Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-14 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes l ggx AGENDA VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA MEETING SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 8:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTIO PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #5-1993 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 158 NOISE ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ESTABLISH HOURS DURING WHICH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MAY BE OPERATED I DISCUSSION E i PLANNING PROCESS C 3. REZONE OF HAWTHORNE AVENUE i RESOLUTIONS 4. CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION DONALD L. MFSSI14A & PAUL MESSINA 848 KING STREET/SECT. 1, BL. 7, LOTS 3134, 3135, 3C4 & 3C5 5. AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH WESTCHESSTER COUNTY FOR COMPOST CIRCULATION EQUIPMENT 6. APPROVING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN OF TRAINING PROGRAM 7. APPROVING DONATIONS TO THE ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION FUND 3. BUDGET MODIFICATION RECREATION DEPARTMENT (INDOOR CENTER) 9. BUDGET MODIFICATION RECREATION DEPARTMENT (BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION) '0. AWARDING CONTRACT #9308 TRAILER MOUNTED LEAF LOADER- ,L APPROVING BOND RESOLUTION ACQUISITION OF LAND 12. APPROVING HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT 13. PERSONNEL MATTERS 14. CHECK REGISTER WRTI'TEN COMMUNICATION 15. GEORGE O'HANLON, VILLAGE ATTORNEY VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER ` RE: ALARM FINES/COLLECTION P NEXT MEETING DATE UESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 — 7:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING r `s ITEMS FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28TH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #4-1993 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING LAW OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ADD A NEW SECTION 66-35 AND TO REPEAL OR AMEND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING LAW AND OTHER LOCAL LAWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REGULATIONS 2. CONSIDERING AGREEMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICES WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER RESOLUTIONS 3. MODIFYING SECTION 240.19 OF RYE BROOK VILLAGE CODE PARKING RESTRICTIONS 4. REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 15, LOT 38 6 HAWTHORNE AVENUE REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL/SIGNAGE RIDGE BOWMAN ASSOCIATES SECTION 1, BLOCK 19, LOT 313-2 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET DISCUSSION 6. ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 7. PORT CHESTER/RYE BROOK AMBULANCE CORP. 24 HOUR SERVICE PROPOSAL 8. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION COUNCIL PROPOSED WETLANDS LAW f NEXT MEETING DATE - TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1"3 AT 7:30 P.M. E MINUTES OF AN AGENDA MEETING VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OFFICES 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET RYE BROOK, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 149 1993 CONVENE MEETING The Meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Mayor Cresenzi in the Meeting Room and the Pledge of Allegiance followed. Present were the following members of the Board: Mayor Salvatore M. Cresenzi Trustee Michele Daly Trustee Joseph Pellino Trustee Randy A. Solomon Trustee Gary J. Zuckerman Trustee Michele Daly was excused at 11:30 p.m. due to an emergency. 4 k Also present were: f Christopher J. Russo, Village Administrator Rocco V. Cireosta, Director of Public Works Kenneth E. Powell, Village Attorney Robert J. Santoro, Chief of Police Elizabeth Bottali, Secretary to the Village Board Lori Ann DeMarco, Ass't to Village Administrator and Joseph Cortese, Village Treasurer were not in attendance at this meeting. 1 September 14, 1993 Mayor Cresenzi announced that we would be deviating from the Agenda this evening and we would deal with Agenda item No. 6 first. 6. APPROVING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN OF TRAINING PROGRAM Administrator Russo introduced James E. Rocco, a Human Resource Specialist, who was present this evening at the request of the Board. Trustee Solomon questioned what Mr. Rocco expected to do for Rye Brook. Mr. Rocco stated that he specialized with working with non-profit organizations and municipalities and designs performance review systems to help employees and supervisors provide for a better way to review the performance of employees and letting the employees know what is expected of them. Trustee Solomon questioned what criteria Mr. Rocco came up with to rate the performance of municipal employees in the past. Mr. Rocco stated that in the Town of Mamaroneck he established job descriptions which were designed for each position, which was used as a basis to evaluate performance. They adopted the recommendations of my company and are currently in the process of implementing them. Trustee Solomon questioned how long it would take to set up such a program. Mr. Rocco stated that it takes about 3-4 months to set up the program and then takes a full year f to see the results. The systems that I have set up are systems that start at the beginning of the year where the job description is reviewed and the expectations are established between the Department Head and the employee so it takes a full year to come up with the ratings. On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Daly, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH JAMES E. ROCCO ASSOCIATES FOR A PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF TRAINING PROGRAM RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into a consultant agreement with James E. Rocco Associates for a performance appraisal system development and design of training program for an amount not to exceed $6,200.00; and it is 2 September 14, 1993 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE RESOLUTIONS 4. CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION DONALD L. MESSINA & PAUL MESSINA 808 KING STREET/SECT. 19 BL. 79 LOTS 3114, 31151 3C4 & 3C5 Mayor Cresenzi stated that the Public Hearing was closed on this item three months ago and we have had input from the public at every meeting hereafter. First we will allow the owners of the property to comment, anyone who is opposed to this project may comment and third the Village staff will comment. We will limit each to twenty minutes. f Milton Berner, attorney to the applicant, stated that he has represented the Messina family for over thirty years. He stated that this is the applicant's final opportunity to marshall the I information and the highlights that separate the facts as they exist from the emotional outcry of a few neighbors that have taken the consistent position regarding this subdivision, not in their I backyard. It is difficult to remain unemotional having observed the behavior of the group lead by the immediate neighbor and I refer to these written remarks in order not to be tempted to be carried away by sarcasm or anger. It has been almost a year since this application was presented to the Board and almost three months since the Public Hearing was closed on June 22, 1993. A hearing, a trial, is really just a search for the truth. The Board of Trustees have a responsibility to act within the law as it is established within the Village. As citizens of the i before you determined b what s community, we are confident that the Board's decision will be y y and not by supposition, conjecture or flowery rhetoric which is designed to rewrite the Zoning Code of the Village of Rye Brook. We merely ask that you follow the law and use your good judgement and respect the skills and opinions of your own professionals as well as your Boards and Commissions. Mr. Berner explained that the request for subdivision was submitted on November 9, 1992 and was properly referred to the Planning Board for their review and recommendation. The objector would have you believe in their letter of August 13, 1993 that this application dates back to 1964, which is simply untrue. The Planning Board then held numerous public meetings and recommendations were made to the applicant by the Planning Board and the Village staff and consultants, Frederick P. Clark Associates. 