 5/13/21 and EAF Mapper Summary Report dated 5/19/21; 2. Application for Site Plan Approval; 3. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist; 4. Building Permit Check List &Zoning Analysis; 5. Exterior Building Permit Application; 6. Steep Slope Work Permit Application; 7. A letter dated April 6, 2021 from the BelleFair HOA; 8. The following engineering plans generally entitled, "Plans Prepared for 9 High Point Cirlce" prepared Veritas Engineering & Inspections, dated 1/5/20: a. Sheet T001, "Title Sheet & Existing Plan," b. Sheet C001, "Proposed Site Plan," Hardesty &Hanover _ engineenng that moves you C. Sheet C002, "Elevations & Sections," d. Sheet C003, "Erosion Control Notes," e. Sheet C004, "Notes." Please note that our review is limited to planning and environmental issues. We offer the following comments regarding the application: 1. SEQRX The Proposed Action is a Type II action with regard to SEQR because it involves the construction of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density. 2. Steep Slopes Permit. Construction of the retaining wall extension will require 900 square feet of disturbance to the existing steep slopes on the property. Approval of a steep slopes work permit will require compliance of all grading and filling with the requirements of Chapter 213 of the Village Code. The Applicant should provide a narrative that details the number of trucks that will be coming to the site to deliver the fill material and where construction vehicles will park during the installation. 3. Site Plan. A detail of the proposed fence should be included on the plans. 4. Landscaping. We question if any landscape screening is proposed along the proposed retaining wall. We also question if any existing trees or shrubs are proposed to be removed for the installation of the retaining wall. All existing and proposed landscaping should be shown on the site plan. We look forward to discussion with the Board. Sarah L. Brown, AICP Senior Planner cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Jeffrey Gaspar, P.E., for the Applicant Y:1Shanedl0fficesWYRlDatalDocuments\DOCS215001RyeBmokl9 High Point Circle pmel.docx 570 Taxter Road,Suite 300 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Elmsford, NY 10523 p (914) 631-8600 phone An ®En neers Com an w14) repc.c m fax � P Y ww.depcco www.aiengineers.com TO: Mr. Michal Nowak Village of Rye Brook FROM: James Natarelli, P.E. D JUL - 2 2021 DD DATE: June 25, 2021 h Point Circle VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK SUBJECT: 9 High BUILDING DEPARTMENT Site Plan Application In reference to the above-mentioned project,this office has received (on June 24, 2021) and reviewed the following: 1. Memo prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated June 23, 2021; 2. Plans prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated October 5, 2020 revised June 23, 2021; 3. Tensar Software Output for Existing Lower Wall prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated June 22, 2021; 4. Tensar Software Output for Proposed New Upper Wall prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated June 23, 2021. In consideration of the proposed site plan application for the abovementioned project,this office has reviewed the items listed above. Our comments are as follows, but not limited to: 1. Elevation and section drawings reference a perforated pipe that is proposed to daylight. The discharge location of wall drains must be shown on the site plan. Drainage is not permitted to discharge onto adjacent properties regardless of the anticipated amount of flow. It should be noted that the memo references "detail sheet C003" in response to comments about drainage for the proposed retaining walls. However, no indication of wall drainage could be found on this sheet. It is not clear if additional information was intended to be provided. 2. All existing walls and separating blocks must be inspected and repaired as needed. It appears that at least one portion of the existing wall needs to be reset and reconstructed. The portions of the existing walls that require repair must be identified on the plan with the proposed scope of work. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit,the following must be addressed: 1. The weight of the imported retaining wall backfill specified in the retaining wall calculations must also be indicated on the plans. 2. The Tensar software output for the existing and proposed retaining walls is not sufficient on its own for design calculations. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit a detailed review must be done of the retaining wall design calculations. The design calculations shall include but not be limited to the following: Improving Life By Design. Mr.Nowak Rye Brook Planning Board Engineers 9 High Point Circle-Stte Plan Application June 25,2021 Page 2 • Signature and seal of a licensed New York State professional engineer. • Analysis of existing lower retaining walls with respect to their capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill. Analysis must include explanation of assumptions used to model surcharge. • Subgrade bearing capacity requirements. Analysis must include the subgrade bearing capacity used in the calculations. • An evaluation of the retaining walls' proposed footing depths with respect to typical frost depth in this region. Additionally, the completed wall installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity • Backfill gradation • Compaction Upon receipt of amended plans addressing these comments,this office is prepared to continue its review. Improving Life.By Design. 570 Taxter Road,Suite 300 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Elmsford, NY 10523 (914) 631-8600 phone An ®Engineers Company (914) 631-5769 fax www.drepc.com www.aiengineers.com TO: Mr. Michal Nowak D 1E C E U V [E DD Village of Rye Brook JUN - 7 2021 FROM: James Natarelli, P.E. VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DATE: June 7, 2021 BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: 9 High Point Circle Site Plan Application In reference to the above-mentioned project,this office has received (on June 4, 2021) and reviewed the following: 1. Site plan application and attachments dated May 13, 2021; 2. Plans prepared by Veritas Engineering+ Inspection dated October 5, 2020. In consideration of the proposed site plan application for the abovementioned project, this office has reviewed the items listed above. Our comments are as follows, but not limited to: 1. Grading appears to be proposed on neighboring property. All proposed grading must be limited to the property that is the subject of this application. 2. Existing topography must be provided extending at least 10 feet beyond the southern and western property lines with contour intervals not greater than two feet. Existing topography must also be provided within the property on the proposed site plan. 3. Site plan must indicate how the site will be accessed and any tree removals that might be necessary for machines to access the work area. 4. Extent of existing retaining wall that is to be removed must be more clearly defined. 5. Elevations including but not limited to finished grade and proposed wall footing elevations must be more clearly indicated on the elevations and sections sheet. 6. Plans must include considerations for drainage of the proposed retaining wall. 7. The retaining wall design referenced in the notes must be submitted for review and shall include but not be limited to the following: • Design calculations that have been signed and sealed by a licensed New York State professional engineer. • Analysis of existing lower retaining walls with respect to their capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill. • Subgrade bearing capacity requirements. • Retaining wall backfill and compaction requirements. Improving Life. By Design. Mr.Nowak T� Rye Brook Planning Board Engineers 9 High Point Circle-Site Plan Application June 7,2021 Page 2 Additionally, the completed wall installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: • Subgrade bearing capacity • Backfill gradation • Compaction Upon receipt of amended plans addressing these comments,this office is prepared to continue its review. Improving Life. By Design. AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION JUL - 1 2021 STATE OF NEW YORK ) VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT ss.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) I, Seth Slomiak, being duly sworn, hereby depose and say, as follows: 1) 1 am the owner of property located at 9 High Point Circle, Rye Brook, NY; 2) On June 28, 2021, 1 posted the required sign on the property that provided notice for the , 2021 Planning Board of Meeting. 3) On June 28, 2021, 1 mailed notifications out, first class, to all homeowners within 250' of the above-referenced property in accordance with §250-40 of the Village of Rye Brook Code. Sign here: Sworn to before me this 3rt D day of LJ 2021 Notary Public DAVID E.LEVI\�- Notary Public,state of New York Reg.No.02LE&004399 oualfied in New York county 02- Conan""Expires 03/23l20 June 28, 2021 Dear Neighbor: The Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook will be holding a Public Meeting on Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 7:30 PM. at which time and place the Planning Board will consider the following permit applications to install a retaining wall at rear of the property located at 9 High Point Circle in Rye Brook: • Site Plan Application • Exterior Building Permit • Steep Slopes Permit The meeting will be held in-person at the Rye Brook Village Hall, 938 King Street. Additional information is available at the Rye Brook Building Department (939-0668). Regards, v� Seth Slomia tS�'OIS kl�. anLL "ao ;-I! gnm 'Di"doci v> pn"-,'orl ad Mw A 13 to q@sWV ort lo biroS prii-r., I I -T I.;tW 'fa.ISCO Wi,,ln6,lq ryj4 gof,iCt; bo , emit iti;' -,A, , Of � tto ylvL JUMV i 6.1t to -wal Is kv., cjf 3irm9ri gniwo-'U arli iabianw 0'1�' 0" 71111K) Infoq f',pIH Q IF; bets- vheqf).*Iq p-N)i HsH 3gslffill ?ov-t7- ew,,F; �d! to k !,;-ri A-Dot Lt-- - sill �ooi taoldslicws ai nolIvmoltli %noijiW'S. f � List of Owners of properties within 250'of 9 High Point Circle Owner Name Property Address City Zip Code SBL Moss Ryan-Carly Moss 3 Heritage Ct Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-18 Greenwald,Mark-Steph Greenwald 4 Parade Ln Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-33 Levy,Howard-Claudia Levy 6 Parade Ln Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-32 Roskell Juliett 10 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-39 Lichtenstein,Helaine B 2 BclIcFair Blvd Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-17 Bruck-man.Dena M 40 BelleFair Rd Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-66 Kothari Kamlesh Dungersingh-Charul Kothari 6 Heritage Ct Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-20 Maizes,Robin L 4 Heritage Ct Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-21 Molina,Jose-Maritza Davila I Parade Ln Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-30 Ryau,Elise 2 Parade Ln Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-34 Coster,Sonya Helen-Sonya Helen Coster Rev Trust 3 Parade Ln Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-29 Zales,Margot-Margot Zales Revocable Trust 4 BelleFair Blvd Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-18 McMahan,Elena 8 BelleFair Blvd Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-20 Veesey,John C-Melissa M.C.Vecsey 25 Legendary Cir Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-24 Clcmcnti,Robert A-Amy Sieves 17 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-28 Klein,David S-Deborah Klein 48 BelleFair Rd Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-70 Bhagavan Venkatapur Ajai-Truti Ycshwanth Patil 5 Heritage Ct Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-19 Kaplan,Ruth Fay 5 Parade Ln Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-28 Go,Jin Hua-Jmg Tmg Wu 50 BelleFair Rd Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-52 Lobel,David 46 BelleFair Rd Port Chester 10573 1 124.73-1-69 Chang,Chris-Jenny Mark 7 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-24 Losito Stacey 14 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-37 Magrone,Anthony-Laura Magrone 4 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-43 Savage,Michael A-Kimberly D Savage I High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-21 Ines Cony Gomes de Souza,Maria 10 BelleFair Blvd Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-21 Hashimoto Yuta-Yuka Nakamura-Hashimoto 15 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-27 Roth,Sarre Jill 44 BellcFair Rd Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-68 Satija,Anu-Dharmender Satija 11 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-26 Schulkin,William-Ester Schulkin 8 Parade Ln Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-31 Dungan Christopher F-Sandra A Dungan 6 High Point Cir Port Chester I0573 124.73-2-42 Bottiglieri,Maria M-MwJuc Bottigheri 42 BelleFair Rd Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-67 Slumiak Seth-Elinor Slomiak 9 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-25 Genovese,Christopher-Maria Genovese 16 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-36 Hobby-Johnston Lisa 8 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-41 Recchia O'Neill Maria 2 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-44 Ackerman Sharon-Donald Ackerman 6 BelleFair Blvd Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-19 Shiar,Robert B-Marla R Striar 38 BelleFair Rd Port Chester 10573 124.73-"S Lem",Eric-Rachel Lerner 23 Legendary Cir Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-23 Lcitncr Curtis-Amanda Lcitner I Heritage Ct Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-17 Rodriguez Armando-Marlene Rodriguez 5 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-23 Joshi Vikas Vijay-Swati Singh 19 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-29 Navetan Susan-Stuart Naveran 2 Heritage Ct Port Chester 10573 124.65-1-22 Regueira Vilma 12 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-2-38 Fan,Ymgiiu-Zuojun Cao 3 High Point Cir Port Chester 10573 124.73-1-22 List ofAdditional properties outside of 250'of 9 High Point Circle which were notified Unknown r336 egendary Circle Port Chester 10573 Unknown Unknown egendary Circle Port Chester 10573 Unknown ne Unknown Parade La Port Chester 10573 Unknown Unknown Bellefair Road Port Cheater 10573 Unknown Unknown Bellefair Road Port Chester 10573 Unknown R—' OA RELMION I Z a 1 1/ U Q 17A 64 1-1 _ r _. {_ T - 47 Belwl a1r Rd ` - - 121 72.1 'I d!r[avi�nF ad Rd •�. L- ©YI ccj 1 e IN 4 AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) R IE C [E � Vr' DD ss.: JUN — 3 2021 COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT I, Seth Slomiak, being duly sworn, hereby depose and say, as follows: • 1 am the owner of property located at 9 High Point Circle, Rye Brook, NY; • On Wednesday June 2, 2021, 1 posted the required sign on the property that provided notice for the June 10, 2021 Planning Board of Meeting. • On Friday May 28, 2021, 1 mailed notifications out, first class, to all homeowners within 250' of the above-referenced property in accordance with §250-40 of the Village of Rye Brook Code. Sign here: Sworn to bef re me this )Oday o lt'4�f 2021 Notary Public DAVID E.LEViNE Notary Public,State of New YO(k Rrg.No.02LE6004399 Qualified in New York coon commission Expires 03123l20 1 ItFU141ON R0 Kd .17 a ll'A. s o a o aHrN a F r,IGH POINT CIR - .. I tir:AoF,,fit,- £r - 124 73.2-F M - C Hn,!Icl all 2A l3 1 F' � Fab Hh t1 I.. Z _ •'' SHaN'' tt 11 Nelahal IRA - .. . '24 '3t.13B. ?�f 00SN H`.pevaµ lid t.EA - ehl't �t a'I µA - -1.3 Fe-* 1 ty1 ' h,C .T h , r w .O .-- N r h .O Q m N oo N N N N .O N M •O N m 4 of .-. .p N N fV N M N Q v v Q v v v v v v Q v v v v •v Q v v Q v N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m M M r n n r r r n r r r r r r r r r r r r n r U .n v� .n vi vi v� vi .n v� vi vi vi •n vi .n •n vi v� •n vi v� y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u u .0 L u u u L u t U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � 9 7 U m U fL� U C U P4 U U U Uba co> a U V U U V U V 'C C s. .O -� .o C •� C .G F C -� Y C .S Y G C PO. O y •� u 'b m a m °�' 'eb m u 'ab `� 'coo R7 0o J x ry 5 C, •--• Q --• .O Q O. OG N �O M N h D\ N m W y m � � m � � :R 0 C ' � N .� • .1E � G � G ttl ' � • L�L.j. T ' rm! S Rt O ' y w C ZOm°3 s_•R'+mOa� VT m >xo m� o =m m�r vCuYI 'SS3c sY3oi .Qm_ pC,� "-�•-o' X�q o a O _ uY.p sC° vOu o�a{ L5mmK £U•> t�Hc X U3 Y E A `"_ •-oN�o vm >am. m• vzm� >mm > r, > Uo � >O o C N O u a c d > CFY�o 'macca UNo 'E Y C> a � v70 Q °mca En a w O Q O. aD O Q o0 O D\ m N O\ Q n M M m N N N N r N •n .O N M Q N N N N fV ^ N N N (Q h M M m f+f M N vt m M Nf m M Vl M M of M .n .+f m l!l en � .O 1� r 1� r r •O �O r r r r r .O r r .O r .D r r r r v v a a a v v v v v v o v v v v v v v v v v v N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y U r r r r r n r r r r r r n r r r r r r r n r r U v� vi •n •n •n •n .n •n •n v. •n •n v� •n •n .n •n vi v� •n v0 vi 0 Q 0 0 '•-• u u u u u u u v u w v u u u u u v u o U u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u '^ C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O _C 0. 0. L1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Cl. 0. 0. 0. 93. 0. .r3 3 -y y U ❑ c � � a U U .� .G.7 .Gi cq a7 U v � U c mow' a U U U tm ° y x n. °'• o ao S x a a a o Pq S �• m m �me eo to yo Q N M W W '-� oo vi '^ O •O x = S L O O o0 m m .x. m • -� Y Y E . :o � m ._ x o • � W • C La •F s s .^ -> . u p [ w > U vo c� m G a m 8 m > o o v > . c m ti p x 3 `d x u Q ° u F m u m o U o h v_> 32 m _- . Veritas Engineering and Inspection,PLLC 2 Overhill Rd.,Suite 400 Scarsdale,NY 10583 Tel 914-458-1110 Vm*aN www.VeritasHomeServices.com ENGINEERING + INSPECTION May 28,2021 Dear Neighbor: The Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook will be holding a Public Meeting on Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 7:30 PM. at which time and place the Planning Board will consider the following permit applications to install a retaining wall at rear of the property located at 9 High Point Circle in Rye Brook: • Site Plan Application • Exterior Building Permit • Steep Slopes Permit The meeting will be held in-person at the Rye Brook Village Hall,938 King Street. Additional information is available at the Rye Brook Building Department(939-0668) Sincerely, Jeffrey M.Gaspar,P.E. Veritas ENGINEERING+INSPECTION 0:(914)458-1110 C:914-618-4314 E:JGasp_(a)VeritasEngeerin com W:www.VeritasHomeServices.com Page 2 116 � �T�- Members of Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the Belle Fair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposal by 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the Belle Fair HOA Board. We humbly request that the Village Planning Board review the application by taking into consideration not only the application information but also the concerns raised by 6 Heritage Ct and 11 High Point Circle. While we are not immediate neighbors of 9 High Point Circle and do not have any direct impact to their proposal, we as resident of Belle Fair strongly urge that a proposal that can negatively impact the neighbors adversely or not be in light of the community feel under which Belle Fair was setup should be carefully reviewed. Sincerely, Address: Name Signature 31 }- i6no PoiNi oRcLE 504AIL EASA 31 HI CnO Nil Jr C iRCC : p5rA v AJ-TD fH I e 13cu-C-I'flI CL �� Gu Pic-�i Slgry1►2uW �i ^ 53 >_ ('� 28 Le ender Tara Gerardi From: Seth Slomiak <sslomiak@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,July 30, 2021 11:56 AM To: Tara Gerardi Subject: Slomiak - 9 High Point Circle Wall Guard Picture Hi Tara, We are not proposing anything different than the original plans but what I am sharing with you today is a picture with a better angle of the proposed guard on top of the wall so the board can see how transparent it is.As you can see in the picture it will be very open and you can clearly see foliage (like grass and trees) and other structures (like the house and deck). M. f i . . r _ r `Y _ �i %.y 3 I i Z f t i c - A ' j , , '� � M1 r' r � .may � S••' T �1r i --- � � ~" t 1j .yf IV 011 jW o4 kc rp .< { REVIS PLA 10/19/2021 E OCT 19 _DAT 2021 VILLAGE of= r�Y� 9 High Point Circle Rye Brook , NY Visual Representation of Retaining Wall with Post and Rail Fence 1 Current View from backyard of 6 Heritage Court 9 High Mf1�I 2 1 10/19/2021 Future view from 6 Heritage Ct w/ extended wall 9 High Point Circle 11 High Point Circle �r \ 1 4�ii uimr��t. .17 ,2 3 Future view from 6 Heritage Ct w/ extended wall and plantings 9 High Point Circle 11 High Point Circle Jill : 4 2 10/19/2021 Current View from Backyard • 5 Heritage Court 6 Heritage Court Current View y r From . of Faci • • PC i i 4• r. �-•� ����'°'� �""�ter,+ _. ..mow. 10/19/2021 Future View ♦♦from back of 11 HPC Facing • HPC with wall Future View from back of 11 HPC Facing 9 HPC w/ wall & Plantings „ R P nwY w. �, a,, � int C�•c!e tage Court l' i e Y 10/19/2021 Current View - 11 HPC Bay Window Facing Rear of Property 11 High Point Circle S^c 4 b 1 Window Facing . ofProperty CL Wall Only .Wall with plantings 10 Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC 2 Overhill Road,Suite 400,Scarsdale,NY 10583 Tel 914-458-1110 IGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.com ENGINEERING + INSPECTION www.VeritasHomeServices.com September 21,2021 Memorandum _- -- 2021 1 DO To: Mr.Michal Nowak 7SE 2 8 Village of Rye Brook VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT From: Jeffrey M. Gaspar,P.E. Veritas Engineering and Inspection,PLLC CC: Seth&Elinor Slomiak In accordance with an in-person plan review at the Village of Rye Brook,a response memo by Hardesty and Hanover date 6/4/2021,below is a response to the comments dated June 7,2021. Comment Summary in black,Response in red. Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Memo—6-7-2021 1. Grading appears to be proposed on neighboring property.All proposed grading must be limited to the property that is the subject of this application. a. No grading is proposed or will occur off-site. Topographic changes were revised for clarity. 2.Existing topography must be provided extending at least 10 feet beyond the southern and western property lines with contour intervals not greater than two feet.Existing topography must also be provided within the property on the proposed site plan. a. Existing topography contours extended to 10' outside property line. Topography adopted from Westchester County GIS data due to neighboring property access limitations, see sheets T001 and COO I. 3. Site plan must indicate how the site will be accessed and any tree removals that might be necessary for machines to access the work area. a. Site access recommended via existing driveway, see sheet 0002, one damaged tree to be removed, see sheet C001. 4. Extent of existing retaining wall that is to be removed must be more clearly defined. a. Hatch& legend added, sheet C001. 5. Elevations including but not limited to finished grade and proposed wall footing elevations must be more clearly indicated on the elevations and sections sheet. a. Leaders with arrows added to elevations drawings to identify location of top wall (TW)and bottom wall (BW) topographic elevations more clearly. Elevations noted on section detail as well. 6.Plans must include considerations for drainage of the proposed retaining wall. a. Typical retaining wall drainage is minimal. Excess water will be collected by perforated pipe behind the wall and daylighted at wall termination point approximately 5' within the property limits. See detail sheet C�3 2/C002. Verittas ENGINEERING}INSPECTION 7.The retaining wall design referenced in the notes must be submitted for review and shall include but not be limited to the following: • Design calculations that have been signed and sealed by a licensed New York State professional engineer. o See attached with the formulas and inputs for the retaining wall calculations. • Analysis of existing lower retaining walls with respect to their capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill. o See attached analysis. Note that a surcharge load was used to simulate the load by the upper wall on the lower wall. • Subgrade bearing capacity requirements. o Bearing capacity assumed at 1,500 psf, the minimum Presumptive Load-Bearing Value based on IRC Table 401.4.1. A subgrade inspection(and static cone penetrometer test)will be performed prior to the placement of foundation stone. • Retaining wall backfill and compaction requirements. o See sheet C004, §C3.02.F. Retaining wall notes. 8.Additionally,the completed wall installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: The retaining wall design referenced in the notes must be submitted for review and shall include but not be limited to the following: • Subgrade Bearing Capacity o Bearing capacity assumed at 1,500 psf, the minimum Presumptive Load-Bearing Value based on IRC Table 401.4.1. This will be verified once exposed via a Static Cone Penetrometer by a licensed professional engineer registered in NYS and provided upon wall completion. The actual bearing capacity is much likely significantly higher, however is method was chosen due to the prohibitively high cost to obtain SPT-N values. • Backfill Gradation o Backfill gradation will be obtained prior to construction and will be provided upon in a package upon completion of the wall. • Compaction o Density proof testing will be performed on the first few lifts of backfill placed to determine the number of passes by the contractor's compaction equipment until 95% proctor value is obtained. The same equipment and number of passes will then be performed by the contractor throughout the rest of the backfilling activities. This method was included in revisions on C001. Hardesty and Hanover Rolah Rotfeld Eneineerine Memo—6-4-2021 1. SEQRA. The Proposed Action is a Type 11 action with regard to SEQR because it involves the construction of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios,decks, swimming pools,tennis courts,satellite dishes,fences,barns,storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density. Understood. 2. Steep Slopes Permit.Construction of the retaining wall extension will require 900 square feet of disturbance to the existing steep slopes on the property. Approval of a steep slopes work permit will require compliance of all grading and filling with the requirements of Chapter 213 of the Village Code. The Applicant should provide a narrative that details the number of trucks that will be coming to the site to deliver the fill material and where construction vehicles will park during the installation. Understood. Steep Slopes Permit has been submitted. Page 2 of 4 Ven as ENGINEERING+INSPECTION 3. Site Plan.A detail of the proposed fence should be included on the plans. • A depiction of the proposed fence was included on the drawings, sheet COO 4. Landscaping. We question if any landscape screening is proposed along the proposed retaining wall. We also question if any existing trees or shrubs are proposed to be removed for the installation of the retaining wall.All existing and proposed landscaping should be shown on the site plan. Native vegetation is indicated on the plans between the upper and lower walls. Dolph Rotfeld Engineering Memo—6-25-2021 1. Elevation and section drawings reference a perforated pipe that is proposed to daylight. The discharge location of wall drains must be shown on the site plan. Drainage is not permitted to discharge onto adjacent properties regardless of the anticipated amount of flow.It should be noted that the memo references"detail sheet C003"in response to comments about drainage for the proposed retaining walls. However,no indication of wall drainage could be found on this sheet. It is not clear if additional information was intended to be provided. • Location of drainpipe to daylight was indicated on the plan(C001)and in the section (2/C002). Note that the discharge pipe is 5' inside the property line. 2. All existing walls and separating blocks must be inspected and repaired as needed.It appears that at least one portion of the existing wall needs to be reset and reconstructed. The portions of the existing walls that require repair must be identified on the plan with the proposed scope of work. • The leader on C001 indicating existing walls to be reconstructed now includes hatching over the affected portion of wall. 3. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit,the following must be addressed: a. The weight of the imported retaining wall backfill specified in the retaining wall calculations must also be indicated on the plans. • The design density of the reinforced fill has been added to 3/C002. Note that actual density of the imported soil H ill vary based on the gradation. b. The Tensar software output for the existing and proposed retaining walls is not sufficient on its own for design calculations. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit a detailed review must be done of the retaining wall design calculations. The design calculations shall include but not be limited to the following: • Revised software output provides additional input with respect to engineering inputs as well as the formulas used. i. Signature and seal of a licensed New York State professional engineer. • Revised outputs are signed and sealed by a NYS PE. ii. Analysis of existing lower retaining walls with respect to their capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill.Analysis must include explanation of assumptions used to model surcharge. • The lower retaining wall analysis included at 750 psf load at 5' from the front face which simulates the load imparted by the upper retaining wall (5'H wall with 150pcf soil density). iii. Subgrade bearing capacity requirements. Analysis must include the subgrade bearing capacity used in the calculations. • See 8, above. Bearing capacity assumed to be minimum 1AW NYS Residential Code, 1500psf. Actual bearing capacity will be confirmed via static cone penetrometer at the time of footing inspection. iv. An evaluation of the retaining walls' proposed footing depths with respect to typical frost depth in this region. • Based on the segmental retaining wall (SRW)manufacturer data and instructions. SRW's do not require embedment below the frost depth due to their flexible nature and Page 3 of 4 Vedas ENGINEERING+INSPECTION lack of permanent structures being supported that would require the wall footing to be frost protected. 4. Additionally,the completed wall installation must be certified by a licensed New York State professional engineer to be in conformance with the approved plans and must include test results certified by a NYS certified testing lab including but not limited to: The retaining wall design referenced in the notes must be submitted for review and shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Subgrade Bearing Capacity • See 8, above. b. Backfill Gradation • See 8. above. c. Compaction • See 8, above. Page 4 of 4 softwareTensar outputTensar o Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with LRFD • 2010)(static loading) Client: Slomiak REV IS L Project: 9 High Point Circle - Proposed NewI SEP 2 8 2021 Analysis DA E Proposed new upper wall set 5' behind lower wall BUILDING DEPARTMENT Tensar :�XOF NEWY Structural Systems h�P 04s O,p� Mesa®Retaining Wall System ac .r» 9 905 FES tONP� IMPORTANT NOTES (Final Design) (1)This Tensar Software Output has been prepared by a Tensar affiliate or by LICENSEE to enable the application of Tensar Geogrids to be evaluated.The calculations are derived from a standardized software program which generally follows AASHTO or NCMA methodologies and which has been modified to incorporate certain properties of Tensar®products. (2)Any mechanically-stabilized earth structure involves various engineering,design,material,construction and end-use considerations.Many of these are site specific,such as(but not limited to)terrain and grading,watertable,the nature and strength of the foundation and backfill soils,compaction of the backfill,surface and subsurface water control and drainage,the presence of utilities and other elements in or around the structure,use of proper equipment and construction practices during installation, neighboring construction activity,load factors,other environmental factors and the like.This printout provides certain limited information to a final design,and does not itself constitute a design or plan suitable for actual construction. A final engineered design and plan,with drawings and installation details and requirements,signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer,is required prior to construction. (3)This printout,and any final design and plan, includes certain assumptions regarding onsite conditions which must be verified by others at the site both before and during construction. Adherence thereto by the owner and those other contractors specifically engaged to be onsite for assessment and testing,construction,supervision,quality control and other assistance is required for the proper installation,safety and performance of the structure(Tensar does not provide such onsite services except and to the extent specifically engaged and compensated for doing so under a written contract signed by Tensar). Tensar is a registered trademark. Method of The calculation method used in this Design Analysis is the tie-back wedge method for MSE walls analysis given in Section 11.10 and other referenced sections of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition (2010). Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 82021 Page 1 of 9 Design analVsis Veritas Engineering and Inspection.PLLC Scarsdale,NY prepared by 2 Overhill Rd. Telephone.914-458-1110 Suite 00 Designer• Tensar software output Tensar, o Version0 • Calculations in accordance with LRFD • 2010)(static loading) Input data and Section Project: 9 High Point Circle-Proposed New Upper Wall 1,625 lb/ft2, DL 5.75 I m 1. 0 85 5° 85.5° 6.00 Tensar Structural Systems Mesa®Retaining Wall System Static loading case All dimensions in feet Scale 1:25 Fill/foundation Soil zone Drained/ C. 4)' Ybulk properties undrained (Ib/ft') (°) (Ib/fY) Design soil strength Reinforced fill Drained 0 34.0 125.0 parameters are peak values Retained fill Drained 0 34.0 125.0 Foundation soil Drained 0 34.0 125.0 Surcharges No Load acts from x (ft) To x (ft) Load(lb/ft') Live load/Dead load 1 5.03 300.03 625 Dead load x coordinates are measured from the top of the reinforced fill block. Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 8 2021 Page 2 of 9 Tensar software output Tensar. TensarSoil(g)Version r • Calculations in accordance with • • 2010)(static loading) Water Location Height of water level above datum (ft) ru pressure data In front of structure No water pressures within fill No water pressures NA Verification Mechanism Result Max/Min Critical case OK? of external stability Eccentricity +1.07 ft +/-1.50 ft Static,B OK Sliding on base 1.203 1.000 min B OK Bearing 7.151 1.000 min OK Verification Mechanism OK? Mechanism OK7 of internal stability Rupture check OK Pullout check OK Internal sliding OK Connection check OK Geogrid coordinates and design data Levels are measured from the datum and horizontal location is measured from the toe of the wall Tensar Level Left Right Length Coverage Pullout geogrid end end interaction factor C. a p (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) % UX1100 4.67 1.26 6.37 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 3.33 1.15 6.26 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 2.00 1.05 6.16 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 0.67 0.94 6.05 5.11 100.0 0.800 Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 8 2021 Page 3 of 9 TensaaccordanceTensar software output r Ten sa r Soil(,,)Viet sion 2 10 02 Calculations in - • loading) Applied partial Load combination limit state Static loading load factors (Strength 1) As given in Section 3.4, Minimum or maximum Max Min Tables 3.4.1-1 DC (dead load of facing) 1.25 0.90 and 3.4.1-2 EH (horizontal and vertical components of 1.50 0.90 force on back of MSEW) EV(vertical load of MSEW) 1.35 1.00 ES (vertical dead loads above or behind 1.50 0.75 MSEW) WA(water load) 1.00 1.00 LL(live traffic load) 1.75 0.00 LS (live surcharge) 1.75 0.00 Applied partial Load combination limit state Static loading material and (Strength 1) resistance factors Soil strength parameters 1.00 As given in Section 10.5.5, Sliding soil-to-soil 1.00 in general but Eccentricity e< B/4 soil Section 11.5.6 e<3B/8 rock and Table 11.5.6-1 for Bearing resistance 0.65 MSEW Geogrid tension failure 0.90 Geogrid pullout 0.90 Connection failure 0.90 Further Further information, specifications and bill of quantities System overview information descriptions for this Tensar Earth Retaining Structure Installation guide relevent to are given in the following documents which form part Case histories this of this Design Analysis Tensar Earth Retention The current versions of these documents may be found by following the website linkto"Tensar System Documentation"in the Help menu of the TensarSoil@ program For program users who do Tensar International Corporation For program users who do Tel: +1 770 3442090 contact your nearest Tensar Fax: +1 770 3442089 representative or distributor E-mail:web@tensarcorp.com Web:www.tensarcorp.com Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 8 2021 Page 4 of 9 softwareTensar output Tensar I-ensarSoil@ Version1 1 Calculations in accordance with: LRFD(AASHTO 2010)(static loading) Detailed calculation results The following tables provide the detailed results from the design Analysis, including geogrid design data, together with both external and internal analysis results. External stability -unfactored calculated forces Forces are calculated as per Section 11.10.5.2. Note: negative forces are upwards and to the right Loading direction Units Vertical Horizontal Forces in or above reinforced block: Soil mass lb/ft 3672.5 Facing lb/ft 450.0 Dead loads lb/ft 53.8 0.0 Live loads lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure on base lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure on face lb/ft 0.0 0.0 Forces behind reinforced block: From soil lb/ft -41.1 522.7 From dead loads lb/ft -71.5 909.0 From live loads lb/ft 0.0 0.0 From water pressure lb/ft 0.0 0.0 External stability -eccentricity and overturning Calculations carried out as per Section 11.10.5.5 (11.6.3.3& 10.6.3.3). Loads and moments given below are factored. LRFD does not require an overturning calculation. Calculation Units Static loading Total vertical load on base Ib/ft 3965.8 Total moment on base about centreline Ibft/ft 4.260 Eccentricity ft +1.07 Limit(s) ft +/-1.50 OK? OK Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 8 2021 Page 5 of 9 Tensar software output Tensar TensarSoil(P Version 0.0 Calculations in accordance with LRFD • 2010)(static loading) External stability-sliding Calculations carried out as per Section . Loads and moments given below are factored. Calculation Units Static loading Horizontal driving force Ib/ft 2147.5 Horizontal resisting force Ib/ft 2674.9 CDR(sliding) 1.246 Requirement z 1.0 OK? OK Additional sliding check For inclined structures an additional sliding check is carried out with the back of the reinforced soil block defined by a series of steeper lines until the lowest R"/Q"value is obtained. Critical inclination of wall back deg 90.000 Horizontal driving force Ib/ft 2400.3 Horizontal resisting force Ib/ft 2887.2 CDR(sliding) 1.203 Requirement >_ 1.0 OK? OK External stability -bearing capacity check Calculations carried out as per Section 11.10.5.4(10.6.3&11.6.3),using Meyerhof load distribution to take into account eccentricity.The effect of load inclination is omitted in accordance with Section C10.6.3.1.2a. Calculation Units Static loading Ultimate bearing pressure is calculated using unfactored loads Total vertical load on base Ib/ft 5432.1 Total horizontal load on base Ib/ft 2147.5 Total moment on base about centreline Ibft/ft 3.685 Factor Nc 42.164 Factor Nq 29.440 Factor NY 41.064 Effective length L' ft 4.83 Ultimate bearing pressure Ib/ft' 12384.3 Factored ultimate bearing pressure Ib/ft' 8049.8 Factored applied bearing pressure Ib/ft' 1125.7 CDR(bearing capacity) 7.151 Requirement z 1.0 OK? OK Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 8 2021 Page 6 of 9 Tensar Tensar software output Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with - 2010)(static loading) Geogrid reinforcement design data Strength values quoted are per metre width of geogrid, and do not take into account percentage coverage Geogrid strength and connection strength are calculated following Section 11.10.6.4. The connection strength values given are for the facing system indicated on Page 2. Design temperature(°C) 20 Design life(years) 75 Maximum particle size of fill=3/4" Tensar Ultimate Creep Durability Installation Tensile Design Connectior data geogrid strength factor factor damage resistance strength (lb/ft) factor (lb/ft) Tult RFcr RFd RFid T Ta CRult CRCR UX1100 3974 2.56 1.1 1.1 0.9 1154 1.0 0.33 Internal Stability Calculations carried out as per Section 11.10.6.2(load on geogrid),Section 11.10.6.3(pullout check) and Section 11.10.6.4(rupture and connection check). Geogrid Data Factor of safety Tensar Level Length Sv Cov Tal Tmax CDR CDR CDR geogrid (ft) (ft) (ins) % (lb/ft) (lb/ft) tension pullout conn UX1100 4.67 5.11 21 100 1283 164 7.04 2.40 6.58 UX1100 3.33 5.11 16 100 1283 181 6.37 5.83 5.95 UX1100 2.00 5.11 16 100 1283 257 4.49 7.45 4.20 UX11o0 0.67 5.11 16 100 1283 337 3.43 8.80 3.20 Minimum requirement 21.0 z1.0 t1.0 Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 82021 Page 7 of 9 Tensar software output Tensar, o Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with. - • 2010)(static loading) Internal sliding check-sliding on geogrids LRFD does not include a specific requirement or definition for checking sliding on geogrids, so calculations are carried out as per the external sliding check, Section 11.10.5.3(10.6.3.4). Loads qiven below are factored. Geogrid Data Static loading Tensar Level Cov CI Driving Resisting CDR geogrid (ft) % forces forces Sliding (lblft) (lb/ft) UX1100 4.67 100 0.600 285 1706 5.99 UX1100 3.33 100 0.800 712 2206 3.1 UX1100 2.00 100 0.800 1223 2702 2.21 UX1100 0.67 100 0.800 1818 3195 1.76 Minimum requirement 21.0 The following tables give all forces and moments used In the external stability calculations for all load cases Calculation of forces,and moments about centre of base of reinforced soil block. Vertical Horizontal Forces un- Load Load un- Load Load (lblft) factored CaseA CaseB factored CaseA CaseB Earth pressures on the back of reinforced soil block due to self weight of soil and loads on backfill: Soil -41 -62 -56 523 784 784 Deadloads -72 -107 -97 909 1363 1363 Live loads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Self weight of the reinforced block and loads applied above and within it: Soil 3673 4958 3673 0 0 0 Facing 450 563 405 0 0 0 Dead loads 54 81 40 0 0 0 Live loads 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 4064 5432 3966 1432 2147 2147 Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 8 2021 Page 8 of 9 softwareTensar Tensar o Version Calculations in accordance with: LRFD • 2010)(static loading) from vertical forces: from horizontal forces: Moments un- Load Load un- Load Load Ibft/ft factored CaseA CaseB factored CaseA CaseB Earth pressures on the back of reinforced soil block due to self weight of soil and loads on backfill: Soil 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.5 1.5 Dead loads 0.2 0.3 0.3 2.6 3.9 3.9 Live loads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Self weight of the reinforced block and loads applied above and within it: Soil -2.5 -3.3 -2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Facing 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dead loads -0.2 -0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Live loads 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totals -1.2 -1.7 -1.2 3.6 5.4 5.4 Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Sep 8 2021 Page 9 of 9 Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC 2 Overhill Road,Suite 400,Scarsdale,NY 10583 Tel 914-458-1110 JGaspar@VeritasEngineeringNY.com ENGINEERING + INSPECTION www.VeritasHomeServices.com June 23,2021 Memorandum To: Mr. Michal Nowak DD Village of Rye Brook jUN 2 4 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK From: Jeffrey M. Gaspar, P.E. BUILDING DEPARTMENT Veritas Engineering and Inspection, PLLC CC: Seth&Elinor Slomiak In accordance with an in-person plan review at the City of Yonkers below is a response to the comments dated June 7,2021. Comment Summary in black,Response in red. 1. Grading appears to be proposed on neighboring property. All proposed grading must be limited to the property that is the subject of this application. a. No grading is proposed off site. 2. Existing topography must be provided extending at least 10 feet beyond the southern and western property lines with contour intervals not greater than two feet. Existing topography must also be provided within the property on the proposed site plan. a. Existing topography contours extended to 10' outside property line. Topography adopted from Westchester County GIS data due to neighboring property access limitations, see sheets TOO and C001. 3. Site plan must indicate how the site will be accessed and any tree removals that might be necessary for machines to access the work area. a. Site access recommended via existing driveway, see sheet C002; one damaged tree to be removed,see sheet C001. 4. Extent of existing retaining wall that is to be removed must be more clearly defined. a. Hatch & legend added, sheet C001. 5. Elevations including but not limited to finished grade and proposed wall footing elevations must be more clearly indicated on the elevations and sections sheet. a. Leaders with arrows added to elevations drawings to identify location of top wall (TW) and bottom wall(BW)topographic elevations more clearly. Elevations noted on section detail as well. 6. Plans must include considerations for drainage of the proposed retaining wall. a. Typical retaining wall drainage is minimal. Excess water will be collected by perforated pipe behind the wall and daylighted at wall termination point. See detail sheet C003 7. The retaining wall design referenced in the notes must be submitted for review and shall include but not be limited to the following: Ver ENGINEERING+INSPECTION • Design calculations that have been signed and sealed by a licensed New York State professional engineer. o See attached • Analysis of existing lower retaining walls with respect to their capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill. o See attached analysis. • Subgrade bearing capacity requirements. o See attached analysis. • Retaining wall backfill and compaction requirements. o See sheet C004, Retaining wall notes. Page 2 of 2 accordanceTensar TensarSoiliSi Versloh,2.16,621. Calculations in s • 2010) Client: Slomiak Project: 9 High Point Circle - Proposed New Upper Wall Analysis Proposed new upper wall set 5' behind lower wall Tensar ail I Structural Systems ' Mesa®Retaining Wall Systems IMPORTANT NOTES (Final Design) (1)This Tensar Software Output has been prepared by a Tensar affiliate or by LICENSEE to enable the application of Tensar Geogrids to be evaluated.The calculations are derived from a standardized software program which generally follows AASHTO or NCMA methodologies and which has been modified to incorporate certain properties of Tensar&products. (2)Any mechanically-stabilized earth structure involves various engineering,design,material,construction and end-use considerations.Many of these are site specific,such as(but not limited to)terrain and grading,watertable,the nature and strength of the foundation and backfill soils,compaction of the backfill,surface and subsurface water control and drainage,the presence of utilities and other elements in or around the structure,use of proper equipment and construction practices during installation, neighboring construction activity, load factors,other environmental factors and the like.This printout provides certain limited information to a final design,and does not itself constitute a design or plan suitable for actual construction. A final engineered design and plan,with drawings and installation details and requirements,signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer,is required prior to construction. (3)This printout,and any final design and plan, includes certain assumptions regarding onsite conditions which must be verified by others at the site both before and during construction. Adherence thereto by the owner and those other contractors specifically engaged to be onsite for assessment and testing,construction,supervision,quality control and other assistance is required for the proper installation,safety and performance of the structure(Tensar does not provide such onsite services except and to the extent specifically engaged and compensated for doing so under a written contract signed by Tensar). Tensar is a registered trademark. Method of The calculation method used in this Design Analysis is the tie-back wedge method for MSE walls analysis given in Section 11.10 and other referenced sections of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition (2010). Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Jun 23 2021 Page 1 of 4 ' OF NEw Yprepared by Overhill R1M. _CA A�'� Telephone 914-458-1110 Suite 400 Designer Fax. Designer �c w �F�pROFESS���P Films rom N-110N."I 01-;,--ZIO Input data and Section Project: 9 High Point Circle-Proposed New Upper Wall 1 T- tblft', DL il 5.75 m 1.30 85 50 85.5° 6.00 Tensar Structural Systems Mesa® Retaining Wall System Static loading case All dimensions in feet Scale 1:25 Fill/foundation Soil zone Drained/ c' 41' Ybulk properties undrained (IblfY) (") (lb/ft') Design soil strength Reinforced fill Drained 0 34.0 125.0 parameters are peak values Retained fill Drained 0 34.0 125.0 Foundation soil Drained 0 34.0 125.0 Surcharges No Load acts from x (ft) To x (ft) Load (lb/ft') Live load/Dead load 1 5.03 300.03 625 Dead load POF NEW y0 x coordinates are measured from the top of the reinforced fill block. �'� ��� ►� G S �� r � 4, Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Jun 23 2021 Pag 2S of 1905 � �90 ESSIO�P��, Tensar software output Tensar o Version 2.10.02 Calculations in accordance with LRFD • 2010)(static loading) Water Location Height of water level above datum (ft) ru pressure data In front of structure No water pressures Within fill No water pressures NA Verification Mechanism Resuft MaxlMin Critical case OK? of external stability Eccentricity +1.07 ft +1-1.50 ft Static,B OK Sliding on base 1.203 1.000 min B OK Bearing 7.160 1.000 min OK Verification Mechanism OK? Mechanism OK? of internal stability Rupture check OK Pullout check OK Internal sliding OK Connection check OK Geogrid coordinates and design data Levels are measured from the datum and horizontal location is measured from the toe of the wall Tensar Level Left Right Length Coverage Pullout geogrid end end interaction factor C I a P (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) % UX11o0 4.67 1.26 6.37 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 3.33 1.15 6.26 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 2.00 1.05 6.16 5.11 100.0 0.800 UX1100 0.67 0.94 6.05 5.11 100.0 0.800 oV NEW y� GgsA'p.� Uj Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Jun 23 2021 Page ��J3F' f 91g05 �'�'��FESS���P� Tensar software output Tensar, o Version • Calculations in accordance with: LRFD • 2010)(static loading) Applied partial Load combination limit state Static loading load factors (Strength 1) As given in Section 3.4, Minimum or maximum Max Min Tables 3.4.1-1 DC (dead load of facing) 1.25 0.90 and 3.4.1-2 EH (horizontal and vertical components of 1.50 0.90 force on back of MSEW) EV(vertical load of MSEW) 1.35 1.00 ES(vertical dead loads above or behind 1.50 0.75 MSEW) WA(water load) 1.00 1.00 LL(live traffic load) 1.75 0.00 LS(live surcharge) 1.75 0.00 Applied partial Load combination limit state Static loading material and (Strength I) resistance factors Soil strength parameters 1.00 As given in Section 10.5.5, Sliding soil-to-soil 1.00 in general but Eccentricity e<B/4 soil Section 11.5.6 e<36/8 rock and Table 11.5.6-1 for Bearing resistance 0.65 MSEW Geogrid tension failure 0.90 Geogrid pullout 0.90 Connection failure 0.90 Further Further information, specifications and bill of quantities System overview information descriptions for this Tensar Earth Retaining Structure Installation guide relevent to are given in the following documents which form part Case histories this of this Design Analysis Tensar Earth Retention The current versions of these documents may be found by following the website linkto"Tensar System Documentation"in the Help menu of the TensarSoil®program For program users who do Tensar International Corporation For program users who do Tel: +1 770 3442090 contact your nearest Tensar Fax: +1 770 3442089 representative or distributor E-mail:web@tensarcorp.com ` Cjf NEW/l Web:www.tensarcorp.com O.Q� r � r LAJ Reference 9 High Point Circle Date Jun 23 2021 Pag �y o v J'F 91905 tv� �A OFESSIO��\. OCT 15 2021 James Philip Spielberg VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 11 Bellefair Road BUILDltgG DEPARTMENT Rye Brook, New York 10573 October 14, 2021 Village of Rye Brook Planning Board Village Hall 938 King Street Rye Brook, New York 10573 Re: 9 High Point Circle Review of Site Plan Application& Steep Slopes Permit Application Dear Members of the Planning Board: In their September 8, 2021 letter to the Planning Board, Kamlesh and Charul Kothari and DK and Anu Satija mischaracterized my statements at the August 12, 2021 Planning Board meeting. While I appreciate the emotion surrounding the pending application, it is fundamentally important that all parties be factually accurate. Accordingly, please allow this correspondence to correct the Kothari's and Satija's mischaracterization of my statements. The Kotharis and Satijas assert that "this application is setting a serious precedence which will encourage others in Bellefair to pursue similar projects even though there could be neighbors' concerns." (See September 8, 2021 letter, page 4, bullet point 3 under "Community Precedence" section). In making this statement, the Kotharis and Satijas rely on statements I made at the August 12, 2021 Planning Board meeting. My statement, which begins at approximately the 56-minute mark of the August 12, 2021 meeting recording, clearly does not in any way suggest that Bellefair residents will be encouraged to pursue similar projects even though there could be neighbors' concerns. Instead, my statement and continuing concern is that if my family seeks to make an improvement on our property, incurs considerable cost in preparing plans that comply with Village rules and meet all applicable safety standards, our application can be frustrated by any neighbor with unsubstantiated concerns. As I review the record of this matter, I continued to be puzzled by the Board's delay in rendering approval. My understanding is that despite this matter being pending before the Board for several months, there has still not been any expert opinion submitted to the Planning Board that undermines or otherwise questions the safety of the proposed application. Additionally, I understand that the application has been prepared by licensed professionals and the safety of the proposed application has been validated by the Village's own engineer. I have no objection and think it is important for neighbors to voice their concerns. However, I remain troubled that concerns, without any validation rooted in fact, in a matter that is inherently factual, should not be able to frustrate an application that complies with applicable Village rules and safety standards. This is precisely the precedent that concerns me—as I watch this application process play out, the Planning Board is disincentivizing my family (and perhaps other residents)from making any improvements to our property. Thank you for your attention. our Lrq are e E DDIRFES EP 2 4 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE SROOK V BUILDING DEPARTMENT U- .Fb or_ Ca ULMM o V _ o °, 0 0 .