3 ,-r5 q q September 14, 1993 Mr. Berner added that the Planning Board had made many helpful suggestions addressing the physical configuration and at the February 11, 1993 Planning Board Meeting, after careful evaluation of the site plan, Eugene Strum stated that "The displayed plan would be the best workable plan for the site and he, personally, did not have a problem with the culdesac." It was later determined at the Village Board level, that a waiver for a culdesac reduced dimension was not required since the plan was adjusted to provide for a connecting street sometime into the future, therefore the applicant no longer required a waiver. My memorandum of August 17, 1993 showed that there is no application for a waiver of a culdesac and that no special consideration was being sought. At the February 11, 1993 Planning Board meeting the plan was passed and adopted. Mr. Berner read an excerpt from the minutes of that meeting which read as follows: "Mr. Stolzar felt that the way this subdivision is laid out on this plan and how it will look in the neighborhood is subject to the resolution of the drainage situation. The lots as shown fit into the character of the neighborhood. The plan, as worked out by Mr. Gissen, the developer and Mr. Rotfeld, makes sense for where it is located. Mr. Aughavin seconded Mr. Stolzar's motion. Mr. Briskman questioned exactly what the recommendation is and asked if the Planning Board agreed to that subdivision and if it was advisable and that the developer should go for a variance on the co-deficient lot seven and Mr. Strum answered that the message would be sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals along with the application that the Planning Board has given preliminary approval for that site if they get a variance and the Planning Board would encourage the Zoning Board to grant the variance. Mr. Stolzar wanted Mr. Briskman's point added to the motion and Mr. Briskman seconded the entire motion. Mr. Adler asked if the motion included that the Planning Board make a specific recommendation to the Zoning Board and if that was so, he wanted to know what the recommendation was. Mr. Stolzar explained that the recommendation is that the Zoning Board grant the variance with respect to lot seven as specified throughout the subdivision to proceed. Mr. Stolzar explained his motion and as a part of it, the Planning Board was recommending that the Zoning Board of Appeals make a favorable recommendation in the subdivision only if they grant the variance with respect to lot r seven, but again, Mr. Briskman seconded the motion. All were in favor of this motion except Mr. Kaplan who abstained because he was not present for the entire discussion." Mr. Berner added that the applicant, having received the preliminary approval on the site plan, subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals proceeded on April 14, 1993 to prepare an application to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. The fee was paid and the application was presented to Robert Gerardi, Assistant Building Inspector and was later followed up with a letter, and because of scheduling problems it was not until May 4, 1.993 that the Zoning Board of Appeals heard the matter. It should be understood by all .present that the notification procedures were strictly observed for certified mail, return receipt requested and the Town of Rye Assessment Office assisted us with providing the assessment maps for the preparation of the names and addresses to be notified. All names were taken from the latest assessment roll as of the date of mailing. In addition, proof of service, by affidavit, was delivered on the evening of the mailing. The names, proof of mailing and returned cards were handed to Robert Gerardi together with returned receipt cards as they had been mailed back. The public hearing was held on the variance and the resolution granting the variance was unanimous. The lot is still substantially oversized. There will be no sideyard, rearyard, or frontyard variance sought for construction of a dwelling on that lot. All requirements were mailed and there was no opposition and the matter passed. Not a single resident spoke against the request for the variance despite certified mail notification and the legal notice in the newspapers. A public hearing was then held by the Village Board of Trustees on June 22, 1993, after due notice and publication, and mailing by certified mail. 4 qna September 14, 1993 Mr. Berner added that there was a detailed presentation made by the attorney for the applicant and comments were made by certain neighbors immediately adjacent to within close proximity of the proposed dwellings. My recollection is that the public hearing was closed that evening. The Board requested a more detailed tree preservation and street tree plan and certain resubmissions for the establishment of a fifty foot right of way for future interconnection to a future street and thereby eliminate the request for a waiver of culdesae dimensions previously in place. The Board directed that Frederick P. Clark and Associates review the new tree preservation and street tree plan, the recent and historical development pattern in the vicinity of King Street, the size of the lots in the immediate neighborhood in relation to the others in the area, the analysis of the character of the neighborhood, the aesthetics and to review the SEQRA information provided. All of the studies requested were submitted to the Village Board on July 14, 1993 in time for the Board of Trustees to evaluate all of the reports in time for the July 20, 1993 meeting. At the July 20, 1993 meeting there was further discussion and at the conclusion of that meeting, the applicant was requested, in writing by Village Administrator Christopher J. Russo, to produce certain information, point by point, to be placed upon the plan and to submit even a more detailed tree preservation and street plan. Frederick P. Clark Associates reviewed all the new material. Mr. Berner pointed out that all of the requests made by the Board, especially those made by Trustee Gary Zuckerman, were prepared and fully explained on both the drawings and in the applicants memorandum. The applicants memorandum was submitted for the August 18, 1993 meeting. It was duly circulated to the Board of Trustees on August 8, 1993. Where it was applicable, there were new drawings submitted as well as tree preservation information, however, a letter generated by David Watson and his wife Cynthia Schoss, 20 Hillandale Road dated Friday, August 13, 1993 was delivered to the Board of Trustees but no copies to the [ applicant or his attorney. In that letter, David Watson, in my opinion, attempts to rewrite the Zoning Laws. I admit the letter is well written but inaccurate in content. The matter was adjourned at the request of the Village Board to study the Watson letter. Subsequent to August 18, 1993 the Village Board had its Village Attorney and its Planning Consultant analyze the letter and is now ready this evening for discussion. Mr. Berner stated that it is respectfully suggested that these delays and convoluted maneuvers and dilatory tactics are not new in the litigation process, but they are new to us who have known the records of this Village and the Town of Rye for more than thirty-five years. Does the objector honestly believe that these long letters can intimidate the Board to back away with what is established zoning and the legitimate use of the property. Rye Brook has long operated successfully with the planning and quality of life of the community and if the objectives of this.project want to change the rules they should do so by political or through legislative process. Even now, there is a last ditch effort to frustrate the process in the form of the latest letter from David Watson dated September 7, 1993 to the Zoning Board of Appeals. This letter states that as attorney for Messina, I failed to disclose certain information to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Berner assured Mr. Watson that what this was untrue. The Village Board and their staff suggested the change in the plat and not the applicant or his attorney. If the objectors were not satisfied with the outcome of the Zoning Board of Appeals, they had thirty days within which to bring an Article 78 proceeding to the Supreme Court of the State of New York. They didn't do that. Either they missed the time or chose not to do it at that time. Now, they are trying to come in through the back door, when they couldn't come in any longer from the front. 5 y��6 September 14, 1993 Mr. Berner stated that this is too serious a matter to allow selfish interests of a small group to overturn many long years of ownership. Having requested a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and then reappearing before the Planning Board and the Village Board is a very usual circumstance and that matter has come before this Board on many occasions, most recently, the Gamson property. The applicants have cooperated 101% and have offered to participate in establishing a drainage district and to extinguish the existing easement forever to insure no ingress and egress to and from Hillandale Road to the project to protect the same people who are protesting against this project. Mr. Berner stated that his client has spent thousands of dollars to define and redefine the drawings that were requested. We seek no special treatment. If the Board does not choose to approve this project unanimously, would be to act arbitrarily and capricious. If the Board, in its wisdom determines at some point in this meeting that lot seven needs further review by the Zoning Board of Appeals, we will respect whatever decision the Board makes. David Watson of 20 Hillandale Road stated that he was not aware that he would have the opportunity to speak this evening so he does not have a speech prepared. He stated that his fetter did not suggest that Mr. Berner withheld any information from the Zoning Board. It did state that the alterations to lot seven was not conveyed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the minutes last week will indicate that. The issue that we have this evening is if the Board of Trustees are prepared to waive the provisions of Village Law at the request of these developers in the face of substantial community opposition, some remaining environmental questions, some procedural defects and the question as to whether or not this is the best use of the property and °} whether waiving this law now is the best thing for the future of the Village, whether setting this P precedent is going to have an impact in the future that will be difficult for the Board to deal with in future subdivisions. Which group is smaller, the two owners of this property and their employees or more than a dozen neighbors that are opposed to this. Mr. Watson stated that he and his neighbors position has been a consistent one and have not started off by saying: "we will have a culdesac, it is a permanent one" and then "Oh No, we will give you a road because that will enable us to get away without requesting a waiver." According to Mr. Berner, they don't need any waivers, but if this is just a completely legitimate use of the property upright, I don't understand wiry they are here before this Board. A subdivision approval should not take five months. This subdivision started in 1964 because there are plans for a subdivision on that site from 1964 which are almost identical to these except for tree preservation. On the application which was filed in November, there is a note under the fee which says that it was paid in December of 1986. Mr. Watson added that the emotional outcry of a few neighbors is something that should be listened to because the Board is here to represent the community, not to assist developers. Mr. Watson stated that in the most recent memo from Frederick P. Clark Associates, it says: "It was difficult to determine if those trees were on the site." What kind of planning do we have if our planner excepts a declaration that says that there is no street on the site, when the site plan shows the street, when they say they couldn't figure out if the trees were on the site. How can we approve a project when we don't even know what the boundaries of the site are. He added that he has a problem with the culdesac and the question about whether or not the variance is required is a technicality and the courts can sort that out if need be. The Planning Board stated that they approve this project only if they grant the variance for lot seven. 6 September 14, 1993 Mr. Watson further stated that in the minutes of the last Zoning Board of Appeals, the chairman states that there is no valid variance for lot seven, but it has been reconfigured and they would not have to reopen the matter, that this was a new matter because it is a different lot. There is a new law, which permits the applicant to now go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and request a type of advisory approval, which took effect on July 1, 1993. It was not in effect when this was done the first time, which is beside the point, because we have a different lot here that the Zoning Board never looked at and Frederick P. Clark does not know the boundaries of and this Board is being asked to approve tonight. Mr. Watson closed by pointing out that the area residents are not trying to intimidate the Board of Trustees, only trying to convey a feeling in the community. Howard Hoff of 812 King Street stated that his property adjoins the Messina property and he feels that as a new resident of Rye Brook, we need to preserve the wooded areas throughout the whole community, not only in his backyard. He added that there was a plan drawn up showing comparisons to the Magnolia properties. The property on both sides of Magnolia are much larger than the subdivision proposed therefore, the comparisons are not very relevant. We really need to look at the properties next door and not the Magnolia subdivision. i Matt Harrison of 21 Hawthorne Avenue stated that he was concerned that the Board is essentially being pressured into granting variances that do substantial damage to the nature of the community. He expressed outrage at the conclusion that Mr. Berner drew on the Board of Trustees behalf that for the Board to decide against his client would be capricious and arbitrary. Everett Willis of Hillandale Road stated that we have a lovely residential community which should be left uncluttered. f James Sapione of 28 Hawthorne Avenue stated that there is a generic issue of density over building profitability. Boards are often asked to aid developers in their profitability and this application and future applications will all ultimately get down to the issue of density. These issues lie in direct contrast to the neighborhoods in which these developments take place. There is no equation for balancing the developer's rights against the communities rights. You must yield to the interests of the community. This is all precedent setting and you cannot walk away from mistakes made in the past. Michael Newman, a resident of the City of Rye and Hillandale Road property owner stated that he agreed with all of these residents. He reiterated that the Trustees of the Village have a responsibility to live within the framework of the resolutions that are on the books and every time a developer walks in, he always wants to squeeze in two more lots than he can legitimately and Board's are always asked to bend the rules. This sets negative precedents to preservation of the community. The reason Rye Brook was formulated 10 years ago, was to maintain a certain quality of life, open space and trees. The one thing that sets apart, Rye, Rye Brook and Harrison from many other communities is that when you drive down the streets there are mature trees, a sense of openness and you don't get the crammed feeling of a "Levittown." Mr. Newman added that by allowing setbacks that are not quite legitimate and culdesacs that are a little too close to the back lots, you expose everyone in the immediate area to future erosion of the quality of life. 7 September 14, 1993 Mayor Cresenzi stated that our Planning Consultant was given the letter written by David Watson to the Village Board, which we will discuss this evening. Thomas Gissen, of Frederick P. Clark Associates stated that there were many strong allegations in the letter regarding the content of the subdivision proposal and respectfully suggested that they are only allegations and are not substantiated based upon the review conducted by our office and the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board. The letter also urges that the Board reject the subdivision but does not provide any basis in the Code, which is what governs this subdivision process for doing so. He pointed out that only one variance and one waiver were requested, neither of which were identified by the developer, but by the letter suggests that there were many. When it was under review by the Planning Board we identified the need for a waiver at that time and the need for a variance based on lot depth, which is in part due to the fact that the lot depth and lot width definitions are fairly convoluted in the Village and in fact, that is a subject that the Zoning Code Update is studying so to make it more clear as this is not the first time we had a problem with them. The waiver and the variance were both deemed to be appropriate. Frederick P. Clark Associates supports the granting of the waiver for a deficient horizontal curve because the developer can complete the subdivision without the waiver by simply submitting a wider horizontal curve if the developer