� 00 ° aD 00 . _ >, c ° C/) (D L Q ��/ L.L m D If O U IL T� L i = �. L� O �L( V � ..... �C U Fir W � L � e U 2 i U Q� o4-0 AW U ii 'n W L �.� 0) -1-+ _co Q C cuF. co v 7C) a --r- L Yy cu 4-0 1 L LL a r•:err ��.��i�+�' ��� •ram. i #F 4 a y� i t r�` t'� xty♦ • 1 J r-� ♦ M1y��e I W 4; 1 • 3 1 �' S . .w� L • 1 7 • A i ,A . t • • t�hi{i • ,4 ' sr s 1 1 • • • 1 1 �y+A k,t a � ,"4 ' � �+ '��C ' ,. �. f� S i N�.�, �. � .. .- 1 �.r '.�ly ' � ���FtJ . j'j{ .:c i � t: �. .l t r ti j� `� z• `� R�` °�' b.'.;� Mr '; K F� '�`� a i `�- .� --- - - • � -�-ISM i�✓r� - - � , , k;. ;'>: s' tip: +'•' `IT r • ' cu cu O. qblH 3: , ? ?, •�° �' J D M E Do SEP - 8 2021 Kamlesh & Charul Kothari, 6 Heritage Ct, Rye Brook, NY VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK DEPARTMENT DK & Anu Satija, 11 High Point Circle, Rye Brook, NY BUILDING D_ September 8, 2021 Hello Rye Brook Village Planning Board, Further to our past letters below are additional set of information&arguments for our objection to the proposed project by the current owners of 9 High Point Circle. Liability and Bearine Risk o As per the letter dated August 27, 2021,Bellefair HOA has indicated that the retaining wall to the rear of 9 High Point Circle is not the responsibility of the HOA, given that the retaining wall was not present in or around year 2000 on the Bellefair site map. o Our homeowners' insurance policy does not cover retaining wall repairs and maintenance. o A portion of the 2na tier retaining wall towards the north-west has collapsed. As you may notice that portion is connected to the 2na tier wall and the construction looks similar to the 1st tier wall(Annexure 1). We would like the board to note that the applicant finished constructing a new deck near the retaining wall just a few months before a portion of this retaining wall collapsed. We also would like to ask if the wall collapse was caused by the weight of new deck that was recently completed. Was any test done by the structural engineer/village engineer to assess if the retaining walls can handle the load of the large deck. The point above related to the collapsed retaining wall raises the question of liability and property line too. The Bellefair HOA has still not been able to decide(even after 2 months of repeated follow-ups) whose property the broken wall lies within, even though it's evident on review of the survey map that the collapsed wall is within the property line of 9 High point circle(Annexure 1). It's also very interesting to note that the applicants and their engineer have repeatedly stated that it's not part of the applicant's property. o Other walls have deteriorated/collapsed in Bellefair over the past years (i.e. 18 Bellefair Rd and 5 Heritage Ct). As mentioned by the Chairman of the Planning Board in the last hearing,the extension of the wall may be planned and constructed per code,but a degree of uncertainty remains. o During Hurricane Ida large amounts of water gushed onto our properties/common area. Will the Village consultant consider this kind of extreme weather situation,which are becoming more frequent, in their assessment of the integrity of the load bearing retaining wall, as no drainage is being planned per this proposal. o We have not engaged a structural engineer as we are relying completely on the consultant the Village has hired to do a thorough assessment and due diligence. Our checks within the urban planning community have indicated that Mr Natarelli of Dolph Rotfeld Engineering is highly regarded. We are hoping that the Village consultant takes into consideration 1)a section of similar retaining wall at the 2nd tier that has already collapsed in 2021; 2)there is no clear record on when and who built the load bearing retaining wall(at the rear of 9 High Point Circle); and 3) impact of the recent weather event. o The applicant's engineer mentioned that theoretically there is a possibility the lower wall will be impacted but not realistically. Mother nature in the form of Hurricane Ida has shown the damage that can happen in an instance. And the Planning Board members commented that there needs to be clarity on who pays for any repair and maintenance for now and in the future to current and future owners. o Beyond the shared responsibility of the existing walls,we are not willing to assume any additional responsibility/liability/risk from this proiect. The applicant as well as the engineer/builder have mentioned that they will not provide any form of indemnification to us or future owners. Even if such indemnification is being considered,then it needs to be recorded as a covenant so that it runs with the land and binds any subsequent purchases in perpetuity. Without such indemnification, this new wall will not only become our liability but also impact the value of our homes. Event sequence o The applicant has made choices that ultimately now are impacting neighbors adversely. o The first instance was when the applicant purchased 9 High Point Circle,with the full knowledge that a portion of the backyard has a slope, and the area around the patio was flat. If the applicant's priority was a large play area for the kids,purchasing a property with a flat open backyard should have been the primary choice. There were options to buy other properties within Bellefair in 2014, including 6 Heritage Ct that offered a large flat backyard and was on sale in 2014. o The second instance was only a year ago when the applicant chose to make a large deck for entertainment purposes that consumed their kids play area. And now they realize they do not have a place for kids to play. This play area was the flat space outside the patio which measured substantially more than the flat area currently being requested in the proposal. If kids' activities were of concern,why was their need not prioritized over building a large deck which is used more for entertainment. This small piece of flat space requested appears more as an extension of the deck project. They made a poor choice with the large deck—why should we be penalized. o And now yet again for the third time, applicant is reacting to a temporary COVID situation. Rye Brook schools are open with compulsory in person attendance and kids' sports activities have started. So any restrictions due to COVID are temporary. Whereas this proposal will result in a permanent structure that we and future residents will have to bear with. o The approx. 500-600 sq. ft of small area cannot reasonably be used for any sport activity. It is hard to imagine how this small area is practical for the three children and possibly their friends for any sport activity—now and later as they grow up. Additionally,this wall will block access for their own kids from safely and easily accessing the common property areas that run behind the backyards of 6 Heritage Ct and 11 High Point Circle (most of the space behind 11 High Point is common area). The applicant's kids often play at their convenience in this common area. Kids grow up and play sports where there is more space and safer conditions. In fact, the Bellefair Village Green offers that, and it is only a 2 min walk from their home. And all of Bellefair kids frequently play at Village Green. o The applicant also mentioned that not having this flat space will be a risk for adults accessing their deck, especially their aged parents. This should have been another important criterion for consideration when the deck was being designed and built. Alternate designs should have been considered to make it more accessible from outside, or the deck should be accessed from the house only, and especially for the aged parents. And we ask how a Certificate of Occupancy is granted where there is a safety issue. This can be only bad design to build the deck without considering safety—and so we question why the neighbors should bear the adverse long-term impact of their project. o Clearly the applicant is repeatedly making short-sighed decisions that requires them to make adjustments/fixes that are detrimental to the neighbors in a community setup. Hence,we humbly request this continuous need to amend their property must stop when it is at a cost to all their adjoining neighbors. Our Quality of Life Visibility o As mentioned previously, our quality of life will be impacted by this project in terms of views and having this permanent over-bearing structure. We had provided our visual renderings in previous documents. Loss vs. gain o It was repeatedly mentioned that we should be willing to sacrifice and give up something for their gain. Why are we asked to do that? We paid more than a fair price for our properties and pay similar taxes. o The applicant has repeatedly said in the previous board meetings that their project would enhance the views from our homes. We not only reject that notion,but we would also like to point out that they have no right to impose their aesthetic sense on us. o Our summer has been consumed with this case(including several sleepless nights), and it has become a mountain of an issue for HOA, ARB, Bellefair community and friends. This is impacting our family time, intruding on work time, and even our ability to execute effectively on our personal and work commitments. Impact to our property price& time to market o We know(also confirmed by our broker)that the new permanent structure will unfavorably impact our market value of the house and time to sell. A homeowner in the community should not be allowed to affect the quality of life or values of a neighbor property. Community precedence o Part of the responsibility of purchasing in a community like Bellefair is acceptance of limitations on what each person can do independently. o At the last hearing,while the applicant argued the retaining wall changes at 34 Bellefair Rd as a precedent within Bellefair, the Chairman indicated the facts of that case do not apply here. o This application is setting a serious precedence which will encourage others in Bellefair to pursue similar projects even though there could be neighbors' concerns (view Mr Spielberg's, another Bellefair resident, comment from the last hearing at time 56 minutes in the video recording). o A homeowner can improve their home as long as it does not interfere with the established norms of the community and does not affect the living environment or the value of neighboring properties. A decision cannot be made in isolation on one project and requires consideration on how similar projects will change the rest of the community. o Denying the application will thwart a slippery slope for the whole Bellefair community. Bellefair Site May amendment o The primary purpose of the lower retaining wall is to hold 9 High Point Circle, which is at an elevated level to 6 Heritage Ct. o It is unclear to us as to why this wall is not shown on the final as-built Bellefair site map. Does this mean that the Bellefair site map now needs to be amended/rectified to reflect the as-built. Anecdotally we are aware this wall was not built based on any project undertaken by any of the homeowners,but constructed by the Bellefair builder. o Please refer to the letter submitted as part of the public comments towards this application by Mr Maizes (4 Heritage Ct) dated August 12, 2021,who is an original Bellefair homeowner, on the issues of flooding faced by these properties when they were handed over to the homeowners by the builder. o The full integrated lower tier retaining wall extends from 2 Heritage Ct to 11 High Point Circle. The lower tier retaining wall essentially separates the properties on 2/4/6 Heritage Ct from 7/9/11 High Point Circle; and the latter are at a higher elevation. o Given that there is no documentation available on quality or material used for the lower and 2nd tier walls, should a 2nd tier wall extension be permitted on the undocumented walls, knowing a section of the 2nd tier wall collapsed recently. Disallow changes to retaining wall between 9 High Point circle and 11 High Point Circle. o The applicant's architectural drawings submitted by Mr Gaspar indicate a portion of the original curved retaining wall between 9 High Point and 11 High Point will be removed as necessary(See Appendix 2). As this wall is on the Bellefair site map,we are not sure how the applicant has the authority to remove this wall. As per the Bellefair subdivision note 7—"no lot owner shall make any attempt to repair and replace any retaining wall". In conclusion Considering all the points above, and all adjoining neighbors are not in favor of this project,we sincerely request the Planning Board to reject the application of 9 High Point Circle. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kamlesh&Charul Kothari; DK&Anu Satija Kamlesh kothari&ahoo.com. dksatijaAaol.com Appendix 1 Degraded/broken section of the 2nd level retaining wall on 9 High Point Circle ■ 9 High Point Circle Property line per survey Location of the broken retaining wall BW SDO.6 4 24' MATCH EX5TING DECt..RAIL Broken section of the wall 'III 28.84' e 'C" `� ,_ f 9 High Point Circle 6 3 6�65 I Property line per survey PING 4RY \ _INE .y ADD CLEAN!ILL IAW NY5 DEC 1E THr REG5 TO LEVEL GRADE TO EL SHALL 656.AFMOX 46 CY Ir j�► �f BOTTOM 015TAIR5 ERTY.•• EL 696 ADD 6 5TEP5 FROM n+658.33 ;EVEN%VDK::VEWAY)TO BE f Appendix 2 Al' — 5.(Y II 25-54' ADD NEW FENCE TO TOP OF WALL. � I a MAT01ING Em5rNG DECK RAL, ATTACK I F05T5 FER HLOCK MFR IN5TRUCT°ON5 a coot 5 TW 696_3 REMOVE E)f5TING CURVED RETAINING WALL A5 NEC E55ARY t s_a FP:CFERTY LINE "T!�lEI�.E SHALL 6E NO WORK OR D15TUR6ANCE OF ARF.A5 OUT5IDE THE 5U15JECT FR-OPERTY_ ALL WORK 5HALL ;;�/596 5E FERFORMED FROM WITHIN THE 60JND5 OF THE 5UMECT PROPERTY." 5 ED AUG 12 2021 0 8/212021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: AUG 12 2021 1-/2/2021 I LAGE OF RYE BROOKILDING DEPARTMENT Members of the Planning Boarb Village of Rye BrooK 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: 8/2/2021 D L [� OMI Members of the Planning Board AUG - 9 2�2� Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Rye Brook. NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at I I b'���C�u�� �/✓off in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards,Printed Name:Name: f'i h e I G 00�Ma 8/2/2021 p C ( OMIE Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook AUG 6 2�2� DD 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYA BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, 14 Bellefair bivd We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Jennifer Wolff Printed Name: Membeis of Planning Board UW2021 Vibtage of Rye gook C Ef �IV �E ------ 936 Bing Street Rye Brook NY 10573 AUG 11 2021 Gear Member c' PlanningFVILBU,, OK Board, DING DEPARTMENT Wle tare curreril res=-deals of the SelleFav community and reSide at addresses as noted below We We aware of the proposed protect to extend the retaining wall at 9 High faint CrrGIC. and utltlemland the-objectior.,s raised by 11 High Point Owe and 6 Heritaga'(;I:. who are the iMMediate nerghtmrs lj%fe awe also aware limit the prop!sal was f"rst refecic;d by the Beale Fair HOA ARB and that decision or tho AREI was overturnM by the BelleFair HOA Board This project may be an enhancemenl & add aaluo to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable tans to Iheir backyard but we slrongky believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact 10 both the immediate ne ghboaing propertius Tihis proposal is ndl in keeping with the characters of the commundy 'Pie beareve that approval of this proiect Y,,A set the procederlce for many other residents to du sirri-Aar projects that will d Siw.rrb the character & harmony of out great FielleFaiR communily We highly recommend nd trip Rye Brook Pann ing Board not to approve the proposed apWication :sirleciely. Address. Name Signature 8/2/2021 Members of the Planning Board [E� E Village of Rye Brook AUG - 6 2021 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 11 Bel efai r Road in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Dxuftned by: Ite 8C78283A75034AB... Printed Name: lames spielberg D (�CIEWI AUG - 9 2021 Members of Planning Board 08,V2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brook 938 Kira} Street Rye Brook. IVY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board We are current residents of the BelleFaar cornmunrty and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wail at 9 High Point Circle. and undetstand the objections raised by 11 High Pont Circle and G Hentage Gt, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was.fKst re)ected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was ovenurned by the BelleFair HOA Board This project may to an enhancement & acid va'ue to 9 High Point Circle by proved+ng a Small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe ".hat this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. Vft behave that approval of this protect will set the precedence for many other residents to do sirhilar praects that will dlslurb the character& harmony ref our great BelteFair community. Our property also does not have usable land but we have not proposed any projects yet that may be an adverse impact to our neighbors We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application SrnGerely, 44 Address_: V Name S ure I AM AUG - 9 2021] DI GE OF RYE BROOK ING DEPARTMENT Member%of Planning Bcm(o (i4eW2021 Tillage of Rye 13mak. 935 K ng Slrecl Ryr. Rrcok NY. 10573 D.ir'IVember Of Plarron^y Raid We are cwterd residents of rho 9e'lleFair c4immundy and roS►de at addresses as noted be'aw We are awate of 1he ptopoSeid protect to OkUM the retal"g waft at 9 High Paird Circle and undrrstanO the obMct*ns raiser!by 11 Hrh Poirvl Circles pry!6 Heretep C1,wttw we the; irrarled+ate reiiji"m We are also awwo that 1hr, p+oposss was W r*M0W by tM Selle Fair HOA ARS and that deason of the AR43 was overturned err the SelleFae HDA Board This protect may be apt enhancement&aesd varue tog H-gh Flont Circlo by ptov4ng d Small usable land to lhayr backyard brl,wee!Mi"Iy believe Mat this priyoomal voll hatvr an adverse 'mpact to both tine immediate ne+ighboe ang properties Thta proKepi is no'in keeping w•h the 0%aracters o?1ho rommurrty We believe lrral;Iop dv it of 1hi5 project.wiP Rel the oreceaence for many eVier tesidents to do simdaf,eoj la iha,wall disturb the character b harmcny c4 ow great BezeFalr rgrnt"undy Our preFerty atw does not have us*We iaM Earl Ym. t,ave3 not Ipra845e a any prgectb W V+at may be an ar:5t6o imps=1lo ow netobo`s. We hrply teCommend the Rye Brook Plarni g Board not to approve the peolymd appLCalron S"ttaerely. Addraes Marne ignaturt RAUG 12 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Members of Planning Board 08/6/202 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement& add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character& harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincerely, Address: Name Signature 8/2/2021 � CC� C� OMf� Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook AUG - 6 2021 938 King Street VILLAGE OF Rye Brook, NY 10573 RYE BROOK BUILDING OF-PARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 44 Bellefair road in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: Sarra Roth- R �C C� r C 8/2/2021 AUG 10 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, t Printed Name: SGt(1.�syNU p LECLP' VvI�-- 0 AUG 12 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Members of Planning Board 08/6/2021 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below, We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct,who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement&add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to di similar projects that will disturb the character&harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed applical Sincerely, Address: Name S' ure RE AUG - 9 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Members of Planning Board G8r WILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brook 938 King Suer', Rye Book. NY. 10573 Dear M embcn of Planning Board We are current iesidertls of the SelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below We are aware of ilia proposed pialeet to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Poin! CircAe and understand lliv oblectkons raised by t 1 High Point Circle and 6 H etitage C1 who are the immediate neighbors We we also aware that the proposal was first rejected by Ire Belie Fair HOA ARB and that decisional the ARS was overlumed by the BelleFair HOA Board This protect may be an enhancement b add vah,e, to 9 High Pant Circle by p•oviding a %Mari usable land to 1".ir backyard but we strongly believe thal,this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the irnmedaate neighboring properties This proposal is not in keeping with the Characters of the community We bei�!ve that approval of this protect will set the precedence for many other residertls to do similar proleds that will d+shob the charaGes$harmony of ow great BelieFa,r community We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application Smce!r" Address C� e�1 .ter Name Signature ki CtaN�► D � C IEOy[E AUG - 9 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ftembers of Plann-,,q 13o.kid GB+5i7ti BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brack 938 King Street Rye Brocx NY 10573 Dear Member or Planning Bpa,rd. We trfe current residents of the BelleFaif corrmu"y and reside at addresses as noled bellow We are aware oil the propOsed pfo:.eet 14 ealer~cj the relaoing wag a1 9 High Pornl Crrcte. and understand the objections raised tay 11 Hqh ftayt,Circle and 6 Hentap Cit.who are the irnmesliate r"hbon We are also aware that they proposal eras first rejected by t►+e Belle Fair HOA AR8 and that dectaron of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board This pn)pd miry be am enhane ement& add vttbif!za 9 High Party Circle by prOv►dsng a small usable land to lhe,,{backya.*d Lwl tart►strwVty believe Thal INs proposal WAI have an adverse impact to With they:mmedia"m neighboring poperheS This proposal rs not in keeping with the characters of the commum.1y We "lieve That approval of this prbie:`a;t will sec the precedence for many other ie%tden.*s to do Similar projectsllhal%Wi disturb the character$harmony or out grti:e' BelleFarr commur-.1y We high:y recomenenca the. Rye Wook Planrung board not to a,pprovc the taroposed apapi"bork �int�rely, Address 57 B ti�- IL L V-f A 1 P Ro k 79 Name�t- �-T i Signalure &a. -�;�%+,, �y.� �A Members of Planning Board OBM2021 Village of Rye 8rcxik ED 93a King Street D L� IE V Ftye Brook NY. 10573 AUG 11 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK ]fa8r Member of PlanningBard BUILDING DEPARTMENT 'IM4'e are current reside-nis of 1he BelleFair communNy and rude al addresses as noted below. '41M me awaro of the proposed proteCII toexteM the relain,ng wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand 1he dbteVions raised by 11 High Poirrl Circle and iS Rerslage C1 who are the tMM'16diate neighbors Me are also aware that the proposal was first reiected by the Belle Farr HOA ARB and tha7 decision of thc�ARB was overturnecl by the BelleFair HIDA Board This project may be an er.hanr_ement& add value 10 9 Hugh PoiM Ciro* by prpvidmg a sma'I usable land to the±i backyard but we strongly beiieve that this proposal wrll have an adverse impact to belh the immediate neighboring properlvs This ptopo-sal is not in keeping wi"h the c.haraVers of the community We belvve that,approval of this p*otecl will se: the piecadonce for marry o1herr resident to 04 simAor protecls that wd%disturb the tharacier & harmony of our groat BelleP air community W6 highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not ra approve the proposed aloplocati" Stnceiel I A _ blame Srgrlatute 42- yJ tl f'\� 1 X0 AUG - 9 2021 1 ID VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Members&S'.Inning Board 0815r2071 'pillage of Rye Rinok 938 Kind ';Itge l Faye tlroct, NY 10573 Dear Member of Planneq Board, We Me Culran'residenls of the BelleFao community and reside at addr". %es as noted be-tow We arc aware of tt+e proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle.and understand 1". ablectwr+s raise4 by 11 40 FLOW Cimle and 6 t4nritage Ct wno are 11-te inlim-dime neghbors Vile are atso akraie that the proposal was'rust repK*d:yy the Belle Fair HOA AR$and that deCiSion of IN,,ARB w.ys overh;4ned tly Me BeneFaw HaA Board This protect may be an enhancement$add Valk[C IDS 9 1ligh Point Circle by pfeviding a small usabh,(find to their backyard but we..WoV.y believe t1•tal th s vmposW*4 havt:an acfvtirge XnPaCt to both the rnunedrate ros;,htoi mg i)iooe ies Y s Proposal is n41 an keeping*%1h the chara•,efs of the community 1P i b0ove 1ha9 approvaf of thr$protect will set the precedence for many other residents to do Similar protecls Mot well dishmb lire charade-r A harmony of our gr"t 0cIICFwr Cnmmundy We highr'y ,er•.ttrnn•.crrd the Rye Brpok Ptanrurtq Board not to approve 4he proposed app4cation Sincerely, +4dld s/s 1�ny Nam* &gnature E11 8/2/2021 Members of the Planning Board AUG 6 2021 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, n We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at ! `� �((JA I i R . in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, t vu44- ri P nted Name. 1 11 8/2/2021 Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook AUG - 6 2021 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board; D (I We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at in Rye Brook, New York We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, �. C Printed Name: R [EC EFU Members of Planning Board 08/6/2021 Village of Rye Brook AUG � 22021 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Dear Member of Planning Board, BUILDING DEPARTMENT We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at address as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the BelleFair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this project will have adverse impact to neighboring properties and is also not in keeping with the characters of the community. We humbly request that the Village Planning Board review the application by taking into consideration not only the application information but also the concerns raised by other residents, especially immediate neighbors. Sincerely, - Name Dr. Priyanka Patil Address: 1 Fellowship Lane, Rye Brook, NY. 8/2/2021 rR [ IEWE Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook - 6 2 221 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEEAR VENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at -3 2 1101 S� La vi in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, 1 Printed Name: 8/2/2021 Members of the Planning Board " Village of Rye Brook REAUG - 6 2021 E DD 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at He,r kcy"' "►ke- in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: F—f- C (-7-0 I Akin CL� 8/2/2021 Members of the Planning Board D ECLMC Village of Rye Brook AUG - 6 2021 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 17 Heirloom Lane in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: Mark Suss 8/2/2021 D Cc [E �YC DD Members of the Planning Board AUG - 6 2021 Village of Rye Brook VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street BUILDING DEPARTMENT Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 23 Heirloom Lane in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, � . 