is prepared to do so. Mr. Gissen stated that in reference to the letter, it is admirable to seek the preservation of wooded areas and open space for legitimate public purposes. Proper ways of achieving these goals include that they are not limited to government or other entities paying fair market value for land and then preserving it. Frederick P. Clark Associates does not believe that it is proper to diminish market value of one persons private property without compensating that person for the primary purpose of providing another person with increased wooded backyard, which is proposed in the alternative proposal. Mr. Gissen stated that Mr. Watson alleged that we stated in our August 13, 1993 memorandum that it was difficult to determine if these trees were on the Messina property or on the adjacent properties. I would strongly say that this plan has not been looked at thoroughly, Mr. Gissen stated. It was conveniently left out that our office has indicated approximate location of these trees on our copy of the tree preservation plan. All of these trees could be preserved under the proposed site plan and we recommended that these protected trees in the outer twenty five feet perimeter of the entire property be preserved. That situation is easily remedied and can be done as a condition of site plan approval, simply preserving the trees that are in required yard areas so there is a strong misrepresentation just in i this area. Mr. Gissen added that in reference to the Wetlands Protection, the Village currently has not adopted a Wetlands Law. Under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act we have certain umbrella reviews to insure that damage to the wetlands is mitigated to the maximum extent possible that you do not end up with a substantial negative impact. If a local law existed, you might have more authority, but you don't. This wetland or the stream is used to catch drainage and other things but understanding that the Village had an interest in preserving that buffer area around the stream by developing the house a certain area from the stream. In regard to flooding, it was asserted in the Watson letter that dumping on the Lord property may have made off-site flooding worse. Regardless of whether or not this is true, the applicants only responsibility under law is to mitigate his own impact, not to solve his neighbors problems. These problems are no more the Messina's responsibility to solve than they are the Watson's problem to solve. 8 lo 9l September 14, 1993 Mr. Gissen added that the letter also stated that the developer's regard to subdivision laws and regulations as drafted by diligent citizens are mere recommendations to be discarded at the request of any developer. We agree that they should not be, but we also believe that neither should they be discarded by those advocating their own interests of property rights over property rights of an individual who is proposing to develop his property. Land use regulations are in a way a covenant between a municipality and a private property owner and are far more complicated and evenhanded. The granting of the variance which was minor in extent and principle designed to overcome a flaw in the way lot, width and depth are required to be measured in this Village resulted in permitting a subdivision design which is consistent with the design standards of the Village of Rye Brook subdivision regulations. Whether you have a five, six or eight lot subdivision they should not be gaining access directly from King Street. The result is, this subdivision calls for the development of a street. Unless there are public safety reasons why you don't want a lot of driveways spilling out multiple access onto a street busy like King Street, you have three choices where to put a street. You can put a street on one of the two sides or in the center and we don't believe that it is good subdivision design to run a street up either side of a subdivision, but in fact, better to run it up the center which has to do with the idea that a subdivision should impact itself rather than its adjoining neighbors. This is also recommended in Section 209-33E of the subdivision regulations which is against the creation of double frontage lots. Once you put this road in the middle, it yields the need for a minor variance, to one lot because you become slightly short on the lot width in order to create the co-complied lot, the road with a width and specifications recommended in the subdivision regulations and then another co-compliant lot in terms of lot depth. This is what resulted in a minor lot depth variance being requested. This lot is still twenty percent oversized and a house can reasonably fit in there not infringing upon either its front, rear, or side yards and in essence it would be very difficult to tell that a variance was given. The off site impacts don't exist. With regard to the letter's assertions regarding the authority of the Village Board of Trustees to modify the subdivision regulations, the modification requested by the applicant and recommended by the Planning Board and this office is governed by Section 21914A, not 21914B, which is alluded to in the letter. It is the only subsection under which the modification would be granted. Sub-section B applies to modifications to the zoning standards and is not applicable here. As to the waiver, which apparently is no longer being requested, the waiver that this office recommended when this Board asked that the through road be re-examined had to do with a horizontal curb. The subdivision regulations recommend 200 foot quarters on the curb, a slightly wider curb, eliminating the waiver. We recommended 150 feet based upon the Board of Trustees interest in seeing that this would come into the adjoining properties and come back out again and that is why we have recommended the waiver but it can be done either way. We found no basis in the code for imposing the letters reduced lot count alternative development proposal, more interestingly, could we determine that it would necessarily solve either the variance or the waiver problem, but would simply shift the development more towards King Street and leave the rear area preserved. Mr. Gissen added that this subdivision is consistent with what has been done in much of Rye Brook, the general suburban subdivision design and this subdivision design is absolutely what the Village of Rye Brook's Zoning Code and subdivision regulations dictate subdivisions should be like. We have found no basis for denial. Mr. Gissen stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. 9 September 14, 1993 Trustee Daly questioned what environmental questions were unanswered. Mr. Gissen referenced that the house on lot two be located a certain distance from the stream. This was what I meant by saying that a Wetlands Law does not exist but there is a certain authority under SEQR and that would be able to mitigate the proposal and would also leave that a house of a schematic size as proposed by the applicant would still be possible on this lot. It would shift that house basically up to its sideyard setback but they could have put it there anyway and would not create the need for any variance. Trustee Zuckerman stated that Mr. Gissen, in his memo, characterized that the neighborhood largely consisted of the King Street area and across the street are Magnolia and Comfy rather than the Hillandale Road area. It is my feeling that impacts here are in the Hillandale Road/Loch Lane Circle area and the memo should have addressed that more thoroughly. He questioned if Mr. Gissen had any explanation as to how he came up with that determination. Mr. Gissen stated that it is felt to be a King Street oriented subdivision. As the applicant has offered at the neighbors request, there is to be no access to Hillandale Road. All access is to come out to King Street and there are other subdivisions that come off to King Street in a like manner. Hillandale Road is a local street and has a different nature than the subdivisions off of King Street. Trustee Zuckerman stated that the traffic pattern is obviously onto King Street, but the backyard pattern and the activity in the neighborhood is on the lands immediately adjacent to all of those backyards. The memo did not deal with the properties surrounding the development area. Mr. Gissen stated that the Hillandale area consists of primarily significantly oversized lots whereas these are moderately oversized lots. I don't see much spillage going across the back line and if a person has a objection to that, especially when the development is consistent with the zoning and subdivision regulations, the person has the opportunity to buffer themselves from the visual impact through screening that they can provide. Attorney Powell stated that in reference to the variance, there is an issue of to what extent a Village Board can deal with a variance issue, being that variance power is really conferred upon the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was a separate issue regarding the reconfiguring of one of the lots, which is an important issue that should be considered. There are other issues regarding the timing of an application to the zoning board of appeals. The law is now pretty clear that you can go the Zoning Board of Appeals in advance of a ruling of an administrative officer. Whether prior to the legal change that can be done is an open issue, but tends to be a procedural issue. The question has to do with how the matter got to the Zoning Board of Appeals, not whether or not they could grant a variance. There are several other issues as to the proper wording of the resolution should the Board decide to vote on it this evening. Based on conversations between myself and Mr. Gissen, and Administrator Russo today, I prepared a sheet of proposed changes for your consideration which can be distributed to the Board. Mayor Cresenzi stated that in reference to the reconfiguration of lot seven, he is convinced that it will eventually need to go back to the Zoning Board to be reviewed in another hearing because that lot has been altered. Mayor Cresenzi questioned the opinion of the Village Attorney. 10 TIO September 14, 1993 Attorney Powell agreed and stated that there was some ambiguity there. David Watson stated that in terms of the"code, it says in 219-10, ,only approved by the Trustees in accordance with the procedures and requirements" which to me is different than recommendation. Also in another section it states that designs "shall comply" and he questioned if Mr. Gissen could point out where it says these are recommendations. Mr. Gissen stated that in 219-14 it says, "as compared to the Zoning Code, which can only be changed by variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals." The subdivision regulations makes clear that this Board has the authority to modify those standards, however they do not have the authority to modify the Zoning Code. Mr. Watson stated that Mr. Gissen also said that there was no reference to the Village having the authority to preserve wetlands and if you look at 219-30132, it states that existing natural features can be preserved, such as wetlands. Mr. Gissen stated that what he said was that the Village does not have a specific Wetlands Law, which would provide you with additional authority. Many communities have adopted Wetlands Laws and very few have adopted Rock Formation Laws. A resident questioned if it was the consultant's opinion that this Board has not the authority to protect wetlands or other aesthetic features without a specific ordinance to that effect. Attorney Powell stated that the reference to Wetlands in the subdivision regulations gives you some authority over them, but what Mr. Gissen was mentioning is that many communities have very elaborate regulations governing wetlands, which cover wetlands and also an area C surrounding wetlands, called the wetlands buffer and you can do certain things within the buffer i and the wetlands itself but are required to have a permit to disturb any area in the wetlands or wetlands buffer. Mr. Rotfeld stated that we are preserving the stream and the County Planning Department has reviewed this applicaiion and had nothing adverse to say about it. Trustee Zuckerman questioned if the County reviewed the plans as well. Mr. Berner stated that he delivered the plans to the County. Trustee Solomon asked Attorney Powell to review the culdesac issue. Attorney Powell stated that the subdivision regulations make a distinction between what is a permanent and a temporary turn-around and whether there is provision made for future continuation of either a through street or a loop. The distance requirement for a road does not apply in the case of a temporary turn-around, but it does apply in the case of a permanent culdesac. The idea is that the adjoining property may not be developed at this point and when you make the provision for a continuation of the roadway, it is considered temporary in that sense. Whether or not the adjoining property is going to be developed at a particular time, the regulations don't make that distinction. If a provision is made for a continuation, it would be deemed to be a temporary culdesac within the meaning of the regulations. There is no provision in the regulations as to time periods. 11 September 14, 1993 Trustee Pellino stated that in the original plans, there was a permanent culdesac originally proposed and as discussions evolved, at the suggestion of the Village Board in compliance with the idea of good planning practice for"future development, this Board recommended to the developer to fit in the appropriate right-of-ways up to the property line to see future development potential. Mr. Harrison stated that our argument simply is that it is our view that this should not be done, regardless of what the experts say can be done legally. Cynthia Schoss stated that in reference to the temporary or permanent culdesac, in section 21943B2, it states that it requires that the adjacent property be undeveloped. The adjacent property in question currently has a house on it. Mr. Gissen stated that from a planning point of view, the intention is to future subdivision and contemplates property that is undeveloped in the sense of potential for development and that there should be some significant amount of development that could be proposed on that. There are very few undeveloped parcels that have no development on them. This is a standard condition that is within the subdivision regulations in many of the communities of Westchester `r County. The intent is designed towards lots where the roadway would be in the interest of the Village or municipality involved so that you would not end up with two culdesacs. Attorney Powell stated that the work undeveloped is in the eyes of the beholder. The sense of the regulation is to make provisions for loop or through streets where it can be thought that in the future they will be needed when development occurs. Trustee Pellino reiterated that it was at the direction of the Village Board that the right-of-way be extended to the property line. Cynthia Schoss stated that she was under the impression that the lot that we are speaking of could not be developed further without variance and waivers because it was a flag lot and already developed to its maximum potential unless yet another developer came before the Board seeking yet more variances and waivers. Mr. Watson stated that on page 3 of the June 21, 1993 memo, Mr. Gissen states, 'Based on our review of the concept of the through road as presented to my office, it appears that existing structures and/or topographical conditions of the property will preclude the ready development of a through road." Mr. Gissen stated that the Planning Board determined, based upon our review, that topographical conditions and the existing structures would preclude the ready development of the other lot if there were impediments to it. We determined that there could be some future development and for that reason, the Board determined that it was in their interest to have that option open because the structures might be torn down so as to get a better subdivision design. Mr. Hoff stated that it seems that by putting this easement in it will enable another developer to come in and put more houses up and create more cluttering in this neighborhood. He asked to send the opposite message and keep our Village from being too cluttered. 