4M'a� Printed Name: Gil Amado p ECENE AUG 10 2021 Members of Planning Board 08/6 021 a of Rye Brook VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village Y BUILDING DEPARTMENT 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement & add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character& harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincerely, Address: Name Signature `t-'SSuI s r PIP r R ECEWEEuD MICHAEL MAIZES UUG 1 1 2021 ROBIN MAIZES VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 4 Heritage Ct BUILDING DEPARTMENT Rye Brook,NY 10573 914-980-1045 August 12, 2021 Members of Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Re: 9 High Point Circle Dear Member of Planning Board: We write in opposition to the petition of the owners of 9 High Point Circle to modify their backyard and change its topography and the mechanics of the existing retaining wall. I understand that other lower, subservient homeowners (2 Heritage Ct., 6 Heritage Ct., 11 High Point Circle, 20 Legendary Circle, etc.) has also voiced objection. My wife and I purchased 4 Heritage Court in 1999. We were one of the first Belle Fair homeowners. Upon moving in, our basement was flooded, and water was seeping in each time it rained. After a significant period of time, and many back and forths with the builder (who tried temporary fixes such as patches, French drains, etc.) all sides determined that the cause of the flooding was hydraulic pressure coming from the adjoining higher properties. The issue was resolved when the builder installed a double layer 360' second foundation around our property, AND carefully installed, with the aid of seismic engineer, an interlocking property wall. At or about the same time, our neighbors the Arnolds, the then owners of 2 Heritage Court, had an identical seismic/hydraulic pressure issue that was also flooding and damaging their property. The issue was resolved in a like kind manner. Since then, neither the Arnolds, their purchasers the Mackins, or the Mackins' purchasers the Kothari's or us have had problems. We do not want any problems now. Indeed, another Belle Fair owner, the Weinbergs, of 4 Milestone Road, were not so lucky. The board approved modification of the landscape of a higher property, without consideration of the potential seismic changes and associated costs, and 1 thereafter, in or about 2000, the Weinberg's installed retaining wall failed. The Weinbergs, at great expense, were caused to repair the failed wall without the benefit of insurance or indemnity. Belle Fair is a community that has many restrictive covenants to ensure that it has a common look and feel (e.g. the color of the houses, the materials on the outside of the homes, etc.) and there is not a single higher level home that has done, or is doing, what the owners of 9 High Point now propose. To allow this to now occur will defeat the purpose of the restrictive covenants and invite other higher situated homes to jump into line. The risks are great: changes to the topography; unanticipated seismic pressures on the installed retaining walls; potential damage to subservient lower-level homeowners; and disruption of the central character of Belle Fair. For these reasons alone, the application should be denied. The now owners of 9 High Point knew or should have known that what they are seeking to do is impermissible. Even if the application was to be considered, or even approved, it MUST be conditioned upon the applicant providing proper and sufficient assurances, in the form of a penal bond or insurance, a guarantee/opinion of their engineer (f/b/o of the subservient owners) and an unconditional agreement to indemnify, defend and hold harmless (including reasonable legal fees) all proximately caused damages to any subservient lower level land owner for cost and maintenance and repair of the retaining walls and any water or flood damage caused by the proposed installation. The indemnity needs to be recorded as a covenant so that it runs with the land and binds any subsequent purchaser in perpetuity. If this "improvement" is important to 9 High Point, this is something that should be unconditionally offered, and is, in my opinion, something that is required by law. (see generally RPAPL § 881). While I will not be able to attend the hearing in person, I do hope the planning board duly considers these objections. If necessary, I can be reached by cell (914- 980-1045) or appear virtually. Respectfully yours, Michael H. Maizes 2 Members of the Planning Board 7/13/2021 Village of Rye Brook LE CIE-` �„ „ 938 King Street D \\v// ll�� DD Rye Brook, NY 10573 JUL 1 5 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are one of the neighbors of Seth and Elinor Slomiak and share an open backyard with 6 Heritage CT, 9 High Point Cir and 11 High Point Cir, We have signed a no objection letter dated 6/30/2021_As stated in my letter dated 6/30/2021,we have reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak regarding their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property that is visible from our deck and have no objections to the project. Post signing this letter dated 6/30/2021,we have been made aware of objections raised by 6 Heritage Cr and 11 High Point Ci,. We had also noted in our letter to approve the application stating that the proposed project is an enhancement to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community, I would request the planning Board to make that determination using all the documentation filed for this project by the applicant(Seth and Elinor Slomiak)and their neighbor's objections. Kind Regards Printed Name: 5 0C t"( Al..t C i r the Ly�' / '-k)K' NJ/ 1nL 13 6/30/2021 R [�� LO�i Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook JUI- - 1 2021 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board. We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 5 Heritage Court, Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. We share an open backyard with 6 Heritage Court and 9 High Point Circle and have no objection to the project. We feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood or community. This project proposed is an enhancement to the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We recommend the Planning Board approve the application described above. Kind Regards, Printed Name: �`� Q y N Vc A J ED 9 High Point Circle: Letter of Concern D E C E W AUG - 9 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT August 9,2021 Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook,NY 10573 Dear Sir or Madam, Jenny and I are current residents of BelleFair and we reside at 7 High Point Circle. I have read through all the documents pertaining the project proposed 9 High Point Circle. My primary concern is the following: 1)The existing retaining walls were constructed at orjust after the construction of the nearby homes. In this case, it was late 1999-2000. We are original owners,and we had moved in before all of the retaining walls were installed. It's 21 years later and while the overall integrity of the walls around my property are intact,there has been some shifting and inspection and maintenance is needed in the near future. As this was installed by Skanska(BelleFair's builder)my understanding is that the HOA is now responsible for the cost of maintenance and repair of these structures. 2)The proposal by 9 High Point Circle is to add roughly 45 CLI yards of fill near the front of the existing wall and to erect a new retaining wall roughly 5 feet in height to contain the fill. The cost of construction and maintenance of the new wall is to be paid by 9 HPC. Yet how much stress does that put on the existing 21 year old retaining wall which is in need to maintenance? Would the construction of the original wall have been different if they knew the end product would be 5 ft higher and 100,000 pounds heavier? 3)Is there a way that the maintenance of the original wall and the proposed addition be totally separate from each other? If yes,I have no issue with the project. If not,then 9 High Point should assume responsibility of maintenance of the old and new retaining wall,so that any future cost involving said wall is not shared by all homeowners while the benefit is only enjoyed by one. 4)It is good to see the checks and balances between the ARB and the Board as it pertains to vetting proposed projects. The owners of 9 High Point are entitled to increase and enhance the usability of their property. However,this should not come at a cost to their immediate neighbors. The concept of Belle Fair has always been about the Hometown and being neighborly. To that point,are there alternate materials which can be used that provides security for 9 High Point but addresses the visibility concerns of 11 High Point and 6 Heritage Ct? On the low end,we could keep 9 High Point Circle: Letter of Concern the existing post and rail fencing with wire mesh. Or we could explore using glass panels like the ones used on high end decks and patios. Let's continue to work together for a solution that is a win-win for all the homeowners involved. Kind Regards, Chris Chang&Jenny Mark. AUG - 9 2021 Members of Ptanning Board 081CV70 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook. NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Soard. We are current residents of thy' BelteFair communily and reside at addresses as noted below We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining Wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the obtections raised by 11 High Paint Circle and 6 Heritage Ct who are the immediate neighbors We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overiurned by the BetleFair HOA Board This project may be an enhancement& add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable tand to their backyard but we strongly hetieve that this proposal will have an adverse impact 10 both the immediate neir3hboring properties This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community We bel►eve that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character & harmony of our great BelleFa-.r community We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not ro approve the proposed apphGalion. Sincerely, 1 Addrew Name S+grnature D C�I2021C AUG 10 8i2i2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at Z 9 4, J h ' o."+ c rC l e in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: Ise J RECENIED AUG - 9 2021 Members of Planning Board 08,(6,(2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village of Rye Brook BUILDING DEPARTMENT 938 King Street Rye Brack. NY, 10573 Clear Memt7er of Ptanninq Board. We are current re$idents of 1he BellieFair tommuo ty and reside at addresses as n0led below We are aware of 1ne proposed project to exleertd the retaining wall at 9 High Pant Circle. and understand the ibieclions raised by {1 High Pomt Girdle and 6 Heritage Cl, who are the immediate neighbors VW are also aware thx the proposal was f;rSl re}ected by the .Betle Fair HOA ARB and Mat decision of the ARB was overtrained by the Bellet=air HOA Board This project may be an erlhancerr*ent $ add value to 9 High Point Circle by peovidrng a small usable land to their backyard Out we strongly belkove that this prcaosal will have an adverse moacll 'o both the rmmedrate r-aighbcring properlies Thm paoposa! s no-1 in keeping w1h the characters of the corrnrlanity We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residenis lv do Simiraf protects that wilt disturb the character& harmony of our great Sellefatt cornmundy We highly recommend the Rye Brack Planning 13oar0 not to approve the proposed applica?�Dn Sincerely-. Address. Name Segnature RFCE� WE 0 AUG a 9 2021 Members of Planntrg Board 06/&202 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Pfannrng Board VVe are current resrd"enls of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below We are aware of the proposed project to exterrd the retain�rtg wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Hentage Ct, who are the immediate nerghbo•s We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the AR was overlurned by the BelleFarr HOA Board. This protect may to an enhancement & add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal witl have an adverse +mpacl to both the immediate neig'htioring provertier. T his proposal is not in keep,"with the characters of the community We believe that approval of this protect will se, 11he preceder..ce for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character& harmony of our great BelleFait community We highly recomniend me, Rye Brook Planning hoard not to approve the proposed application Sincerely Address. Name ignak" ELDING [C1 ROOK MENT Members of P anri ng Board 001,612021 Vdrage of Rye Brook 938 King Sireet Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning(ioard, We are cajireral residents o1 1he fiellefair rorimtarnty and reside at addresses as noted below We of aware of the proposed prgeel to extend the relatning waU a1 9 KVh Potnt Circle, ar+d undef-Wand the objections rased by 11 High Point Cirr:le and 6 Hoti i)ge (A. vrho are:he immediale neighbors. We are.W.so arorare that the proposal was first repecled by the Belle Fa:r HOA ARS and 1hal decxvon of the ARBwas overlurned by the Belle Fair HOA Bi:mrd This project may be an enhancement$and value to 9 Higr~Point Cif CIO by prp;nding a small usable hand to their backyard but we strongly belie"that 1his proposal will have an adverse impact to both the imntioci;ale r!err borino properties rhos proposal is not in keep ng with the Ch.aracters of the commundy %AM Wileve;hat apnrovat of this propeci wig sect the ptcoedeme for many other residents to dO sim".13r prnleclt tnat will diisturb the chataCter 8 harmony of our greal Be'4Fair commumly V+te big?,ly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to a,pprOve the prpposei app<bcai.on Sincerely, Address Name . Stgnalure a 4 i ICs 4k Pd l,-a-' C uec t-p F' Q Csj+%,rA'C_ �-- 8/2/2021 D �C� C� OMC Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook AUG - 6 2021 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at V Hj� f0i'I'll C,1111 9 Y 9 in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, 1 Printed Name: �Cop 8/2/2021 p fE� COWIE 3D Members of the Planning Board AUG j62]21 Village of Rye Brook VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street BUILDING DEPARTMENT Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind R g rds, Printed Name: D V ry L D ECEWED AUG 12 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Dear Rye Brook Planning-Board, BUILDING DEPARTMENT Please respectfully retract my previously submitted and signed petition, as it was unfair of me to sign without hearing Mr. and Mrs. SlomiaWs perspective. I wish to take a neutral stance until 1 hear aU of the facts. Kind. Ian Chos 67 High Point.Circle Rye Brook NY 10573 D �C� E ��E AUG - 9 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Members cl PIanwrig,Board G8,,W.L)? BUILDING DEPARTMENT Vil:age of Rye Brock 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Member of Plann=ng Board. We are current resrderrls of the BelleFa�r cw. munity and reside al addresses as noted below We are aware of the proposed p£olect to extend the retaining wall at 9 11i69h Point 0rcl(A, and understand the ob;ections raised by 11 Hiogh Pant CirCte and 6 Heritage Dt.who are the irnmediate neighbors We are also aware that the proposal was 6es1 rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARS and 1h3t tdecision of the ARB was overlurned by the SelleF a!• HOA Beard This propect may,be an enhancement &acid value to 9 Nigh Point Cr_rcle by p'4vudrng a small usable Wand to their backyard but we strongly 0elte4e that 1fhis pr000sal will have an advere impact to both the 4mmediate reighbonng properliec Taus prapasal is not in keeping with the Cha.lacters of the community. We betieve that approval of th4s pro;eel wilt set the precedence for many other residents to do similar prepocts trial w11 disturb the characier&Iria(mony of olir great 1300air community We highly rew-menr!the Rye Brook Plann net Board not to approve the proposed app`;Cabon Address. Name Signature — 7,&2021 Gmail-Fwd:Petition draft ski, alai{ Kunjal Kathari<kunjal.kothari1I@gmail.com> Fwd: Petition draft 1 message kamlesh kothad<kamlesh_kothari@yahoo.c om> Thu,Jul 8,2021 at 5:07 PM To: Kunjal Kothari <kunjal.kothari11@gmail.corrP Begin forwarded message: From: "Battiwalla, Homi {PEP}" <Homi.Battiiwalla@pepsico.com> Subject: Petition draft Date: July 8, 2021 at 5:05:22 PM EDT To: kamlesh kothari <kamlesh_kothari@yahoo.com> To, The Rye Brook Village Planning Board Rye Brook. We are current residents of the Belle Fair community and reside at 1, Legendary Circle at Rye Brook. We are aware of the proposal by 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are both the only immediate impacted neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the Belle Fair HOA Board. We humbly request that the Village Planning Board review the application by taking into consideration not only the application information but also the concerns raised by 6 Heritage Ct and 11 High Point Circle. While we are not immediate neighbors of 9 High Point Circle and do not have any direct impact to their proposal, we as a resident of Belle Fair strongly urge that a proposal that can adversely impact the immediate neighbors and/or not be in light of the community harmony under which Belle Fair was setup, should be carefully reviewed. Regards Homi Battiwalla 1 Legendary Circle https://mail.google.coff mail/u/1?ik=8237d86343&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1704752265970549764&simpl=msg-f%3A1704752265970549764 1/1 HEO� Mernbers of Plannl�iy l3aarct 0816)2 �21 - 9 2021 Village of Rye Brook RYE BROOK DEPARTMENT 93B King Sheet Rye Brook. NY 10573 Deat Member of Planning Board 4hre are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wail at 9 Kgh Point Circle and understand the cba ections raised by 11 High Point Ctrcte and 6 Heritage Ct who are thQ immediate r►eighbors We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA AR8 and brat decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelteFair HOA Board This project may be an enhancement & add value to 3 Higin Paint Circte by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strangely Ceheve that this proposal"II have are adverse irr7pact to both the rmmediale neighboring prcperlieS Th►s proposal+s not in keeping .Vita the Characters of the Community We believe that approval of fts project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will distant!ft Character & hafniony of our great SetleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the ptroposed application sincerely, Address: blame Signature 3 Z«r f)JDA9V CI L LC U r 6M r 06le,TA Members or Planning Roart Village of Rye crook D E C E U Y E 938 King Street AUG 11 2021 Rye Brock NY, 1057v VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Clear Member of Planning Board. We are t+urrent resideafts of the BetleFa,r community and reside at addresses .as noted below We are aware of me proposed project to extend fie retaining wa!I at 9 Hrg.h Point Circle and undeirstan0 the oblectrons raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are th.e imn,ediate noighboss We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by ;he Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARS was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board This prnject may he an enhancement$.add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly t hieve that this proposal witl have an adverse impact ±o both the immediate neighboring propertres This proposal is not on keep-Ing wrh the Characters of the commu,111y. We believe that approval of this pr(4ect wi'I set th,e precedence for many other residents to do Sir'nilar projects that will disturb the character & harmony of our great 'BeheFair community We highly recommend the Rye Brook Plan,ning Board nor to approve the proposed applu:atron Sincerely, ter' D•s. .+. . Y c .'J" t , Address Nang Sgnature AUG 11 2021 From: rittu k (rittukapoor@gmail.com)-o-.you + 1 more Details VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT I , Rittu kapoor of 19 legendary circle, strongly believe that the above project at9 h line with the character of Bellefair... and would appreciate if it is not approved by the Board Sent from my iPhone On Aug 10, 2021, at 5:54 PM, anu satija <anudksatiia@hotmail.com>wrote: Best, Anu Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: dksatiia(cDaol.com Date: August 10, 2021 at 5:36:49 PM EDT To: anudksatiiaCcDhotmail.com Subject: Feedback on 9 High Point Circle Reply-To: dksatiia aol.com Rittu, As you are travelling, you can sign the PDF or alternatively reply this email, we will take care of rest prior to sending your letter to rye brook planning board. - Members of Planning Board 08/6/2021 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement&add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character& harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincerely, Address: Name Signature 19 Legendary Circle Rittu Kapoor August 11, 2021 AUG 11 2021 Members of The Village Board VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK 938 King Street BUILDING DEPARTMENT Rye Brook, NY 10573 We are writing this letter as members of the Bellfair community. My wife and I are original owners and are aware of multiple issues where changes have been proposed to individual homes and to the community at large. It has been our understanding that the ARB and the HoA Board make decisions within the rules of the community and should be impartial in the process. We are also aware that in the past some decisions are questionable but seen to go in favor of board members. I should hope the issues involving the construction in question is being evaluated in a manner that is fair to all. The ARB decision to not grant the requested construction was over-ruled by the HoA Board, a very uncommon action. Our concerns are in the process of the decision making. One persons request cannot outweigh the liability to others and to the community. If the request has no predictable detrimental effect on structures that are part of the community or that of a neighbor and are within the construction guidelines of the community, then the request should be given consideration. A home owner can improve their home as long as it does not interfere with the established norms of the community and does not affect the living environment or the value of a neighbor. A decision cannot be made in isolation on one project but how similar projects will change the rest of the community. Part of the responsibility of purchasing in a community like Bellfair is the acceptance of limitations on what each person can do independently. We feel that adequate evaluation and assurances should be provided to ensure homeowners will not be liable in anyway if there is any adverse outcome form construction. If there are any assurances given, it has to be transferable to future homeowners of 9 High Point Circle. Within Bellfair, there are drainage issues in common property that will require community funds to resolve. Our community is getting older and will require increasing funds for maintenance. Complications with any individual homeowner's project cannot add to this cost. Homeowners have added patios and other outside projects. If any problems arise from these constructions, they affect only that home. In this project, it seems likely that any problem caused by the construction will affect the community and especially the immediate neighbors. Any concerns from community members, the ARB, the HOA Board and the Village should be fully addressed. In a community like ours, the benefit of one cannot outweigh the impact and cost to the rest of the community. In the end we all will pay a price if this will be the new norm. Sincerely, Lokesh and Diane Reddy o ,�e�ena�a,c� 8,-c/e � ECEN AUG 10 Z021 Members of Planning Board 08/6/202 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement & add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character& harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincerely. Address: Name Signature S fC 17NT Members of Planning Board 08/6/20OK Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement& add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character& harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincere , Address: Name Signatu �y � G � �- D EC��M� AUG 10 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Members of Planning Board 08/6/2021 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement & add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character & harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincerely, V Address: Nam��A Signature o2/ l_`� RrC� EME AUG 10 1021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Members of Planning Board 08/6/2021 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook. NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement & add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character& harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincerely, Address: Name Signature FAUG E- 9 2021 Members of Planning Board +381�s1��?7 VILLAGE OF RYE BRGOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brack 938 Kings Street Rye Brook. DIY. 105e3 Dear Member of Planning Board. We are current residents of the BelleFa,r community and reside at addresses as noted below We are aware of the proposed pratev to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Pornt Circle and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct. who are the unmedi2le neighbors We are also aware chat the proposa,was first rejected by the iBelEe Fair HQA ARB and that decision of llhe ARS was overturned by the RetleFair HQA Board This protect may be an enhancement$ add vrattre to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but*,e strongly believe that thL5 proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties This proposal is nai in keeping wlh the charaCiers of Ine community We Delieve ihat approval of this protect will set l+he precedence for many olher residents to do scm,lar projects That wLll disturb the character $ harmony of out greal BelleFa!r community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve 11he proposed application Srnw.rely. Address: Dante srgnature D E I OMC AUG 10 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Members of Planning Board 08/6/2 21BUILDING DEPARTMENT Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement & add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character & harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincerely, Address: Name Signature Members of Planning Board G&612021 Village of Rye Brook �_ 938 King Street D E C l`� Rye Brook. NY. 10573 AUG 11 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT DeafrJle�rt�tx?r�01 Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair rammurlity and reside at addresses as holed below We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle and UnderStartid the Obtettior;S raised by a 1 High Point Circle and rS Heritage C1, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belie Fa r MOA A RB ar=.d that decisran of the AR13 was overlurned t)y the BelleFair HOA Board. This prolecl may be an enhancement$. add value to 8 High Point Circle by provxhng a smael usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal mil have an adverse Impacl to both the irnine Bate ne,ghboring properties, This proposal is not in keeping wilh the characters of 11he community We believe thal approval of this pralect will set the pretedeace for many other reside nils to do similar protects that YAI disturb the character & harmony of our great BelleFair community We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board #tot to approve the proposed apoiicatior: Sanely, Addnm: Nwne Signature F1 8/2/2021 EVILLAGEOF EMembers of the Planning Board 0 Village of Rye Brook938 King Street OOKENT Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 7 A le' `O ne- in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: 8/2/2021 Members of the Planning Board E � V E Village of Rye Brook 2021 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 PVIL:LAGEOF RYE BROOKILDING DEPARTMENT Hear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at At it in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: .202 Members of the Pianninv Board ECEWED Village of Rye Brook AUG 12 2021 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook. NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Pianninq Board. We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at � � �l Lf In Rye Brook. New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the GoMmunity to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the ommunity. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the i9ighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will tc uafly add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire bornood. ighly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Siomiak's "cation. y eoacls. ted Name: ., Members of Planning 13oard 0816/202 � (�??�/7 f.L —� Village of Rye Brook D IE C F-g U `/ IE 938 Fling Street J� AUG - 9 N DD Rye Brook NY, 10513 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFabr community and reside at addresses as noted below We are aware of the proposed protect to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle. and understand the obsections raised by I High Paint Circle and G Heritage Ct, who are the immettiate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first retected by the Belle Farr HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overlu,nevi by the BelleFarr HOA Board This project may be an enhancement 8 add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly behove that this proposal will have an adverse impact to boll) the immediate neighbortrg properties This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this protect wilf set the precedence for many other residents to do similar protects that with disturb the character & harmony of our gfeat Ele Ile Fair community We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the (proposed application. Sincerely. Address Name Signature 2 N"44 vbL v vlt% k". . T- ' Memt�ers of Planning Board 081&2021 Village of Rye Brook �„ E 1116 King street E C E Rye Brook, NY, 10573 AUG 11 2021 VILLAGE OP RYE BROOK Dow Member of Planning Board. BUILDING DEPARTMENT We are current tesiden1s of the BereFaif community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed protect to extend the reiaming wall at 9 Hpgh P wr t Circle and understan-1 the objections raised by t 1 Hrgfi Point Circle and G Heritage Ct, who are the immediate nerghbors We are also aware that the proposal was first re(eCted by the Belle Fair HCA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BetleFair HOA Board This protect may be an enhancement & add value to 9 High Paint Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly bel-eve that this proposal will have an adverse impact to bolts the immediate neighbofing properlies This proposal is not ►n keeping with the chafaclers of the communily. We believe that approvar of this project will set the precedence for many ocher residents to do similar protects that wilt disturb the charactef & harmony of our great BellePair commuMty We hugiity recommend the Rye Brook Planning Beard not to approve the proposed application S,nceroly ot Address Name Signature ++ 1 f .4\ swou Want ,�c►�r� vyt a dds p�ra�g bu��u p lbAN 0:9 puauALK044 kMO 4 OM t b*;>Q1drd VW t%11 QAa*toi G"PIN tau O WIua acJl jo 61,61M OWAq4&W jw w xwdws pc44"R tau aAey t* PO&Wd FsMO IM I"rA#buoM aM1 AVWrAUU= o4t p ►alwoLp aul 41Lv bulad,2y it pue purl alwsn aww m� *mW at Aoun✓A&= &4 pUW hppelad j .4;Lw&4JOWV'L ua tw v P61Mod P-QWc$OA U41 ai31LPOd NON 6 W p"" AuDOD4 J'041 10 MkO 1141 ul LX'A INOW l a4t 10 wOfSu41y0 POSOdM 04MM of%patoo, µt -Ort►cn!s ;Okm pi& W:r s 10 U011163111oft 04t pii"AfAj Agniaatr-1 OAVNM am 114001s4+Il:fautlM PS Ala tKq4bdml ark iM - f'"S 04ruu/td'W l0 rt/a"Wa"AVP(] N3V4i6V d3 Nlaine1 J NO0a8 3)\8 30 3OV-1�in CLSol IZOZZla9 16445 ( d ' t1 8/2/2021 Members o r C IE �W f the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook AUG 12 2021 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at �1 in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: L RA AWE+ D E CM W ar2JnO21 AUG 12 2021 Members of the Planning Board VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Village of Rye Brook BUILDING DEPARTMENT 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 r )ear Members of the Planning Board, Ve are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at II Rye Brook, New 'Y`ork, le have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to eir proposed extension of the retaining wail in the rear of their property located at 9 gh Point Cirde. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the mmunity to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the mmunity: We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the ighbottng homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project wilt ually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire ghborhood. highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slorniak's iilcation. r gard 5, V 8/2/2021 Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook AUG - 6 2021 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 7 Reunion Road in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: Tara Gerardi From: Seth Slomiak <sslomiak@gmail.com> IIE_J73 Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 12:42 PM To: Tara Gerardi Subject: Fwd: Signed Letter AUG 1 22021 DD VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Please see below from 7 Reunion Road. BUILDING DEPARTMENT ---------- Forwarded message--------- From: Stacy Kapner<stacy.kapner@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 12:39 PM Subject: Signed Letter To: k k<kamlesh kothari@yahoo.com> Cc: Brian Lerch <bclerch@gmail.com> Hi Kamlesh- Apologies for sending this email as I know you have been in touch with Brian in regards to the dispute going on with your backyard and neighbors. We have been friends with the Slomiak's for years and this puts us in a very uncomfortable position that we are not feeling right about. Can you please rescind the letter that Brian has signed. We would prefer that it not be used. Thank you, Stacy 1 AUG 12 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Letter from Brian Lerch, 7 Reunion Road - Regarding his concern related to 9 High Point Circle project rt�MWP U+n �..a...&'up •AW■ it a/+"MMPkw rs W 4'T"UP ow% -=-"+rrMMiW "M �a rr r�ddw wwr� r+v lw "no MMw■ '10■,%w I— :N--— MWMft prat"w rw ti s S -WO/EI.M 400M�r aM •�..r�rr��rr r�rrr ar��.rr wr w Ir ors errs�qmmmrs•+Nmw hwbw� _ -own" lbw LAMM& r qq �AIL wires M a 9AW REcE �wEDD AUG 12 2021 8i2/2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Members of the Planning Board Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 4�eUn.�� ';:�OC' in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. *Re e � ( COMC� UG 10 2021 From: Siddharth Dagar <siddharthdagar@yahoo.com> VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Date: August 9, 2021 at 11:29:09 AM EDT BUILDING CJEPARTME:NT To: anu satija <anudksatija@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: BelleFair letter Anu - I support this. Regards, Siddharth Sent from my iPhone From:anu satija<anudksatija@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 10:25 AM To: Siddharth Dagar<siddharthdagar@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: BelleFair letter Hi Sid, You can just respond to our email saying that you support this and we will print out and send it over. Thx so much! Sorry to bother you on your vacay. Enjoy your time away. Members of Planning Board 08/6/2021 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rye Brook, NY, 10573 Dear Member of Planning Board, We are current residents of the BelleFair community and reside at addresses as noted below. We are aware of the proposed project to extend the retaining wall at 9 High Point Circle, and understand the objections raised by 11 High Point Circle and 6 Heritage Ct, who are the immediate neighbors. We are also aware that the proposal was first rejected by the Belle Fair HOA ARB and that decision of the ARB was overturned by the BelleFair HOA Board. This project may be an enhancement & add value to 9 High Point Circle by providing a small usable land to their backyard but we strongly believe that this proposal will have an adverse impact to both the immediate neighboring properties. This proposal is not in keeping with the characters of the community. We believe that approval of this project will set the precedence for many other residents to do similar projects that will disturb the character& harmony of our great BelleFair community. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board not to approve the proposed application. Sincerely, Siddharth Dagar Address: Name Signature 17 Reunion Road Best, Anu From: Siddharth Dagar <siddharthdagar@yahoo.com> Date: August 9, 2021 at 10:07:44 AM EDT To: anu satija <anudksatija@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: BelleFair letter Hi Anu - hope all is well. We are in Myrtle Beach, SC. How do we electronically sign? Alternately, you could print this reply? As a response. Sent from my iPhone 8/2/2021 D CCIEWI Members of the Planning Board AUG - 6 2021 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, 2 u 1� We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at �� y'C�. �) � 9 Y 9 in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Re rds,, (1 � Printed Name: v I 8/2/2021 p FC--C EJWIE Members of the Planning Board AUG - 6 2021 Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: L rl C �JSPr✓I A n DocuSign Envelope ID:C6EB721B-C3C9-4D32-963B-A922955FCF40 8/2/2021 VFMembers of the Planning BoardVillage of Rye Brook - 6 2021 938 King Street VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook, NY 10573 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 3 Vintage Ct in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, CUSipned by: E Do F8478 7 788470_. Printe ame: Michael Kanner 8/2/2021 Members of the Planning Board p Q V IE Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street AUG - 6 2021 1 DD Rye Brook, NY 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are neighbors of the Slomiak family residing at 4 Vintage Court in Rye Brook, New York. We have carefully reviewed the application of Seth and Elinor Slomiak in regards to their proposed extension of the retaining wall in the rear of their property located at 9 High Point Circle. This proposed project is an enhancement to their property and the community to allow for more usable land and is keeping with the character of the community. We strongly feel that this project will have no adverse impact on the neighboring homes or the entire neighborhood and we believe that this project will actually add value to their property and thus enhance the value of the entire neighborhood. We highly recommend the Rye Brook Planning Board approve the Slomiak's application. Kind Regards, Printed Name: Samantha and Michael Rogers Tara Gerardi From: Seth Slomiak <sslomiak@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 3:51 PM To: Tara Gerardi DLE C IE �W IE DD Cc: Seth Slomiak; Elinor Slomiak;Jeffrey M. Gaspar, P.E. Subject: Response Letter to the Rye Brook Planning Board AUG 11 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Hi Tara, BUILDI14G DEPARTMENT Please pass along the below to the Rye Brook Planning Board. Thank you so much, Seth & Elinor Slomiak Dear Rye Brook Planning Board, We are aware of the additional letter sent by our neighbors on Monday August 9th, 2021 regarding our proposed project. We would like to address this letter point by point. 1) Stability and integrity - we are not structural engineering professionals and neither are they. We have hired a structural engineer at a large expense and the town has a structural engineer who is also reviewing the documents. It is unfair for anyone other than the structural engineering professionals to determine if the project can/should move forward from the perspective of stability and integrity. I ask the Planning Board to leave this specific item to those structural engineers to make that determination. 2) Unsightly view - This point is more of an opinion than a fact and they have their opinion and so do we. We have made concessions which will cause us to incur significant additional costs like adding plantings in front of the wall to provide more greenery. With respect to the guard on top of the wall, we believe safety should be the highest priority so we are planning to use the originally specified guard height as recommended by our educated professional. As for the guard itself, we looked into other options like the wire guard which are even more transparent and the cost of materials alone would be double the price ($8,000 to $10,000) vs the proposed vinyl guard which will cost about $4,000 to $5,000 just for material. Additionally, the cost to install a wire guard is about 50% more. This all being said, it would cost us an additional $6,000 to $8,000 to use that type of material. This is cost prohibitive to the project as that additional cost of roughly $7,000 is about 30% of the current expected cost of the entire project. 3) Purpose of the application - I urge the board to disregard this completely as this point is not relevant as the timing of when we chose to submit an application has no bearing on the facts of the proposal and project. Also, assuming any proposed project is within the boundaries of all rules and regulations the purpose does not affect the merits of the project itself. 4) Community Views - We are in receipt of several form letters submitted concerning our planned project at 9 High Point Circle - those letters should be entirely disregarded by the Board. As the letters themselves admit, these individuals share no property line with our property. Rather, they manufacture excuses to provide the submissions and are just blindly supporting their friends who asked them to sign a form letter in opposition. These individuals did not even care enough to provide any detail as to how our plans impact their properties - their vague concern over how this may change Bellefair generally is unsupported because, as the Board is well aware, each project proposal receives its own attention and review and no project would be approved in the future without its own careful consideration. i 5) Precedent -As noted above, each project proposal is mandated to receive its own individual attention and review. Any future projects would be approved after its own careful consideration. That being said, the precedent has been previously set - the building of walls in Bellefair is permitted and that fact cannot be disputed. Regards, Seth & Elinor Slomiak 2 Tara Gerardi From: dksatija@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 12:19 PM To: kamlesh_kothari@yahoo.com; Michal Nowak; Mike Izzo;Tara Gerardi Subject: 9 High Point Circle Application -Additional Letters for Residents in support of not to approve the application Attachments: Resident feedback on 9 High Point circle V1.pdf, Bellefair Map Residents marked with feedback jpg; Feedback for 9 High Point circle from Siddarth.pdf, Feedback for 9 High Point Circle Priyanka.pdf Hello Mr Nowak, Mr Izzo& Ms Gerardi, Please find additional letters from BelleFair residents in support of not to approve the application. We also have updated Bellefair Map to visually see the residents who have provided feedback on 9 High Point application. Request you to pass these documents to the Village Planning Board members. We truly appreciate your help. Thanks a lot. Regards Kamlesh &Charul Kothari 6 Heritage Ct, Rye Brook and D K Satija &Anu Satija 11 High Point Circle, Rye Brook 1 ' I � Fl, qWe Pzcpe x.— O L�c�eK —i ��ytu�t t� �1�k'�• �� tLA Pic od Tara Gerardi From: kamlesh kothari <kamlesh_kothari@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:38 PM To: Michal Nowak Cc: Mike Izzo; Tara Gerardi; D K Satija Subject: Re: 9 High Point Circle Application - Second Jt Letter Attachments: Second Jt Letter from 6 Heritage Ct and 11 High Point Circle Aug 10.pdf Hello Michal, We are attaching an additional letter that may help in clarifying responsibility of retaining walls in Bellefair. It pertains to a retaining wall case at 5 Heritage Ct from 2007. We apologize for not sending this yesterday, as we were informed about this case the evening of August 9th, by another resident of Bellefair. Sincerely, Kamlesh & DK On Aug 9, 2021, at 9:25 AM, kamlesh kothari <kamlesh kothari(@yahoo.com>wrote: Hello Mr Nowak, Mr Izzo & Ms Gerardi, Please find our 3rd and joint letter with respect to the application by 9 High Point Circle. Two documents are attached with this email . A. 3rd joint letter from 6 Heritage Ct & 11 High Point Circle B. Letters from Neighbors in support of not to approve the application Kindly please confirm the receipt of both documents. Request you to pass these documents to the Village Planning Board members. We will also be attending the public hearing on Aug 12. We truly appreciate your help. Thanks a lot. Regards Kamlesh & Charul Kothari 6 Heritage Ct, Rye Brook and D K Satija &Anu Satija 11 High Point Circle, Rye Brook <SupportLetters_6HeritageCtandllHighPointCircle.pdf> 1 p CC EME ID Kamlesh & Charul Kothari, 6 Heritage Ct, Rye Brook, NY AUG 11 2021 DK & Anu Satija, 11 High Point Circle, Rye Brook, NY VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT August 10, 2021 Hello Rye Brook Village Planning Board, Further to our joint letter dated August 9, we are providing additional information regarding the ownership and responsibility of retaining walls in Bellefair. As we have repeatedly mentioned the stability and integrity of the lower retaining wall is a prime consideration as this is a safety issue for all properties neighboring 9 High Point Circle. Late evening on August 9 we were made aware of a broken retaining wall issue at 5 Heritage Ct in 2007. Of the several documents and correspondence that is available with regard to 5 Heritage Ct, on the village site, here are two key items — In Appendix 1, is a picture of the broken wall. Below is an excerpt of a letter(see Appendix 2)from Mr.David Gelfarb,the President of Bellefair HOA stating that the repairs to the retaining wall is the responsibility of the single-family homeowner and its' not the responsibility of Bellefair HOA. Extract from the Letter with response to broken wall at 5 Heritage Ct Third, it is our understanding that the wall is located on homeowner property. Enclosed please find a survey dated May 17, 2007 which depicts the wall as being located on homeowner, not Association, property. 5 Heritage Court is not one of Bellefair's "Maintenance-Included" homes. As such, we do not understand that the repair of the wall is the responsibility of the Association. We therefore suggest that the Village look to the homeowner for remediation of the situation. We are still awaiting a formal response to our letter from BelleFair HOA on ownership/ responsibility of repair and maintenance of retaining walls in BelleFair(Appendix 3). In lieu of precedence above,we 6 Heritage Ct and 11 High Point Circle (single-family homes) should not be forced to bear the extra burden and added risk to the current retainine walls from the proposed additional fill and 2nd tier retaining wall in 9 High Point Circle. The Bellefair HOA Board should have taken this precedence into consideration when approving a project which creates undue risk to the neighboring properties,and the concern of the neighbors cannot be taken lightly or dismissed. One end of the lower retaining wall is at the corner of 9 & 11 High Point Circle, and 6 Heritage Ct.It extends from there to several other houses that reside between Heritage Ct,Legendary Circle and High Point Circle. Any stress in one section of the wall can surely extend to other parts of the wall and impact other houses too. See Appendix 4 for a picture of a wall that collapsed at 18 Bellefair Rd, also in 2007. The wall had to be rebuilt not only for the portion behind 18 Bellefair Rd, but also covered the retaining wall across multiple neighboring houses.Why should multiple current and future homeowners below the retaining wall face the risk while the benefit is enjoyed by only one. At the hearing on July 81',the Planning Board had asked the applicant if they would assume responsibility for repairs to lower retaining wall as a consequence of their proposal, and the applicant had categorically stated"no". As the applicant is not taking any responsibility and it seems likely that BelleFair HOA may also not take ownership of responsibility of maintaining the current wall now and/or in future,we strongly request the Planning Board to reject the application. This proposal increases the risk and imposes a burden on the neighbors.It is not fair for neighbors to assume undue additional burden/risk for the benefit of the applicant. We sincerely request the Planning Board to reject the application of 9 High Point Circle. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kamlesh&Charul Kothari; DK&Anu Satija Kamlesh kothari@yahoo.com; dksatija(a-)aol.com Appendix 1 -X%47, i i -�F� i ► Appendix 2 Au.r+orr.aora oy Lr. �.wy rn.a+e An a..e.e r.iasr� May 23,2007 Via a mail to VCarosi()ryebrook.org - Victor G.Carosi, P.F. Village Engineer D Village of Rye Brook 938 King Street Rif BROOK Rye Brook,New York 10573 Bu4pM1GOfoi Re:5_HeriJage Court Retaining Wall Dear Mr.Carosi: I write in response to your e-mail dated May 21,2007 with respect to the referenced retaining wall. First, 1 have directed our site manager,Jeffrey Lee,to forward you a siged copy of the report of our engineer,John Annunziata,P.E. which addresses the wall, Second,pursuant to Mr.Annunziata's report,our management company,American Leisure, is arranging for the installation of a chain link fence which will be installed between the wall and the houses along Bellefair Road that are under the wall. We anticipate that the fence will he constructed in approximately ten days. Third, it is our undLT%tanding that the wall is located on homeowner property. Enclosed please find a survey dated May 17, 2007 which depicts the wall as being located on homeowner, not Association,property. S Heritage Court is not one ofBellefair's "Maintenance-Included"homes. As such.we do not understand that the repair of the wall is the responsibility of the Association. We therefore suggest that the Village look to the homeowner for remediation of the situation. Victor G.Carosi,P.E. May 23,2007 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to contact Jeffrey Lee(914-690-137 1)or myself. Very truly yours, David B. Gelfarb President,Bellefair Homeowners Association cc: Bellefair HOA Board of Directors American Leisure Co. Appendix 3—Response from the HOA Board Email Replay from BelleFair HOA Board From:Jon Mandell jonbellefairAa mail.com(HOA Board) Subject:Re: Belle Fair Retaining Wall responsibility Date:August 4,2021 at 1:18 PM To:kamlesh kothari kamlesh_kothari@yahoo.com Cc: Bellefair HOA Board board@bellefair.org, Donald Krom Jr. dkromjr@me.com,D K Satija dksatija@aol.com Just wanted to confirm receipt.Will confirm with the Board and Council and get back to you asap. Email Sent to BelleFair HOA Board On Wed,Aug 4,2021 at 1:06 PM kamlesh kothari<kamlesh kothari@yahoo.com>wrote: Hello Jon,HOA Board, In light of the application submitted by 9 High Point Circle to the Village Planning Board to expand their retaining wall,there was a question that arose at the public hearing on July 8 from the Planning Board members in relation to responsibility of maintaining retaining walls within Belle Fair.The Planning Board requested us to obtain this confirmation from the Belle Fair HOA Board. As per the attached Belle Fair Site sub division notes#7 provided in the village planning board meeting(July 8),it indicates that the Belle Fair HOA shall be responsible for regular inspections, maintenance and necessary repairs for retaining walls. Can we get acknowledgement from HOA that the walls marked with red pencil in the attached survey(walls between 6 Heritage Ct and 9 High Point Circle& 11 High Point and 9 High Point)that HOA is currently responsible for regular inspection,maintenance and necessary repairs. Considering that 9 High Point Circle's proposal(flattening slope land)may have impact on the above stated retaining walls, Can we also get an acknowledgement from HOA,HOA will continue to own the responsibility of regular future inspection,maintenance and necessary repairs of these retaining walls We would appreciate your reply at the earliest,as the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for August 12. Regards, Kamlesh Kothari&DK Satija Appendix 4—Retaining wall that collapsed in April 2007— 18 High Point Circle. Walls had to rebuild across multiple houses. Tara Gerardi From: kamlesh kothari <kamlesh_kothari@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 9:26 AM To: Michal Nowak Cc: Mike Izzo;Tara Gerardi; D K Satija Subject: 9 High Point Circle Application - Jt Letter of Concern Attachments: SupportLetters_6HeritageCtandl 1 HighPointCircle.pdf;Jt Letter from 6Heritage Ct and 11 High Point cirrcle Aug 9.pdf Hello Mr Nowak, Mr Izzo & Ms Gerardi, Please find our 3rd and joint letter with respect to the application by 9 High Point Circle. Two documents are attached with this email . A. 3rd joint letter from 6 Heritage Ct& 11 High Point Circle B. Letters from Neighbors in support of not to approve the application Kindly please confirm the receipt of both documents. Request you to pass these documents to the Village Planning Board members. We will also be attending the public hearing on Aug 12. We truly appreciate your help. Thanks a lot. Regards Kamlesh & Charul Kothari 6 Heritage Ct, Rye Brook and D K Satija &Anu Satija 11 High Point Circle, Rye Brook 1 p EC ENE AUG ---9 2021 Kamlesh & Charul Kothari, 6 Heritage Ct, Rye Brook, NY VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT DK & Anu Satij a, 11 High Point Circle, Rye Brook, NY August 9, 2021 Hello Rye Brook Village Planning Board, Firstly, we would like to thank the Board on their site visit on July 20d' and 22nd as well spending considerable time in the last planning board meeting on July 8dz including giving us an opportunity to present our views. This time around, we are submitting a joint letter requesting that you reject the application of 9 High Point Circle. We will also attend the meeting on August 12d'to strongly express our concern. Our concerns should be read in conjunction with the concerns mentioned on previous letters submitted prior to the first public hearing on July 8th: 1) Stability and integrity of the 1" tier primary load bearing retaining wall which is on the common property lines. • The retaining wall is more than 20 years old, and we have strong concerns whether it can bear the capacity of the additional dirt and the extension of 211 tier retaining wall As you have seen during your site visit the visible deterioration including the several loose bricks on the return wall on the side of 11 High Point Circle (See Appendix 1 for pictures). Also as mentioned in our previous letter there is a section of the retaining wall that abuts the 2nd tier wall on 9 High Point Circle that has collapsed (See Appendix 2 for pictures). Belle Fair HOA ARB/Management will be hiring a surveyor to formally assess to which property this belongs to rather than repairing the broken wall if HOA has the responsibility of repairing existing retaining walls. HOA's initial indications are that the broken wall is on 9 High Point Circle. • At the request of the Planning Board at the last hearing on July 81h,we have reached out to the Belle Fair HOA BoD to determine an ownership and responsibility of the current retaining walls on common property lines and HOA will continue to accept responsibility for future inspection, maintenance and repairs from the increased risk arising as a direct consequence of this proposal (See Appendix 3). We understand the HOA Board is reviewing the request if HOA still owns the responsibility of maintaining retaining walls on common property lines. At the hearing on July 81h,the Planning Board had asked the applicant if they would assume responsibility for repairs to lower retaining wall as a consequence of their proposal, and the applicant had categorically stated"no". As the applicant is not taking any responsibility nor BelleFair HOA has confirmed any ownership of responsibility of maintaining the current wall now and/or in future, we strongly request the Planning Board to reject the application. This proposal increases the risk and imposes a burden on the neighbors. It is not fair for neighbors to assume undue additional burden/risk. Both neighbors having to bear the risk will without doubt create a negative impact to the value of their property. • We greatly appreciate the questions raised by the Planning Board's consultant (Dolph Rotfeld Engineering) that echo our concern towards the existing 1 st tier retaining wall and its capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill. As of the date of this letter, we are uncertain if the applicant has submitted all the necessary information per the request of the consultant. On this basis,we request a conditional approval should not be granted until all technical information have been submitted by the applicant, fully evaluated and vetted by the consultant,and presented to the public and Planning Board. 