12 t_�aG I September 14, 1993 Mr. Gissen stated that if they were not able to do a culdesac, it might result in the loss of a lot because they would have to put their road out through the side. Culdesacs have many attractive features and tend to slow traffic down. The disadvantages of them is that they are single access only. Mr. Hoff stated that, as Trustee Zuckerman already stated, the outlook of the whole land is more like Hillandale and not King Street. He questioned if Mr. Gissen looked at the adjoining properties that run on the same side of King Street from Hillandale Road almost all the way down to Loch Lane and the sizes of the lots and the inconsistencies that this subdivision will create in the lay of the area. Mr. Gissen stated that it is true that there are some oversized lots on King Street in this vicinity as well. It is within your Rye Brook North or South study that zoning boundaries and development should not be done across the street from each other and a street should not be the breaking point between development patterns rather backyard to backyard should be because that is the opportunity to buffer and these lots are facing and accessing from King Street, therefore, we felt they were more closely tied to that area. The ones we used in the area, we were using to show the historical pattern of subdivision approval that has occurred through the Village. He pointed out, again, that the subdivision is consistent with the zoning and all of the lots are between 17% and 25% oversized. If this Board feels that the zoning in the area is incorrect, then the Board should consider rezoning that area. ? Mr. Hoff reminded the Board, that with all due respect to Mr. Gissen, his profession is to enable construction and planning of the community, so please listen to the residents and look at the lay of the land. Mayor Cresenzi stated that, with all due respect, we have already had four or five meetings and whenever the Board has to make a decision, you make one person happy and another unhappy. We always try to treat everyone fairly and make sure that they have been listened to and so far that has r worked. This meeting is becoming like another public hearing and the public hearing was closed f many months ago. We have taken the suggestions and concerns raised by the residents very seriously because we have had each consultant state their opinion to the Village Board. Mr. Hoff stated that he knows that the Board has reviewed this completely and given the residents the opportunity to be heard, but this is the first time that he has heard the comparison of this development to the adjoining properties that are oversized and not to Magnolia. Mayor Cresenzi stated that this came out during the Public Hearing and Trustee Zuckerman and I disagree on it. Trustee Zuckerman feels that this project is very closely tied to Hillandale Road whereas, I feel that it is very closely tied to King Street. As pointed out by Mr. Gissen, this is consistent with our current zoning regulations and all of the lots are oversized. There is an R-15 in the front and an R-20 in the back. If we were to entertain a rezone of the Hillandale Road and Loch Lane area, I would not have a problem of upzoning that area, but it should follow property lines and especially the rearyard property lines so as to eliminate the problem of a zoning line dissecting a property line. Mr. Hoff stated that this proposed subdivision will put two homes adjacent to his property and two homes adjacent to the property into the back and it just does not seem to be in the best interest of that neighborhood. 13 September 14, 1993 Mr. Berner respectfully pointed out and asked if it would be appropriate, having the map of Hillandale Road in front of him and knowing that Trustee Zuckerman is on Lot 6B,C and that this subdivision could impact Hillandale Road, he wondered if Trustee Zuckerman would agree to abstain from voting. Trustee Zuckerman stated that he objected to Mr. Berner calling into question his objectivity here. It had previously been reported to him that there were certain persons in the Village who question his objectivity regarding this subdivision, since he resides on Hillandale Road and if he felt that he could not be objective, he would abstain from the vote. Since his home is on the other side of the street, he does not feel that it personally impacts his home, he will not see it and it is not in his general area. In the past, a matter regarding the Gamson property came before this Board, which was directly across the street from my home and with the best interest of the Board in mind, I abstained from voting. That situation does not occur here and I will not abstain from voting on this matter. Mr. Berner stated that he only questioned how Trustee Zuckerman felt about abstaining, he heard the answer and respects it, but disagrees with it. Trustee Solomon stated that throughout his very short time on this Board, he has made it perfectly clear that he is very opposed to maximum development in the Village of Rye Brook as it impacts upon the residents around the project as well as the rest of the Village and time and time again, decisions where variances and waivers are made have come back to haunt this Board, past Boards and will haunt future Boards. This project, to me, is a maximum development project. Mr. Gissen stated that it is within the power of this Board to call for the rezoning of an area, therefore I would 6 like to call for a motion that we declare a moratorium in this Village on development of any kind t and study this Village to see what should be upzoned or downzoned now, before maximum development gets so out of hand that we are trapped by developers into building anything that they want and the green areas that we have cherished will all disappear and that is my motion. Mayor Cresenzi pointed out that in reading the resolution, there are no waivers or variances requested from this Board. The only variance that has been requested is from the Zoning Board and we had an earlier discussion, at which time we stated that if we were to approve this subdivision tonight, it would have to go back to the Zoning Board to be reheard on lot seven. As I stated earlier, I have no problem with rezoning the Hillandale area. However, following the recommendations of Mr. Gissen, rearyards would determine the zoning district lines and not the middle of properties, which wouldn't impact this project. Trustee Solomon stated that every variance adds up to a point where we will not be able to defend ourselves when we finally decide to say no to a variance. At some point you want to be able to say no to a project. Trustee Pellino pointed that we have said "No" to projects before. Trustee Solomon agreed that we have said no to a few projects, however we have several projects coming up soon and if we say no to a project, we may be hit with an Article 78. This project, may be one of those projects, that is why I call for a moratorium to really look at this Village and see what areas you want upzoned and down zoned for the benefit of this community. Trustee Zuckerman questioned if it was legal to declare a moratorium this way. 14 September 14, 1993 Attorney Powell explained that it is not this simple. The Village would need to adopt a local law to declare a moratorium. Trustee Pellino stated that this Board does not have the power to grant variances, the Zoning Board of Appeals are only able to do that. He added that this application is being used as a whipping post against the Board and the applicant. Trustee Solomon pointed out that once a subdivision is granted it is too late to do anything. Mayor Cresenzi pointed out that it is unfair to put the entire Village on hold and added that lot seven was the only one needing a variance. Trustee Solomon made a motion to declare a moratorium, and Mayor Cresenzi asked if anyone wanted to second the motion. No one wished to second the motion. Attorney Powell reviewed the changes that were made in the resolution and added that this was an unlisted action and that we would adopt the accompanying environmental declaration. Mr. Gissen stated that the provision regarding the protection of the brook is consistent with his recommendations of review of the Tree Preservation Plan. It has to do with lot number two and t protection of the stream area and we have had some discussion back and forth regarding protection of wetlands. Jim Donovan, of our Environmental Division, identified that area which is based upon the topography and the location of the stream so the battery would not be disturbed in that little microwetland there. That is if this Board feels that it is worth preserving for its own ecological value, it is rather small, and would not necessarily be regulated under even those communities that have wetlands regulations, but it would provide some protection for the functional values of that wetland and that is wiry we recommended that. Mayor Cresenzi questioned how this related to what Mr. Gissen wanted to change. He questioned if this works out to be 20 feet if you go to the 170 contour. + Mr. Gissen stated thai it changes to the 170 foot contour and we feel that it is more site specific than just arbitrarily saying twenty feet. It preserves that portion of the lot and the conceptual house shown on that lot can be placed in that area and still not infringe upon the sideyard setbacks on the other side. Trustee Zuckerman questioned what was meant by disturbance. Mr. Gissen stated that it is not just the house, that area would be fully protected. Trustee Zuckerman questioned if a future homeowner will understand that he can't build in that area and if the property was going to be marked with 170 foot contour line. 15 y966 September 14, 1993 Mr. Gissen stated that if the Board approves this condition of the resolution, it would go into the subdivision plan and presumably carried forward so that the buyers would be able to see that. There is another condition about the resolution being available to every purchaser. This is by no means full proof. There are other communities with whom our firm works with that have established clearing and grading limit lines or where you have buffer line that are shown on the plan and we see them back before the Board all the time because they are violated and the owners always claim that no one told them and half are telling the truth and half violated on purpose. If the Board feels that 20 feet if more appropriate, then that may be more readily enforceable. Trustee Zuckerman questioned how Mr. Circosta felt about this, since he is the one who will be enforcing this. Mr. Circosta replied that the areas of disturbance need to be shown on the subdivision plat and we need to define what that disturbance is because in previous subdivisions we did get into trouble with those areas, however the areas should be marked out on the drawing and there probably should be a distance from the brook. Mayor Cresenzi stated that it is much easier to understand twenty feet from the brook rather than I getting into the middle of the brook and the entire Board agreed. r. Mr. Gissen stated that from an enforcement point of view, that will make things easier. Attorney Powell stated in reference to the temporary turn around and the preservation of that land f that in the event that the road is constructed through the subdivision, there is a question about what 4 happens to the essentially surplus land which has now been eliminated as needed for road purposes. This provision provides that the portion of the surplus land adjacent to lot three, four, five and six, would revert to those lot owners when the road is constructed. Trustee Pellino pointed out that this is per Subdivision Regulations 219.31132. Mayor Cresenzi questioned who would be responsible for payment when the road modification change takes place and the asphalt pavement has to be removed. Attorney Powell repled that you would usually require the new developer to pay for that. In reference to item #3, there is a minor revision which has to do with the Tree Preservation Plan and would provide for a further revision of the plan to. be submitted, which was suggested by Frederick P. Clark Associates. Mr. Gissen explained that this deals with the twenty-five foot area of significant trees that we would request be preserved. They are minor modifications and they don't change the lot configuration. This would provide some buffering and would remain as a tree area. There is a question of where exactly the property line is and we just don't want these trees disturbed. It is not truly a buffer area where you cannot use it for anything. You can plant lawn, landscape and do other things, however the significant trees located in that are would be preserved. It would provide some buffering and. it would not remain as a naturally wooded area, but it would remain as a tree area. Mayor Cresenzi stated that the Tree Ordinance already provides for that. 16 September 14, 1993 Mr. Gissen stated that we are saying, which relates to the criticism that we received earlier where it appears that there may have been trees on the lot, we are saying that it should be ascertained whether all those trees are on the lot and then they should be preserved. If any have not been identified on the plan then they should they should be shown as being preserved in the event that the applicant fails to identify diem. If they are on the adjoining property there is no impact. It is correct that this doesn't do anything more than the Tree Ordinance would do but if those trees were not identified, it leaves no ambiguity if they were not shown. Attorney Powell stated that item #4 has to do with the contingency of the grant of a variance for lot seven devised if disapproval is contingent on the grant of a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in respect to the average lot depth of lot seven as it has been reconfigured and the plat shall not be signed unless and until the variance is granted. Mr. Circosta stated that there may be a problem with what this resolution says about no disturbances, if the requirements for the subdivision would require some physical work within the stream bed. Mr. Gissen stated that an exception could be added and he would rather an easement be talked about being granted to the Village that would specifically include that initial work that the Village would do and that initial work would be subject to review by the Building Department. Attorney Powell stated that he thought the consensus was to leave that provision regarding 4c, the way it was, which basically restricts the location of the house. It doesn't say anything about working in the brook. If you are going to ask for a drainage or easement in the brook itself, I think you k should add another provision to the resolution. He suggested that a new item #14 be added to read as follows: "An easement shall be provided to the Village satisfactory to the Village Attorney and recorded, granting the Village the right to improve and maintain the brook for drainage purposes prior to the signing of the plat." k Mayor Cresenzi and the Board of Trustees agreed to add item #14 to the resolution. Trustee Zuckerman stated that even after all of the presentations, he has several problems with the subdivision, however the problem that he would like to discuss revolves around the procedure by which the variance on lot seven was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The resolution which was signed by the Zoning Board of Appeals by which approving the variance states three grounds and one condition. The grounds are: it is a reasonable use of the property, the Planning Board has indicated that it will approve the subdivision as the best possible use for the property and that there is no opposition from members of the community. The condition is that the final subdivision is approved by the Board of Trustees. Trustee Zuckerman stated that his objection to the procedure followed by the Zoning Board of Appeals lies with the initial jurisdiction that was exercised in the hearing of this application. The law, as it was in existence in May required an area variance which this was, to be heard only upon appeal from the Village Official charged with jurisdiction over the matter. In effect, the Zoning Board of Appeals is not a Board of original jurisdiction. As of July of 1993 the law has been changed so that if a proceeding takes place, it can in fact go to the Zoning Board of Appeals as a matter of original jurisdiction, but that was not the case in May. The fact that the law had to be amended, to me, indicates that in May, the applicant could go directly to the Zoning Board of Appeals. More importantly, it seems that the recommendation from the Planning Board seems to be the sole rational for the Zoning Board of Appeal's jurisdiction. 17 I ; September 14, 1993 Trustee Zuckerman pointed out that there was no independent inquiry regarding the granting of the variance. The Village Law clearly states that in granting an area variance, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted as weight against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. The Zoning Board of Appeals, in granting an area variance shall grant the minimum variance that shall be necessary and adequate and, at the same time, preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. I don't believe that the Zoning Board of Appeals did that in this instance and there seems to be an attitude that in every development we must try to see what the maximum number of houses are that could be put on any piece of land, which automatically becomes the best use. Maybe our procedures need to be changed, but my view is that the Zoning Board of Appeals needed to make an independent determination apart from the Planning process in looking at this potential variance and it did not. That made the process of the Zoning Board of Appeals fatally defective and that the variance, therefore, was improperly granted. The resolution states that the condition of the approval is that the final subdivision be approved by the Board of Trustees and I know that the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the variances, but in this case, did they really grant the variance if ultimately it is up to the Village Board to approve or disapprove. Had the Zoning Board of Appeals inquired