2) Unsightly view of an extended 2nd tier retaining wall with a fence/rail on top. At the last hearing the Board had clearly indicated to the applicant that they should "work something" with the neighbors and "accommodate". The Chairperson also mentioned in his closing remarks to the applicant to "listen to what is being said". It's been 4 weeks since the last public hearing and there has been no outreach from the applicant with an alternative proposal or changes. This is also evident from the only additional information that has been submitted by the applicant since the last hearing of a picture Riving a direct view through a fence (the picture appears to be a closeup view from their deckl. Obviously, the applicant is indicating that the severely restricted view when you observe the same fence at an angle is not of relevance and should be ignored (See Appendix 4). The applicant has even rejected suggestions from the Board members of a transparent fence or lower fence height, or other alternates. The applicant was also requested by the Planning Board to submit visual "renderings" of the proposal beyond architectural designs. The applicant has chosen not to submit. As the applicant has chosen to not amend any aspect of their proposal to address our concern, even at the urging of the Planning Board, we request the application should be denied. We also respectfully submit to the Board that our concerns were not just about the fence,but the proposal in its entirety. 3) Purpose of the application The applicant mentioned on several occasions that the purpose of the application was to make unusable land usable for their kids, and safety was the prime consideration. Based on the sequence of events outlined below, it appears,this proposal is nothing but an extension of the development work that they started with expansion of their deck. The applicant could have avoided the expansion of their deck and use the space for kids to play,if that is the real purpose of this application. The applicant mentioned that their deck was built 2 years ago —implying 2019. Here are the dates based on the material available on the Village site. Dates for Deck Application Village building permit November 2019 Village inspection reports November 2019, March 2020, October 2020 Certificate of Occupancy November 2020 Dates for Retainine Wall Date of application to ARB October 2020 ARB rejection date December 2020 HOA Board meeting date for appeal December 2020 HOA Board decision date February 2021 As you can see the application for the retaining wall to the ARB, was made even before the Certificate of Occupancy was granted for their deck, and the deck was not built 2 years ago, but just a year ago. It would be hard to imagine that while the deck was being built, they suddenly realized that they were consuming their usable land that the kids used to play on, and now have a need to flatten other parts of their property. Amiya, daughter of Kamlesh & Charul Kothari, plays soccer quite frequently, and she plays with the boys in the neighborhood in the cul de sac. Along with the boys she too carries the goalie nets to the Village Green to play soccer and bring them back.The Village Green is really not far as made out by the applicant. BelleFair community was specifically designed keeping in mind a community spirit — and that's why we have a Village Green, a marketplace, a kids' day care/early learning center and a fully equipped gym with basketball courts. In light of the above facts and a reasonable doubt on the purpose, we request the application be rejected. 4) Community views At the last hearing we had submitted signatures from Belle Fair residents in support of our concern and requested a careful review by the Board.We are now submitting letters of support from several members of the Belle Fair community requesting planning board not to approve the proposal. The applicant has also submitted letters of support. Please note, of this 2 have been signed by Belle Fair HOA Board members and 2 have been signed by spouses of Board members. To reiterate, Seth Slomiak,the applicant is himself an HOA board member. There are only 3 properties are adjoining 9 High Point that are key to the proposal and 2 of them our us and the third is 7 High Point Circle. In the attached exhibit(Appendix 5)you can see the location of all the houses in BelleFair that have signed the support letters for both - us and the applicant(for and against the proposal), none of the houses are next to 9 High Point Circle and cannot see the backyard of 9 High Point Circle.Members of the Planning Board at the last hearing talked about the`long-term picture", the complicated nature of Belle Fair as well as this particular application leads into what we are currently experiencing. It is quite discomforting to state that getting BelleFair residents to support one way,or another indicates how divisive this application is to the community and disrupting its harmony. Hence, we request the application to be not approved, to avoid any such conflicts in future. 5) Precedence The applicant brought up 34 BelleFair Road as an example of precedence for retaining wall changes in their last submission on August 6. We have spoken with the owners of 34 Belle Fair Rd and have understood their application and journey.If the Planning Board also examines the case it will be clear that their proposal had no detrimental impact to the neighbors in terms of view or any additional burden or risk to them. As many properties in BelleFair have deep slope or unusable back yard, in our view, if this application is approved, this application will set precedence for more owners to do the same, resulting in a"Santorini without the ocean". In conclusion We sincerely request the Planning Board to reject the application of 9 High Point Circle. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Kamlesh&Charul Kothari; DK&Anu Satija Kamlesh kothari ,yahoo.com; dksatija(&aol.com Appendix 1 -Wall deteriorations Y. l Yam•. s,�,ij f, _ 1st level common retaining wall between 6 Heritage Ct&9 High Point Circle i ! v 1• M 1st level common retaining wall between 11 High Point Circle & 9 Higher Point Circle Connecting wall to the 1st tier wall Appendix 2 Degraded/broken section of the 2nd level retaining wall on 9 High Point Circle 9 High Point Circle Property line per their submitted survey map Location of the broken retaining wall wn; I b7b.J •�• •�• • ESW 650.6 4 24' MATCH t)MTING DECK RAIL _ Broken section of the wall 5.O S�' a.eX I — oT9 -- f.> :L. 3 9 High Point Circle b�3 cx !69b5 ' Property line per their INS _�r `� submitted survey map AGO CUN%ALL:AW NY5 DEC I T THE REG5 TO LEVE`GRADE TO EL SMALL t+ ,/"G- �y 696.AFFROX 46 CY If 7�► �f' 50TTOM O'STAIRS ER7Y.** I EL 696 ADD 6 5TEP5 FROM EL+655.33 r {EVEN WrDK VEWAM TO ESE Appendix 3—Response from the HOA Board Email Replay from BelleFair HOA Board From:Jon Mandell jonbellefairAgmail.com(HOA Board) Subject:Re: Belle Fair Retaining Wall responsibility Date:August 4,2021 at 1:18 PM To:kamlesh kothari kamlesh_kothari@yahoo.com Cc:Bellefair HOA Board board@bellefair.org,Donald Krom Jr. dkromjr@me.com,D K Satija dksatija@aol.com Just wanted to confirm receipt.Will confirm with the Board and Council and get back to you asap. Email Sent to BelleFair HOA Board On Wed,Aug 4,2021 at 1:06 PM kamlesh kothari<kamlesh kothari@yahoo.com>wrote: Hello Jon,HOA Board, In light of the application submitted by 9 High Point Circle to the Village Planning Board to expand their retaining wall,there was a question that arose at the public hearing on July 8 from the Planning Board members in relation to responsibility of maintaining retaining walls within Belle Fair.The Planning Board requested us to obtain this confirmation from the Belle Fair HOA Board. As per the attached Belle Fair Site sub division notes#7 provided in the village planning board meeting(July 8),it indicates that the Belle Fair HOA shall be responsible for regular inspections, maintenance and necessary repairs for retaining walls. Can we get acknowledgement from HOA that the walls marked with red pencil in the attached survey(walls between 6 Heritage Ct and 9 High Point Circle& 11 High Point and 9 High Point)that HOA is currently responsible for regular inspection,maintenance and necessary repairs. Considering that 9 High Point Circle's proposal(flattening slope land)may have impact on the above stated retaining walls, Can we also get an acknowledgement from HOA,HOA will continue to own the responsibility of regular future inspection,maintenance and necessary repairs of these retaining walls We would appreciate your reply at the earliest,as the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for August 12. Regards, Kamlesh Kothari&DK Satija Appendix 4—Blocked visibility with the proposed fence The visibility from an angle will still be blocked for illustration purposes. Y fill Abt! t4xy ov fill ro 10. m y ' s f' S xipuaddy p E� � Od� �u►_ - z zoz� VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT D K Satija & Anu Satija 11 High Point Circle, Rye Brook, NY June 30, 2021 Dear Rye Brook Village Planning Board, We are current residents of 11 High Point Circle and have lived in Belle Fair for the last 21 years. We are next door neighbors of 9 High Point Circle. This is our 2nd letter expressing our concerns on the proposal from 9 High Point Circle. We had provided our views on June 10th —this letter has some additional comments after reviewing the proposal and listening to the planning meeting on June 10. We will also attend the July 8th hearing via Zoom to express our points of concern. Our high-level understanding of the proposed application is: • Flatten the backyard by filling in dirt and get 500 sq ft of flat space; • 2nd level retaining wall to be extended by 28.8 feet; • Addition of a white fence/rail similar to the deck on the 2nd level retaining wall We have the following concerns with the current proposal: A. Obstruction of views/greenery & impact to our future property value When we bought our property (11 High Point) in 2010, one of the most important buying criteria was to have the openness of the views/greenery from various locations from our property- Deck, Patio, walk-out basement, family room & bay windows in dining area, etc. We had paid a high price for this property in 2010, knowing that these openness/views are here to stay and would not be altered/changed as per the Schedule D. The proposed extension of the retaining wall and fence, will partially impact our views/greenery from our property. The attached pictures show examples of the impact to views/greenery/openness from the right side of our property. • Pic 1 (slide 1 & 2) shows the view from our patio— before & after • Pic 2 (slide 3 & 4) shows the view from basement (sitting inside) — before & after • Pic 3 (slide 5 & 6) — We have an exercise room in the basement and there is already limited visibility to outside. This picture shows the current and after impact from the exercise room • Pic 4(slide 7 &8)—We have limited views from the Bay widows in kitchen/dining area, pic 4 shows the available full view of green grass/openness before & after. • Pic 5 (slide 9 & 10) —Views from our deck (from the right side of the deck) Our other concern is that this proposal will negatively impact the future market value and time to market our property at the time of sales. We have already consulted our experienced realtor who is very familiar with Belle Fair. He also firmly believes that this proposed wall/fence will have an impact on the sale price and time to market of our property. As you may already know, the proposal for extension of walls/fence was declined by Belle Fair ARB based on criteria defined in Schedule D but it was overturned by the Belle Fair HOA. The HOA board agreed in their letter that the property situated at 11 High Point circle will have partially obstructed views from patio&basement, but stated that the visual improvements will enhance the property and not de-value (Item 3 in an attached document - Decision of HOA Board). We strongly disagree with HOA's statement. We do not understand the logic, and how our property value will enhance despite an obstruction to the views/greenery/openness. We also do not understand the Belle Fair HOA's position that the current steep slope at 9 High Point Circle is unsafe for adults and children. if the current slope that has existed for the last 21 years is now considered unsafe for adults and children, then, from our point of view, either the builder, HOA or homeowner should have taken action much earlier than now. We all know that many properties and common land in Belle Fair have similar steep slopes. We also just want to make sure that the planning board is aware that Seth Slomiak (applicant) is a director of the HOA board. Stability & Integrity of current retaining walls There is already —5' high retaining wall between 9 & 11 High Point Circle. Since the wall is more than 21 years old,we can see that some of the bricks have already started shifting from its original position. (Picture 1 —slide 11). Our concern is with the long-term stability & integrity of the wall due to additional dirt that will be placed near the original wall. Regarding drainage, there are existing drainage outlets in the area to ensure that rain water currently flows out smoothly from the steep slope and surrounding areas. It is not clear in the proposal if any new outlets are being placed to drain out the rain water to avoid any additional pressure to an existing retaining wall. We know that water does not easily percolate into the ground in Belle fair. We have experienced the situation in our prior property (54 Bell Fair Road) where additional drainages were built in the retaining wall to maintain stability of the retaining wall. We would like the planning board to confirm that necessary topography assessment & impact assessments are done for the area surrounding keeping in mind that the current wall is 21+ years old. Easement At the last hearing, it was mentioned that the Belle Fair HOA has a general easement on all retaining walls within Belle Fair—does that then mean that the HOA is considered a co-applicant and is equally responsible for all maintenance (including any future legal/financial liability for any damages) of an existing retaining wall with/without an extension of proposed second tier wall, even though these walls are on the homeowner's property? In addition, a new retaining wall and extra dirt is not part of the original site plan and may create an unknown subsequent effect to existing retaining walls. How does the Village Board get confirmation on the ownership of responsibility/accountability that is identifiable and enforceable for the specific risks? In conclusion We sincerely request that the all above concerns are taken in consideration when evaluating the applications with thorough due diligence to ensure that the extension of wall/fence will not negatively impact the stability of current walls, and take into consideration the impact on neighbor's views/openness/greenery including our future property value. We also request planning board to review the rationales provided by HOA Board's decision to approve the application. If the important factor to outweigh the Section 2 of Schedule D — Location and Impact on Neighbors, is that the current state of area in question is unsafe for kids and adults. We request planning board members to not to approve the current proposal (as is) but ask for an alternative proposal to resolve the safety concern. e.g Reduce the slope by 1' or 2' feet. Being a long-term community resident of Belle Fair, we also feel that approving this proposal (as is) will encourage other homeowners to do similar projects that may change the current character of the community. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We are always available and happy to provide any additional information. We can be reached anytime via phone at 347-776-1225 or email —dksatija@aol.com. Regards D K Satija & Anu Satija Attachments : Appendix 1 — 11 High Point Circle Impact.pdf Appendix 2 — Decision of HOA Board.pdf Appendix 3 - Belle Fair Schedule D.pdf �e . 1 A - _` r 6 i � (14 • . � t • S • • • • rt, LL ko • I 'A• � `c �A� 7/1 ,. fay d w �i r +-+ Ln ca m 'ti,sl W }, _aces N U t\D r C W W W - " M� W 0 L \W �i T 4 N z : - U C N E N LA m E N O L O }+ cc :..i N E •L O N O X CC W N O �U i N � X N -0 E O m - U I m U N O N O m l0 41 N O Q O L Q 4-0 c a E w N m E �— O E 0 °C ol cc .N N U i N dJ .i U- x X cu N E 4A O .E v 3 a O c �3 au aU U N a O N O cn l0 E O O L V y , 4 � r 0 Q� L L U I It V 0 i 0 m li E L � � U \ 4J C U U Y � O � � too .� ^j W M� • W ^' s - ELn O �. O Q �_.. ON W rl L.. r-1 UL- N O fV O M l0 rn INk ... lb o A f O 41, yy, T Ln U � 1 N v o cn a to : :Qi.':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':':'. . . : : : : : :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•::::::. ^F7 N �. ••�, Y �,rr r }r .��. �, . :yC c 1�1�1�1�1�1 : : : : : ::': :•:•:•:•:•:•: 14 :•: •:•:•:•: :°�°i°i°�°i°�°�° ' •O•'• • ' . . . b, � e4�1�e4444 . . . . ilieieieieiei' . . . . . . . . . ielllllelilele� •.•.�.:.:.:.:.:.:. lelellle + . . . . . . �. 1�1� 1 CC �,�,� ;t r :.:.:.:.:.:.:•:...:•:•:•:•:•: ye T ►fir "�! :o: M h. I k 4 t i j 9; ' SCHEDULED ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL GUIDELINES A. General Standards Pursuant to the terms of Article VII of the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, Easement, Changes and Liens to which this schedule is attached, the Board of Directors of BelIeFair Homeowners Association, Inc. shall appoint an architectural review board (the "ARB"), or may act as the ARB, to act on requests from Homeowners to modify or improve their homes or lots. The ARB shall be required to apply certain standards in making its decisions. The standards hereinafter set forth are intended to underlie specific guidelines and shall be relied upon in instances where the specific guidelines set forth in Section B hereof are vague, ambiguous or non-existent. The decisions of the ARB shall be binding on the Homeowner applicant except in the instance where the Board of Directors, by a two-thirds (2/3) Board vote, shall elect to overrule the decision of the ARB, following appeal to the Board by the Homeowner ap- plicant. 1. Definitions. Harmony with Overall Community Design, or Contextual Relationship. "Contextual relationship" pertains to the characteristics of any existing structures, the neighborhood, and the individual lot. An element of design which may be acceptable in one instance may not be acceptable elsewhere in the BelIeFair community. For example, the ARB may view differently a request affecting a Single Family Home located away from the Village Green from one concerning a Duplex Villa located at the Village Green, where the Associations will have a need for more conformity to adjacent property. To harmonize in its contextual relationship, a design must be compatible. "Compatibility" is defined as an agreeable relationship in, and in some instances actual continuity of, architectural style, mass, proportions, rhythm, scale, quality of design and materials,and similar use of materials, color, and design details. "Mass or massing" is defined as the visual relationship of architectural elements of vari- ous size to one another and to the immediate environment. "Proportion" is defined as the relationship of height to width, voids to solids, bulk of the structure to other nearby structures, and of the parts to the whole. "Rhythm" is defined as the regular and/or irregular occurrence of architectural and land- scaping elements as they occur in and define a design. "Scale"is defined as the visual effect of architectural and landscape elements of differing size to one another and to the immediate environment. "Colors and materials" refers to and includes siding, trim, doors, windows, gutters, downspouts, roofing and all other architectural and site elements must relate harmoni- ously within the project; they also must be in context with its environment. 2. Location and Impact on Neighbors. A proposed alteration, addition or modification should relate favorably to the neighbor- hood's planning, landscaping, topography, and existing character. The primary concerns are preservation of access, sunlight, ventilation, view and drainage as well as the impact on the privacy and normal use of neighboring properties. In reviewing impact on neighbors, the ARB must balance the property rights and expec- tations of an applicant with the neighbor's expectations and further consider future neighbors and property � ors p p rty owners. While not easily susceptible to a balanced solution, the ARB should consider all aspects of a situation before making a decision. 3. Workmanship The quality of work should at all times equal or exceed that which was originally used. If ..:X past practices are no longer acceptable or feasible, industry, code, current or best prac- tices must be followed. i x 4. Safety While safety is an important consideration in any situation relative to the alteration, addi- tion or modification to any building or grounds this issue is the responsibility of the New York State Building Code and the Code of the Village of Rye Brook, and not the ARB or the Association. S. Security Security may also be an important consideration to property owner; however, it shall be ' the Homeowner's responsibility to provide the needed security without offending neigh- boring property owners or the community. Security items can be provided within the pa- rameters of good and acceptable design. a" 6. Miscellaneous (a) The ARB shall also consider the impact of any noise or odors attendant on requests, as well as the impact on any pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic patterns. (b) All applications to the ARB must include estimated completion dates for the alteration, addition or modification. The ARB may not approve a request whose time frame it considers unreasonable. 2 (c) Certain alterations, additions and modifications will require the approval of the Village of Rye Brook's Building Inspector or Engineer. The Homeowner applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required approvals and permits. Village approval does not preclude the need for ARB approval, nor does ARB approval relieve the Homeowner applicant from any responsibility of obtaining Village approval. (d) Applications for alterations, additions and modifications shall include, but shall not be limited to, a catalog clipping of the exterior equipment, including dimensions and color and the equipment location with respect to the Home,property lines and adjacent Homes. B. Specific Guidelines L Antennas and Window Air Conditioners This guideline pertains to window mounted air conditioning equipment and any type of exterior antenna whether for-radio or television reception, "ham" or Citizen Band trans- mission or any other type whatsoever except satellite dishes. Window air conditioners and exterior antennas are not permitted except for satellite dishes. The ARB may permit satellite dishes so Iong as the diameter of the dish is less than eighteen (18) inches and it is mounted on the rear or side of the Home below the eaves. Satellite dishes larger than eighteen inches in diameter or mounted on the ground or anywhere other than below the eaves on the rear or side of the home are not permitted. If an antenna is required for a particular function it shall be mounted inside the house, garage or attic. 2. Flagpoles A flagpole for display of the American flag only shall be permitted subject to ARB ap- proval of placement and design. No flagpole shall be used as an antenna. 3. Attic Ventilators Homes will be built with attic ventilation systems that will meet or exceed the New York State Building Code requirements and are designed so as to limit sound transmission. The ARB may not permit the addition of attic ventilators. 4. Awnings The ARB may permit awnings. The awnings must have a straight forward design and be consistent with the architectural style and scale of the Home to which they will be at- tached. The fabric must be consistent with the existing Home's colors and any exposed frames must be painted to match the trim or dominant color of the home. Metal and fi- berglass awnings will not be permitted. 3 5. Tennis Courts Tennis Courts are not permitted. 6. Basketball Backboards. Basketball backboards are permitted only for the Single Family Homes and will not re- quire the approval of the ARB, so long as they meet the following criteria. Backboards shall be located away from the street. House- or garage-mounted backboards are pre- ferred. If mounted on the garage, they must be centered over the garage door. House-or garage-mounted backboards shall be clear or painted with a flat paint to match the color of the surface behind, either roofing or siding. They must be located in a position not visible from the street and in no event in front of the Home. Freestanding backboards mounted on poles may be permitted. The backboard and pole must be clear, white or painted a color to match the existing Home, located over the driveway and visually screened from the nearest property by existing or proposed trees. Portable backboards must be stored in the Home or garage when not in use. Backboards are not permitted y elsewhere. 7. Dog Houses/Runs 'z The ARB may approve dog houses so long as they are located in the rear yard, have no dimension greater than 36 inches and are painted to blend with their immediate sur- roundings or left to weather naturally. I Dogruns may be bordered only by chain-Iink fences or other approved fences. The posi- tion of the fences must be within the plane of the Home, running from the back of the home no closer than 10 feet to the rear property line. The dogrun fence must be screened with natural vegetation. 8. Electronic Insect Traps Electronic insect traps are allowed and do not require approval by the ARB so long as no light is visible from adjacent properties and no noise can be heard in neighboring living areas. 9. Fences Fences are not permitted in the front yards of any home. The ARB may approve shadow- box rear yard fences so long as the fence is located at least two (2) feet from the nearest property line and does not exceed six (6) feet in height. It must be consistent in appear- ance and must be painted white or stained weathered grey. If the fence is to be located closer than two (2) feet to a property line or if the fence is intended to be a party fence shared with adjoining neighbors, a joint application must be submitted by all affected parties. The fence must be maintained in good condition or the ARB shall have the right to order its removal. 4 10. General Landscaping The ARB must review and approve plans for the addition or alteration of landscaping when the proposal includes one or more of the following items: • Structural or decorative elements such as arbors, trellises, benches, patios, planters, retaining walls, signs, lights, walkways or works of art. • Vegetable gardens of any size. • Flower beds or flower gardens larger than thirty square feet • Addition or removal of trees • Addition or removal of shrubs. Structural and decorative elements introduced into an open environment must not be in- trusive and must be appropriate to their surroundings. Size, scale, color and material are important criteria for acceptability. Low voltage landscape lighting may be approved if the fixtures are no taller than eighteen inches and painted a dark color Trees, shrubs and plant materials should be an appropriate size and must not be detri- mental to neighboring property when mature. Vegetable gardens shall be located only in rear yards and shall be limited types and species that will not intrude on the light and views of adjacent homes. Synthetic turf will not be permitted. The ARB may approve tree or shrub removal if the tree or shrub is dead, endangers peo- ple or property, is so overgrown pruning will not solve the problem or if it has grown too large for the space. In no case shall lack of ARB approval prevent the emergency re- moval of a tree that threatens the safety of persons and/or property. Additional landscaping shall be maintained so as not to intrude on the light and views of adjacent Homes. 11. Lighting The ARB may approve additional lighting provided the proposed lighting meets the fol- lowing criteria. • In no event may additional lighting impair the vision of a driver or pedestrian. • The fixture design must be compatible with the house architecture and located appropriately. • The lights must be directed downwards, diffused, shielded or of low wattage. • The lighting type, color, and quality must be consistent with other existing lights on the Home and lot and in the neighborhood. • Lights must be located in the area they are intended to illuminate. • Security lights may be installed under the roof eaves, directed downwards and shielded so they do not create a hot glare spot visible to neighbors. The fixture color and shielding must be compatible with the building. • Conduits and wiring must be concealed. • Pole lighting may not exceed five feet in height. 5 i The ARB may not approve high-wattage, commercial/industrial type fixtures nor sodium- vapor light sources. No utility light fixtures (flood lights) are permitted in any location except under the eaves. 12. Irrigation The ARB may approve irrigation for lawns and planting beds provided all water remains within the Lot lines and no overspray occurs on adjacent Lots. 13. Holiday Lighting; Ornaments Holiday Iights only may be displayed from December In to January 6`h. No ornaments are permitted on the Homes or Lots. 14.Mailboxes The ARB will control the selection and construction of all mailboxes within BelleFair. Community style mailboxes are the only style that is approved and permitted. Replace- ment mailboxes may be selected from the ARB catalog and purchased from and installed by the Association at a cost presently expected to be $550. The cost of mailboxes may be adjusted by the ARB from time to time. 15. Patios The ARB may approve a patio if. • It is located in the rear yard of the Home. • It is built of natural colored concrete, slate, brick or bluestone. Penetrating wood stains and sealers are permitted. Synthetic turf is not permitted. • It is set in a minimum of two (2) feet from adjoining property, between the plane of the sides of the Home and, in the rear, no closer than two(2) feet from the property line. 16. Barbecues Barbecues are permitted in the rear only without the approval of the ARB. Barbecue ar- eas shall be designed to be integral with patio areas. Prevailing winds should be consid- ered when locating the barbecue to avoid excessive smoke and odor oriented toward ad- jacent Homes. 17. Play Equipment The ARB may approve play equipment in Single Family Lots only. The ARB will weigh lot and equipment size, material, design, amount of visual screening and relationship to 6 neighboring property when deciding upon an application. Tree houses, skate board ramps and courts are not permitted. All play equipment must be located in the rear yard. • Swing sets shall not be wider than ten feet and located at least 20 feet from adjacent property lines. They must be made predominately of wood left to weather naturally or if metal, painted a solid muted color. • Solid type play houses must be screened with natural vegetation, approved fencing or approved additional landscaping and must be located at least 20 feet from adjacent property lines. • All play sets must be maintained in good order and neat appearance or the ARB shall have the right to order their removal. 18. Roofing/Siding The ARB must approve the replacement of any roofing, siding or exterior trim. The pro- posed materials must be of equal or better quality, the same type and the color must be within the same range of intensity and hue as those on the approved color palette. Re- placement material shall be installed completely on the entire roof or on all elevations (sides) of the house at the same time. 19. Security Devices The ARB may approve security devices that do not detract from the design integrity of the home or the neighborhood. Devices such as alarms and sirens may be permitted if they are of the minimum size needed to be effective. Security bars are permitted on the interior side of windows and doors and do not require ARB approval so long as they are painted a color to blend with their background. 20. Sheds Sheds are not permitted with the exception of approved garbage sheds which may be at- tached to the rear side of the Home. 21. Shutters The addition of shutters is not permitted. Replacement of shutters may be approved by the ARB so long as.the replacements are of the same type, material and color as those being replaced. 22. Signs No signs shall be permitted. 7 23. Solar Collectors I Solar collectors may be approved by the.ARB provided they are located on the rear roof of the home and is colored to match or harmonize with the roof color. Applications will be reviewed within the contextual relationship of the lot and the home. 24. Spas/Hot Tubs The ARB may approve outdoor spas and "hot tubs"provided that they are: • Located in the rear yard at least ten feet away from adjacent property or a greater distance such that their normal use, presence and mechanical noise do not adversely affect the neighboring properties. • Positioned above ground as an integral part of a deck or patio or screened from view by approved fencing or landscaping. • Have concealed mechanical equipment and piping and the understructure is concealed by skirting or screening. • Maintained in good order and neat appearance or the ARB shall have the right to or- der their removal. 25. Storm and Screen Doors Storm and screen doors may be replaced without ARB approval provided the replacement is of equal or better quality and of the same type, style and color as the original. 26. Window Replacements/Additions The ARB may approve the replacement of windows provided the replacements are of the same general type and color, of equal or better quality, have a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 35 or greater and are consistent in appearance with other windows in the neigh- borhood. Unless otherwise approved by the ARB, all windows in the Home will be re- placed at the same time. The ARB may approve windows for installation in an addition to the Home provided the window is of the same type, style and color as those in the existing house and that the window has a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 35 or greater. The addition of windows in the existing home is not permitted unless the homeowner provides a sound attenuation analysis by a licensed acoustical engineer that confirms the sound attenuation rating of the Home will not be compromised by the addition of the window(s). If engineered, and approved by the ARB, additional windows shall be of the same type, style and color as those existing in the Home and have a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 35 or greater. 8 27. Storm Windows The ARB may approve the installation of storm windows provided they resemble the ex- isting window frames, have the same general configuration and have similar, not con- trasting, color value as the existing window frames. 28. Swimming Pools Above ground swimming pools will not be permitted. The ARB may approve a below ground swimming pool on certain Lots, depending on the applicable topography, pro- vided: • It is located within the buildable area of the lot and screened to guarantee complete privacy. • It is built according to the building code and health department standards. Applications will be reviewed within the contextual relationship of the lot and the Home. 29.Remodeling and Additions The ARB may approve remodeling or additions to the existing Homes provided that the guidelines, specifications and standards that governed the construction of the new Home are the same. All criteria governing site location, grading, excavating, structures, roofs, landscape and aesthetics will remain the same. Full architectural details for any remod- eling or addition must be submitted to the ARB for approval. Of particular concern to the ARB will be setbacks, height limits, skylights, solar collectors, recreational features, lighting, satellite dishes, affect on neighbors and compatibility with the design of the ex- isting Home and neighborhood. The ARB may approve the addition of decks and porches. Full architectural details for any deck or porch must be submitted to the ARB for approval. Decks shall be designed to serve as an extension of the Home. Decks and their supports shall be constructed mostly of wood. Rails, pickets,stair risers and underpinnings must be painted white or to match the trim or dominate color of the Home. Deck flooring must be stained a light grey or other color approved by the ARB. Views to the underside of the deck must be screened with underpinning (lattice) and/or landscape material. Landscape material shall be large enough to provide screening upon installation. Decks more than three feet above grade must have underpinning and landscape material. Porch screening colors shall complement and blend with the Home; the color"green,"as determined by the ARB, will not be permitted. No mill finish aluminum will be allowed as framing for a porch. 9 df Tara Gerardi From: Seth Slomiak <sslomiak@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 3:31 PM D �� � O„\`///„ To: Tara Gerardi Cc: Jeffrey M. Gaspar, RE.,- Elinor Slomiak Subject: Re: Letter from 6 Heritage Court J(JN Q [E DD 2021 VILLAGE OF RYE-: BROOK Hi Tara, BUILDING (DEPARTMENT 1 am writing in regards to the letter from 6 Heritage Court where they made a statement in part 1, second paragraph of their letter that a section of my current retaining wall has collapsed. They also provided 2 pictures of said collapse.This is factually not correct as (1) those bricks are not connected to my retaining wall; and (2) they are not on my property and they are not owned by me in any way. Note in their 2 pictures there is a tree that has no foliage. Directly behind that tree is the corner of my property and the wall that I own and is the subject of my proposed plan. Everything to the left (in their picture) of that tree is not my property or wall and those fallen bricks are a totally separate structure NOT connected to my wall. I have attached up close pictures for the Planning Board as I believe the pictures they sent are misleading without the context of the property line separation. In the first photo I have attached you can see the fallen bricks to the right of the corner of my retaining wall. In the second picture you can see the face of my retaining wall showing absolutely no signs of failure. Also, in the second picture at the bottom you can see the protruding brick (which is not mine) is not connected/interlocked into to my wall in any way. Thank you in advance for sharing this email and these pictures with the Planning Board. Best Regards, Seth Slomiak i a 40 of -7 � . .. •s�. � � ` v fir- _'�' -�" " "t`_ l._ ,�-_ •;y� .ray- .� � s� `� r••:,� , _ "�-# it ,eel Jt lb 441 AS4 � f `! • T - , i e \ • ` . ::. - � 4 r ;ft, ti. - D CCEUM[ JUN 3 0 2021 Kamlesh & Charul Kothari 6 Heritage Ct, Rye Brook, NY 10573 VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT June 30, 2021 Hello Rye Brook Village Planning Board, We are residents of 6 Heritage Ct and our backyard adjoins 9 High Point Circle. This is our 2nd letter expressing our concerns on the proposal from 9 High Point Circle. We had provided our views on June 10th—this letter has some additional comments. We will attend the July 8ffi hearing via zoom to express our points of concern. We understand the following changes are being proposed by 9 High Point Circle: 1)Flatten the backyard by filing in dirt and get—500 sq ft of flat area; 2)2nd level retaining wall to be extended by—29 feet; 3)Addition of a white fence/rail similar to the deck on the existing as well as the extended 2nd level retaining wall. There is a 7 to 8 feet retaining wall that is on the property line between our backyard and 9 High Point Circle. A 21 tier retaining wall of 5 feet height is within 9 High Point Circle. (See before construction photos in Appendix 1). There is a 3rd tier retaining wall that is under the deck extension that was done in 2020. Concerns on the proposal Our concerns are: 1) Affecting the stability and integrity of the 1st tier primary load-bearing retaining wall which is on the common property line. • The retaining wall is more than 20 years old and we have concerns whether it can bear the capacity of the additional dirt and the extension of 2nd tier retaining wall. This is a huge risk of damage to our property. As you may be aware there have been issues followed with massive repairs that have been performed on some Belle Fair retaining walls since their construction in 1999/2000. Attaching a picture(Appendix 2)of a section of the 2nd tier wall on 9 High Point Circle that has collapsed earlier this year(sometime in February 2021), indicating the degradation that has occurred over time. The broken bricks continue to remain scattered in the fallen area, as of the date of this letter. This was not mentioned by the applicant at the first hearing. So we are quite surprised and worried of the statements that were made at the first hearing that there will be "no effect on the lower wall", "not showing signs of failure"or "doubt going anywhere". We would like to know if 9 High Point Circle and subsequent owners of the property will take responsibility of any structural damage (occurring now or in the future)to the lower retaining wall as a direct/indirect consequence of the work performed as per the proposal. • We greatly appreciate the questions raised by the Planning Board's consultant(Dolph Rotfeld Engineering)that echo our concern towards the existing 1st tier retaining wall and its capacity to support the proposed upper retaining walls and additional fill. We would also like to confirm if a structural assessment was performed for the load- bearing capacity of the land/retaining walls that have been impacted with the large deck extension that was completed in 2020, and the added weight with guests. The deck is built on top of the 3rd tier retaining wall and extends close to the 2nd tier retaining wall. • Drainage: it was mentioned that there was no intent to install any additional drainage and it was assumed that the water will just get absorbed by the soil and the ground. On the Belle Fair common property(adjacent to 6 Heritage Ct and 11 High Point Circle backyards)there are a couple of drainage outlets that we are aware of. On our own backyard,we became aware of an underground broken sprinkler pipe just by observing the unevenness of the lawn—so the water `just does not percolate into the ground in Belle Fair' due to the quite widely known situation of the clay base. This was also mentioned by the Chairperson Rob Goodman at the first hearing. • At the last hearing, comments were made that the Belle Fair HOA has a general easement on all retaining walls within Belle Fair—so does that mean that the HOA is considered a co-applicant and is equally responsible for any damage that can be caused to the lower retaining wall. How does the Village Board get confirmation on ownership that is identifiable and enforceable for specific risk. 2) Unsightly view of an extended 2nd tier retaining wall with a fence/rail on top. As you can see from our pictures(see post construction mock-up photos in Appendix 1),that placing an extended wall with a fence is not going to be visually pleasing. The 2-tier structure on the left of our patio will be quite unsightly. The large deck on 9 High Point Circle that was recently built is already over-looking our property and together with the added retaining wall and fence will diminish our privacy and be quite over-bearing. There was a nonchalant comment made by the applicant at the last hearing that the owners of 6 Heritage Ct and 11 High Point Circle,post construction,will not be able to see/talk to each other—this indifference damages the approachability, connectedness and community feel that brought us to Belle Fair. From 6 Heritage Ct—the extended wall and fence would be the first thing to see as someone steps out onto our deck. It also the first thing that will get noticed from our 2nd floor master bedroom which overlooks the backyard. Please take a look at Schedule D of Belle Fair HOA under Definition—the section on Harmony with overall community design for added context on maintaining a consistent visual relationship across Belle Fair(see Appendix 3). 3) Purpose of the application Before we purchased our current house 7 years ago, we had seen 9 High Point Circle too. There were 3 levels in the backyard and the 211d level was flat(approximately 500 sq ft,but now,this has been completely consumed with the large deck that was built in 2020. And now a 500 sq ft flat space is being created after the original space was covered up. If a flat space for kids activities is the main criteria,why was this not a consideration before the deck was built last year. We wonder what particular sporting activities can happen on 500 sq ft. In our view,this does not come across as the primary motivation,though this was the key consideration put forth to the HOA Board by the applicant. 4) Future market value of the property as well as time to market being negatively impacted As we stated above,the main reason we were attracted to our property was the feeling of openness in the back, flat backyard and a community feel of the surrounding properties. While each person is entitled to have their top reasons for buying a property,we believe that this proposal can only have a negative impact on how the property is viewed as well as the ultimate market value. Belle Fair HOVARB We had expressed our strong concern on this proposal to the Belle Fair HOA Board at a meeting on December 22nd. While the HOA did not accept our concerns as valid,the HOA also disagreed with the conclusion of the Belle Fair ARB and the latter's reasoning(copy of the BOD approval letter to the applicant which provides its arguments for rejecting ARB's point of view is attached in Appendix 4). The ARB rejection letter provided reasoning based on Schedule D which specifically took into consideration#2 Location and Impact on Neighbors. However,the HOA Board interpreted it differently. The HOA Board believed that a"partially obstructed view"has to be acceptable to neighbors. The Board also concluded the proposal will be a"visual improvement to what is currently in place and will enhance the property and not de-value"—this may be the case for 9 High Point Circle but surely not for the neighboring properties. The HOA Board should not have assumed that there would not be a negative impact to the property value of 6 Heritage Ct and 11 High Point Circle, on its own. Please note the applicant Seth Slomiak is a Director on the Belle Fair HOA Board. Easement We would like the Planning Board to know,that we do not provide any easement to any person, organization or their representatives to access our property 6 Heritage Ct for any investigation or build activities,that do not pertain to our property. In conclusion We sincerely request that the above concerns are taken into strong consideration when evaluating the proposal along with thorough due-diligence on all aspects. We also request the Planning Baord members to consider a site visit to get first-hand knowledge of our concerns. Thank you for your consideration. We will be happy to provide additional information, as required. Sincerely, Kamlesh& Charul Kothari 914-434-575 Kamlesh kothariAyahoo.com Kamlesh & Charul1 1 1HeritageBrook, Ai. View from Our Patio Deck Before c• 1 •1 I L fly', •• � 1 Post construction I 1� :':N•':M'`.M":N':':N".:11"'.M;;M:::M;'.M.'.Lw...w:...:::.. ,k�. �r�.y�!I i::::M;;:M:.M;:.M;':M::;M::;M.:.M;:.M,:.M,:.M:.,M,:.M;:.M:•,M,.•M,:M„M:�,M::!!::�.;�::-:;. ` :.,, Y Y�:�:.� r r'•.M":.M::M::M.:;N;;N:.:11;..M.:;M.:;M.:;M;::M;;N;::N.::M;j _.-•�1 a rrrM..M,.l R �` �'; "`'!r•'� li.�:�.;�"M.:.M„M::M..,M..,N..;M.;.M.•,M„M:,M„M„M.,M..M.,M.,M,.w„M.,1 i l Uoljonusuoo Isocl uo!lon4suoo ojojog ii3ap onva ino tuoija n n Za — I � _ i uouonRsuooIsod 41 a{ Illtll! uouongsuoo aio3ag pjvA4avq.ono uioa;tAaIA Appendix 2 Degraded/broken section of the 2nd level retaining wall on 9 High Point Circle 61 sr a a I � -t Location of the broken retaining wall ww: I W eae.a _.. ._ BW 650.6 4-4 MATCH EX'ZTING DECK RAIL c8.8� ALL. I ACH 6 3 ,6.33 b96 IING I r ♦ j ARY l \ J -INE {{{ 5-0' — {I ADD C..EA\ LL AW NY5 DEC T THE S _ j' R.EG5 TO LEVEL GRADE TO EL SHALL ��6 696.ArrRcx a6 Cr f IE BOTTOM D`5TAIR5 r+ ERTY." EL 656 ADD 6 5TED5 FROM E-+6'8.33 ! IfVEN WiOKNEWAr TO BE SCHEDULE D ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL GUIDELINES A. General Standards Pursuant to the terms of Article VII of the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, Easement, Changes and Liens to which this schedule is attached, the Board of Directors of BelIeFair Homeowners Association,Inc. shall appoint an architectural review board (the "ARB"), or may act as the ARB, to act on requests from Homeowners to modify or improve their homes or lots. The ARB shall be required to apply certain standards in making its decisions. The standards hereinafter set forth are intended to underlie specific guidelines and shall be relied upon in instances where the specific guidelines set forth in Section B hereof are vague, ambiguous or non-existent. The decisions of the ARB shall be binding on the Homeowner applicant except in the instance where the Board of Directors, by a two-thirds (2/3) Board vote, shall elect to overrule the decision of the ARB, following appeal to the Board by the Homeowner ap- plicant. 1. Definitions. Harmony with Overall Community Design, or Contextual Relationship. "Contextual relationship" pertains to the characteristics of any existing structures, the neighborhood, and the individual lot. An element of design which may be acceptable in one instance may not be acceptable elsewhere in the BelleFair community. For example, the ARB may view differently a request affecting a Single Family Home located away from the Village Green from one concerning a Duplex Villa located at the Village Green, where the Associations will have a need for more conformity to adjacent property. To harmonize in its contextual relationship, a design must be compatible. "Compatibility" is defined as an agreeable relationship in, and in some instances actual continuity of, architectural style, mass, proportions, rhythm, scale, quality of design and materials, and similar use of materials, color, and design details. "Mass or massing" is defined as the visual relationship of architectural elements of vari- ous size to one another and to the immediate environment. "Proportion" is defined as the relationship of height to width, voids to solids, bulk of the structure to other nearby structures, and of the parts to the whole. "Rhythm" is defined as the regular and/or irregular occurrence of architectural and land- scaping elements as they occur in and define a design. "Scale" is defined as the visual effect of architectural and landscape elements of differing size to one another and to the immediate environment. "Colors and materials" refers to and includes siding, trim, doors, windows, gutters, downspouts, roofing and all other architectural and site elements must relate harmoni- ously within the project; they also must be in context with its environment. 2. Location and Impact on Neighbors. A proposed alteration, addition or modification should relate favorably to the neighbor- hood's planning, landscaping, topography, and existing character. The primary concerns are preservation of access, sunlight, ventilation, view and drainage as well as the impact ?zJ. on the privacy and normal use of neighboring properties. In reviewing impact on neighbors, the ARB must balance the property rights and expec- tations of an applicant with the neighbor's expectations and further consider future neighbors' 1� ors and property owners. While not easily susceptible to a balanced solution, the ARB should consider all aspects of a situation before making a decision. 3. Workmanship The quality of work should at all times equal or exceed that which was originally used. If y' past practices are no longer acceptable or feasible industry, code, current or best prac- F' tices must be followed. r 4. Safety While safety is an important consideration in any situation relative to the alteration, addi- tion or modification to any building or grounds this issue is the responsibility of the New York State Building Code and the Code of the Village of Rye Brook, and not the ARB or the Association. 5. Security Security may also be an important consideration to property owner; however, it shall be ' the Homeowner's responsibility to provide the needed security without offending neigh- boring property owners or the community. Security items can be provided within the pa- rameters of good and acceptable design. 6. Miscellaneous (a) The ARB shall also consider the impact of any noise or odors attendant on requests, as well as the impact on any pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic patterns. (b) All applications to the ARB must include estimated completion dates for the alteration, addition or modification. The ARB may not approve a request whose time frame it considers unreasonable. 2 (c) Certain alterations, additions and modifications will require the approval of the Village of Rye Brook's Building Inspector or Engineer. The Homeowner applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required approvals and permits. Village approval does not preclude the need for ARB approval,nor does ARB approval relieve the Homeowner applicant from any responsibility of obtaining Village approval. (d) Applications for alterations, additions and modifications shall include, but shall not be limited to, a catalog clipping of the exterior equipment, including dimensions and color and the equipment location with respect to the Home,property lines and adjacent Homes. B._ Specific Guidelines 1. Antennas and Window Air Conditioners exterior antenna whether forradio or television reception, "h This guideline pertains to window mounted air conditioning equipment and any type of mission or any other type whatsoever except satellite dishes. am" or Citizen Band trans- Window air conditioners and exterior antennas are not permitted except for satellite dishes. The ARB may permit satellite dishes so long as the diameter of the dish is less than eighteen (18) inches and it is mounted on the rear or side of the Home below the eaves. Satellite dishes larger than eighteen inches in diameter or mounted on the ground or anywhere other than below the eaves on the rear or side of the home are not permitted. If an antenna is required for a particular function it shall be mounted inside the house, garage or attic. 2. Flagpoles A flagpole for display of the American flag only shall be permitted subject to ARB ap- proval of placement and design. No flagpole shall be used as an antenna. 3. Attic Ventilators Homes will be built with attic ventilation systems that will meet or exceed the New York State Building Code requirements and are designed so as to limit sound transmission. The ARB may not permit the addition of attic ventilators. 4. Awnings The ARB may permit awnings. The awnings must have a straight forward design and be consistent with the architectural style and scale of the Home to which they will be at- tached. The fabric must be consistent with the existing Home's colors and any exposed frames must be painted to match the trim or dominant color of the home. Metal and fi- berglass awnings will not be permitted. 3 f j 5. Tennis Courts Tennis Courts are not permitted. 6. Basketball Backboards. Basketball backboards are permitted only for the Single Family Homes and will not re- quire the approval of the ARB, so long as they meet the following criteria. Backboards shall be located away from the street. House- or garage-mounted backboards are pre- ferred. If mounted on the garage, they must be centered over the garage door. House- or garage-mounted backboards shall be clear or painted with a flat paint to match the color of the surface behind, either roofing or siding. They must be located in a position not 'y visible from the street and in no event in front of the Home. Freestanding backboards mounted on poles may be permitted. The backboard and pole must be clear, white or painted a color to match the existing Horne, located over the driveway and visually screened from the nearest property by existing or proposed trees. Portable backboards must be stored in the Home or garage when not in use. Backboards are not permitted elsewhere. ;114 7. Dog Houses/Runs The ARB may approve dog houses so long as they are located in the rear yard, have no dimension greater than 36 inches and are painted to blend with their immediate sur- roundings or left to weather naturally. 1 Dogruns may be bordered only by chain-link fences or other approved fences. The posi- tion of the fences must be within the plane of the Home, running from the back of the home no closer than 10 feet to the rear property line. The dogrun fence must be screened with natural vegetation. 8. Electronic Insect Traps Electronic insect traps are allowed and do not require approval by the ARB so long as no light is visible from adjacent properties and no noise can be heard in neighboring living areas. 9. Fences Fences are not permitted in the front yards of any home. The ARB may approve shadow- box rear yard fences so long as the fence is located at least two (2) feet from the nearest property line and does not exceed six (6) feet in height. It must be consistent in appear- ance and must be painted white or stained weathered grey. If the fence is to be located closer than two (2) feet to a property line or if the fence is intended to be a party fence shared with adjoining neighbors, a joint application must be submitted by all affected parties. The fence must be maintained in good condition or the ARB shall have the right to order its removal. 4 10. General Landscaping The ARB must review and approve plans for the addition or alteration of landscaping when the proposal includes one or more of the following items: • Structural or decorative elements such as arbors, trellises, benches, patios, planters, retaining walls, signs, lights, walkways or works of art. • Vegetable gardens of any size. • Flower beds or flower gardens larger than thirty square feet • Addition or removal of trees • Addition or removal of shrubs. Structural and decorative elements introduced into an open environment must not be in- trusive and must be appropriate to their surroundings. Size, scale, color and material are important criteria for acceptability. Low voltage landscape lighting may be approved if the fixtures are no taller than eighteen inches and painted a dark color Trees, shrubs and plant materials should be an appropriate size and must not be detri- mental to neighboring property when mature. Vegetable gardens shall be located only in rear yards and shall be limited types and species that will not intrude on the light and views of adjacent homes. Synthetic turf will not be permitted. The ARB may approve tree or shrub removal if the tree or shrub is dead, endangers peo- ple or property, is so overgrown pruning will not solve the problem or if it has grown too large for the space. In no case shall lack of ARB approval prevent the emergency re- moval of a tree that threatens the safety of persons and/or property. Additional landscaping shall be maintained so as not to intrude on the light and views of adjacent Homes. 11. Lighting The ARB may approve additional lighting provided the proposed lighting meets the fol- lowing criteria. • In no event may additional lighting impair the vision of a driver or pedestrian. • The fixture design must be compatible with the house architecture and located appropriately. • The Iights must be directed downwards, diffused, shielded or of low wattage. • The lighting type, color, and quality must be consistent with other existing lights on the Home and lot and in the neighborhood. • Lights must be located in the area they are intended to illuminate. • Security lights may be installed under the roof eaves, directed downwards and shielded so they do not create a hot glare spot visible to neighbors. The fixture color and shielding must be compatible with the building. • Conduits and wiring must be concealed. • Pole lighting may not exceed five feet in height. 5 The ARB may not approve high-wattage, commercial/industrial type fixtures nor sodium- vapor light sources. No utility light fixtures (flood lights) are permitted in any location except under the eaves. 12. ]Irrigation The ARB may approve irrigation for lawns and planting beds provided all water remains within the Lot lines and no overspray occurs on adjacent Lots. 13. Holiday Lighting; Ornaments Holiday lights only may be displayed from December In to January 6 h. No ornaments are permitted on the Homes or Lots. 14.Mailboxes The ARB will control the selection and construction of all mailboxes within BelleFair. Community style mailboxes are the only style that is approved and permitted. Replace- ment mailboxes may be selected from the ARB catalog and purchased from and installed by the Association at a cost presently expected to be $550. The cost of mailboxes may be adjusted by the ARB from time to time. 15. Patios The ARB may approve a patio if. • It is located in the rear yard of the Home. • It is built of natural colored concrete, slate,brick or bluestone. Penetrating wood stains and sealers are permitted. Synthetic turf is not permitted. • It is set in a minimum of two (2)feet from adjoining property, between the plane of the sides of the Home and, in the rear, no closer than two(2) feet from the property line. 16. Barbecues Barbecues are permitted in the rear only without the approval of the ARB. Barbecue ar- eas shall be designed to be integral with patio areas. Prevailing winds should be consid- ered when locating the barbecue to avoid excessive smoke and odor oriented toward ad- jacent Homes. 17. Play Equipment The ARB may approve play equipment in Single Family Lots only. The ARB will weigh lot and equipment size, material, design, amount of visual screening and relationship to 6 neighboring property when deciding upon an application. Tree houses, skate board ramps and courts are not permitted. All play equipment must be located in the rear yard. • Swing sets shall not be wider than ten feet and located at least 20 feet from adjacent property lines. They must be made predominately of wood left to weather naturally or if metal, painted a solid muted color. • Solid type play houses must be screened with natural vegetation, approved fencing or approved additional landscaping and must be located at least 20 feet from adjacent property lines. • All play sets must be maintained in good order and neat appearance or the ARB shall have the right to order their removal. 18. Roofing/Siding The ARB must approve the replacement of any roofing, siding or exterior trim. The pro- posed materials must be of equal or better quality, the same type and the color must be within the same range of intensity and hue as those on the approved color palette. Re- placement material shall be installed completely on the entire roof or on all elevations (sides) of the house at the same time. 19. Security Devices The ARB may approve security devices that do not detract from the design integrity of the home or the neighborhood. Devices such as alarms and sirens may be permitted if they are of the minimum size needed to be effective. Security bars are permitted on the interior side of windows and doors and do not require ARB approval so long as they are painted a color to blend with their background. 20. Sheds Sheds are not permitted with the exception of approved garbage sheds which may be at- tached to the rear side of the Home. 21. Shutters The addition of shutters is not permitted. Replacement of shutters may be approved by the ARB so long as.the replacements are of the same type, material and color as those being replaced. 22.Signs No signs shall be permitted. 7 23. Solar Collectors I Solar collectors may be approved by the,ARB provided they are located on the rear roof of the home and is colored to match or harmonize with the roof color. Applications will be reviewed within the contextual relationship of the lot and the home. 24. Spas/Hot Tubs The ARB may approve outdoor spas and "hot tubs"provided that they are: • Located in the rear yard at least ten feet away from adjacent property or a greater distance such that their normal use,presence and mechanical noise do not adversely affect the neighboring properties. • Positioned above ground as an integral part of a deck or patio or screened from view by approved fencing or landscaping. • Have concealed mechanical equipment and piping and the understructure is concealed by skirting or screening. • Maintained in good order and neat appearance or the ARB shall have the right to or- der their removal. 25. Storm and Screen Doors Storm and screen doors may be replaced without ARB approval provided the replacement is of equal or better quality and of the same type, style and color as the original. 26. Window Replacements/Additions The ARB may approve the replacement of windows provided the replacements are of the same general type and color, of equal or better quality, have a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 35 or greater and are consistent in appearance with other windows in the neigh- borhood. Unless otherwise approved by the ARB, all windows in the Home will be re- placed at the same time. The ARB may approve windows for installation in an addition to the Home provided the window is of the same type, style and color as those in the existing house and that the window has a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 35 or greater. The addition of windows in the existing home is not permitted unless the homeowner provides a sound attenuation analysis by a licensed acoustical engineer that confirms the sound attenuation rating of the Home will not be compromised by the addition of the window(s). If engineered, and approved by the ARB, additional windows shall be of the same type, style and color as those existing in the Home and have a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 35 or greater. 8 27. Storm Windows The ARB may approve the installation of storm windows provided they resemble the ex- isting window frames, have the same general configuration and have similar, not con- trasting,color value as the existing window frames. 28. Swimming Pools Above ground swimming pools will not be permitted. The ARB may approve a below ground swimming pool on certain Lots, depending on the applicable topography, pro- vided: • It is located within the buildable area of the lot and screened to guarantee complete privacy. • It is built according to the building code and health department standards. Applications will be reviewed within the contextual relationship of the lot and the Home. 29.Remodeling and Additions The ARB may approve remodeling or additions to the existing Homes provided that the guidelines, specifications and standards that governed the construction of the new Home are the same. All criteria governing site location, grading, excavating, structures, roofs, landscape and aesthetics will remain the same. Full architectural details for any remod- eling or addition must be submitted to the ARB for approval. Of particular concern to the ARB will be setbacks, height limits, skylights, solar collectors, recreational features, lighting, satellite dishes, affect on neighbors and compatibility with the design of the ex- isting Home and neighborhood. The ARB may approve the addition of decks and porches. Full architectural details for any deck or porch must be submitted to the ARB for approval. Decks shall be designed to serve as an extension of the Home. Decks and their supports shall be constructed mostly of wood. Rails, pickets, stair risers and underpinnings must be painted white or to match the trim or dominate color of the Home. Deck flooring must be stained a light grey or other color approved by the ARB. Views to the underside of the deck must be screened with underpinning (lattice) and/or landscape material. Landscape material shall be large enough to provide screening upon installation. Decks more than three feet above grade must have underpinning and landscape material. Porch screening colors shall complement and blend with the Home; the color"green,"as determined by the ARB, will not be permitted. No mill finish aluminum will be allowed as framing for a porch. 9 4f February 26th, 2021 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Slomiak: After much consideration and review, the Bellefair HOA Board (hereinafter"Board") has voted unanimously to grant your appeal dated December 15, 2020, to the ARB application (hereinafter"application") dated October 25, 2020. While the Board strongly believes that it does not want to be overriding any committee, we felt it was warranted due to the unusual nature of this application and how events unfolded. According to the November ARB minutes it seems the ARB was ready to approve your application pending neighbor approval. The minutes read: "9 High Point Circle: Construction of Retaining wall and fence. ARB will approve the application conditioned on submitting a letter of support for his application for neighbors residing at 11 High Point Circle" The Board believes that approval of any projects should not be at the discretion of neighbors. This is why Bellefair has an ARB committee to objectively decide these matters and not have those with conflicts of interest weighing in. We felt the ARB was comfortable with everything else in the original application, but the denial letter added a few supporting concerns which may have been discussed but did not weigh heavily enough to have it documented as a caveat. The Board feels that every member on the ARB, or at least all those who voted on the application, should have visited the property and not relied on mocked up images as factual pieces of evidence when voting on the application. We of course want all neighbors to be transparent with one another and understand there has been much confusion around this project that could have easily been cleared up. Every Board member has taken the time to visit the site, check out all viewpoints and fully understand the scope of the project and the impact on Schedule D. Because we believe in transparency, the reasons we are granting the appeal is below, point by point based on the denial letter. 1) It is our understanding from the Village of Rye Brook that ALL retaining walls in BelleFair are part of the overall BelleFair HOA Site Plan and not merely a concern of any one homeowner. You, as a homeowner, would have to partner with the BelleFair HOA for a revised Site Plan Application before the Rye Brook Planning Board for an amendment to the existing BelleFair Site Plan. While we appreciate the ARB calling attention to this, it is the Board's position that if the Village does require that all of the work and costs must be assumed by the Slomiaks and that the Board takes no legal or financial responsibility. There is nothing in schedule D that should cause something to be denied for this reason. 2) Also, we do not have a clear understanding of the permit status for the existing wall system on your property. It is our position that what you are proposing is increasing the height of a tiered retaining wall from the existing 5 feet to a maximum of 10 feet, with an additional 4 feet on top of that for the fence. The Board is aware of numerous examples of walls that appear to be put in by the developer, post the original site plan, and isn't concerned about the status of the permit from a wall installed 20+ years ago, as long as any additions to the wall and subsequent effect it may have on other walls in the vicinity are done to code and via a structural engineer. There is nothing stated in schedule D that should cause something to be denied for this reason. 3) Your proposed wall runs contrary to several provisions of Schedule D of the Declaration. Paragraph A.2. "Location and Impact on Neighbors"is primarily concerned with the preservation of access, sunlight, ventilation, view and drainage as well as the impact on the privacy and normal use of neighboring properties". We find that your proposed wall would be too disruptive and will intrude on the "access, sunlight, ventilation, view and normal use of neighboring properties". We have reviewed numerous photos from the vantage point of 11 High Point Circle which showed the proposed wall with stakes and tape and as per Paragraph B.10. of Schedule D we find that it would be too intrusive to the light and views of adjacent homes. After reviewing the site and checking all angles, the Board disagrees with the ARB's determination. The Board believes that the intrusion of light and views to adjacent homes is minimal and is not cause for denial of this application. There is little to no obstruction to the view of 6 Heritage Court. The adjacent property situated at 11 High Point Circle will have a partially obstructed view only from the basement and lower patio in one direction. The overwhelming majority of the vast views of the neighbors are uninterrupted. We also feel that the proposed wall will be a visual improvement to what is currently in place and will enhance the property and not de-value as was a concern mentioned when listening to the neighbors' appeal. We strongly believe this is the same conclusion the ARB would have reached had they visited the site in person. Additionally. Schedule D mentions weighing the impact of the neighbors and we feel that the current state of the area in question is unsafe for kids and adults. A slightly obstructed view from a basement does not outweigh safety. 4) Paragraph B.9 of Schedule D does not permit any fence exceeding 6 feet in height. While not a fence, we find it relevant that the proposed tiered wall significantly exceeds the 6 foot limitation for most of the length of the added wall section. As referenced by the sentence above written by the ARB, a wall is not a fence and there are many walls in BelleFair that exceed 6 feet in height and many exceed 10 feet as well. Based on all of these points, we made the decision to grant your appeal. Our understanding is that your next step is to get approval from the Village and we wish you the best of luck in that endeavor. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, BelleFair HOA Board. p EC EWE JUN 10 2011 Dear Board Members, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BUILDING DEPARTMENT We had an opportunity to access the building permit application today regarding an extension of retaining wall & installation of fence at 9 High Point Circle. We currently live at 11 High point circle and we have been resident of Bellefair for last 21 years. Prior to 11 High Point Circle, we were resident of 54 Bellefair road that also had 8-10 feet high retaining wall in our backyard & we did not have great experience with that retaining wall. We have the following concerns with proposed extension of the current retaining wall and installation of 4' fence— There is already —5' high retaining wall between 9 & 11 High Point Circle. Since the wall is more than 20 years old, we can see that some of the bricks have already started shifting from it's original position. (Picture 1 — Wall 1). Our concern is with the long-term stability of the wall due to additional dirt that will be placed near the original wall.As the wall is close to the common property line, our concern is with the cost that we may have to incur in future if there is damage to it due to an additional weight. There is also a second retaining wall on our property holding the weight of an elevated land (Picture 2—Wall 2). We also do not know, how the water drainage is currently placed & will there be any impact to the existing both retaining walls due to change in rain water drainage/flow. When we bought our property (11 High Point) in 2010, one of the key buying criteria was to have the openness of the views/greenery from various locations from our property- Deck, Patio, walk- out basement,family room & kitchen etc. The extension of the additional wall &fence will partially impact our views/greenery from our property. (example- rough sketch of impact on visibility from our basement and patio — Picture 3 — Before and After). Our concern is also that this, will negatively impact the future market value and time to market our property. We were also made aware of the project by Bellefair Architecture Review Board late last year. Based on limited information provided, we had raised the similar concern to be considered while evaluating the application. Bellefair ARB declined the permission based on criteria defined under Section D but the decision was over turned by Bellefair Board. I am very confident that village board will do its proper due-diligence to ensure that extension of wall & fence will not negatively impact stability of current walls & our property value. We are always available and happy to provide any additional information. We can be reached anytime via phone at or email —dksatija@aol.com. Thank you for your consideration to our concerns. Regards, D K Satija &Anu Satija C:cu Y Lam_ co O O O � L hA • C� J U 4.1 Q) 66N a-+ Ln � L 4 4—j Q •� Q 3 -C 4-+ a O v 0 O O L cu •L E V) U r I e I2 • F a q� -�~�`-• � -gip ���.� �,i• �1 . � I '' -r u,� � i.;��' �' �� ��� ,��� '� �� -'tom' ���a � • F • • � • • • t ��, n �� � b, . =�. i. ;�.• �., _�, a, 4-J Q� - N m �o { i I � � r� A E��I F •i�r►•�~4 R Y .� �.._ r_4 ^"^s��yt¢J.f 1 e%- � � �: ��,. •� � � �., r a� �` �� � = �. � ti ! � � .�_ I� � ,i�. � r.. . I j A, �V� 1• 1 F' c� e • MAN �.. Y � f ;to, :fix JOINEL wow d i 1`i • 1 � L t I � IM "Muni �: f� Ark- CARr= : m 4W _ _ -7�.ram► f� June 10, 2021 JUN 10 2021 To VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK Rye Brook Village Planning Board, BUILDING DEPARTMENT Hello, We reside at 6 Heritage Ct and this letter is to express our concern with respect to the application made by the residents of 9 High Point Circle, which is neighboring to our property. We understand the following changes our being proposed by 9 High Point Circle, 1)Flatten the backyard by filing in dirt; 2)2nd level retaining wall to be extended; 3)Addition of a white fence on the 2nd level retaining wall. The above request from 9 High Point Circle was rejected by the Belle Fair ARB, but was subsequently approved by the Belle Fair HOA BOD, despite the strong concern expressed on this proposal to the HOA Board at a meeting on December 22nd, 2020. There is an 8 foot retaining wall that is on the property line between our backyard and 9 High Point Circle. A 2nd tier retaining wall of 5 feet is within 9 High Point Circle. Our concerns to the proposal are: 1) Affecting the stability and integrity of the ls`tier primary load-bearing retaining wall which is on the common property line. The retaining wall is more than 20 years old and have concerns whether it can bear the capacity of the additional dirt and the extension of 2nd tier retaining wall. This is a huge risk of damage to our property, as I am aware there have been issues/repairs that have been performed on some Belle Fair retaining walls. Additionally,how the drainage will be handled is also quite unclear, and the associated risks to the existing retaining walls and surrounding area. Also attaching a picture of a section of the 2nd tier wall that has recently collapsed, indicating the degradation that has occurred over time. 2) Unsightly view of an extended 2nd tier retaining wall with a fence on top. As you can see from our pictures,that placing an extended wall with a fence is not going to be visually pleasing. The 2-tier structure on the left of our patio will be quite unsightly. The large deck on 9 High Point Circle that was recently built is already over-looking our property and together with the added retaining wall and fence will be over-bearing. As you can see from the pictures below, this will be quite an obstruction and significantly diminishes the community feel that exists now with the openness as per the original Belle Fair plan. Before we purchased our current house 7 years ago,we had seen 9 High Point Circle too. There were 3 levels in the backyard and the 2nd level was flat,but now,this has been completely covered with the large deck that was recently built in 2019-2020 3) Future market value of the property being negatively impacted, as well as time to market due to the above 2 main concerns, We sincerely request that the above concerns are taken into consideration when evaluating the proposal along with thorough due-diligence on all aspects. Thank you for your consideration. We will be happy to provide additional information, as required. Sincerely, Kamlesh&Charul Kothari 914-434-575 Kamlesh kothari(a,yahoo.com View from our Patio 4+ ' 1. Fence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . View from our backyard r Fence Wall f•. View of Collapsed 2"d tier wall v