more carefully and weighed these factors, required by Village Law, they may have said the only reason that they need a variance on this property is that they need to get one more house in. If they didn't need to get one more house in, they wouldn't need the variance, therefore, it is solely an economic reason. It is not because of any other astringent factor that they needed the variance, it the one more house which is what I object to. Please consider this very carefully when voting on this proposal. Trustee Zuckerman added that there was a statement that there was no opposition from the community. There was no opposition because at the time, there was a lack of knowledge. The fact that nobody showed up, and the fact that the Planning Board felt it was okay, apparently meant that there was no detailed inquiry, which I believe it was the duty of the Zoning Board of Appeals to perform according the statute in the Village Law. Trustee Zuckerman further stated that the variance was invalid, because of this. Mayor Cresenzi stated that Trustee Zuckerman is saying that the Zoning Board of Appeal members did not do their job. Trustee Zuckerman stated that he is saying that there are certain standards that should have been applied, and had they been applied, we may have come up with a different result. Mayor Cresenzi stated that he disagreed with Trustee Zuckerman and had the Zoning Board not done their job, we should have filed an Article 78 against them from day one. Trustee Zuckerman added that he did not know if we received sufficient information from the Zoning Board of Appeals to do that. Trustee Pellino stated that when we come to a vote on this resolution and it is written in the affirmative, so if it is approved, one of the newest conditions of the resolution is that lot seven go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals so there is the opportunity for the Zoning Board to re-open that question if they choose to, and I would hope that they would. It may end up that there is no lot. seven. What we are voting on right now, is the approval of the subdivision with all the lots included so I think the Zoning Board of Appeals will have the opportunity to investigate the lot seven issue and come to a determination. 18 qql l September 14, 1993 On Motion made by Trustee Daly, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE MESSINA SUBDIVISION Section 1, Block 7, Lots 3B-4, 3B-5, 3C-4, 3C-5 WHEREAS, an application for approval of a subdivision plat titled: "Subdivision of the Messina Property," representing an 8-lot subdivision of a 4.86 acre tract with frontage on King Street in the Village of Rye Brook, has been submitted by Donald Messina and Paul Messina; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel is classified R-15 and R-20 Residential under the Zoning Law of the Village of Rye Brook; and WHEREAS, the tract currently has two existing single-family residences of which one dwelling is to be demolished; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees referred the application to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation and the Planning Board on February 11, 1993 recommended conditional approval of the application; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 1993, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance in respect to the lot depth of Lot 7; and k WHEREAS, final subdivision application consists of the following plan sheets: i a. Subdivision Plat of the Messina Property, originally prepared March 26, 1990, last revised on August 4, 1993, prepared by Richard A. Spinelli, Land Surveyor (1 sheet); b. Grading Plan, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); C. Utility Plan, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); d. Erosion Control Plan, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); C. Drainage Study Map - Tributary Areas, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); f. Profiles Control Structure and Access M.H. Details, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); g. Details, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); 19 to 10 September 14, 1993 h. Tree Preservation/Street Tree Plan, originally prepared July 14, 1993, by Horseman & Lester with a latest revision date of August 16, 1993; WHEREAS, the final plat shows the establishment of seven new single-family residence lots and an existing residence with a road to be constructed ending in a cul-de-sac and the plat is to be revised to show an additional unimproved right-of-way extending from the cul-de-sac in a generally southerly direction to the property line of the adjoining parcel, to make provision for a road interconnection in the future with an adjacent parcel, which road and unimproved right-of-way are intended by the applicant to be offered for dedication to the Village; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 22, 1993, as required by the Village Law and Village Subdivision Regulations, on the said subdivision application at the Village Office, Rye Brook, at which time all persons wishing to be heard on the application were provided an opportunity to be heard, and the Village has received a referral recommendation from the County Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the applicant has offered and acknowledged that an assessment district to construct a drainage improvement regarding a condition on Loch Lane would also benefit the tract and has agreed that the tract may properly be included in such assessment district if the Village deems such action desirable; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that a park or recreation facility cannot be suitably located on the subject tract and that a need for recreation facilities exists in the Village of Rye Brook, therefore, a recreation fee shall be paid in lieu of such land reservation; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form submitted in reference to this application and has determined that the action is an Unlisted action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the within action is found to be an Unlisted action and the accompanying negative environmental declaration is adopted; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Donald Messina and Paul Messina for approval of a final subdivision plat as shown on the plans identified above is hereby granted and the Mayor is authorized to sign the final plat subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE PLAT IS SIGNED 1. The applicant shall pay a recreation fee in the amount of $46,270 prior to the signing of the final plat. If not paid within 90 days after the effective date of this Resolution, the recreation fee shall be determined in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time the applicant requests that the approved final plat be signed. 2. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee in the amount of three (3%) percent of the cost of improvements, as determined by the Director of Public Works, prior to the commencement of any construction or the signing of the final plat, whichever is first requested by the applicant. If not paid within 90 days after the effective date of this Resolution, the inspection fee shall be determined in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of payment. 20 September 14, 1993 3. A performance bond in a form acceptable to the Village Attorney and approved by the Board of Trustees shall be posted in the amount of one hundred (100%) percent of the total cost of the site improvements, as determined by the Director of Public Works prior to the signing of the final plat. The performance bond shall provide that all improvements shall be completed within three years from the effective date of this Resolution. If not posted within 90 days after the effective date of this Resolution, the amount of the performance bond shall be reviewed by the Board of Trustees to determine if it is still adequate. 4. The final plat shall be revised to show: a. A fifty foot right-of-way extending in a generally southerly direction from the cul-de- sac to the property line of the adjoining parcel identified on the plat as now or formerly of Marcel Perlman, with a radial curve of not less than 200 feet, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; b. A note shall be placed on the plat stating that access to and from the lots shall be from Messina Lane only. r r C. A note shall be placed on the plat that the proposed house on lot 2 shall be located not r less than 20 feet from the brook on the lot and complying with all yard setbacks in the k district to avoid potential disturbance of the brook. d. A note shall be placed on the final plat stating that the drainage easements shown hereon shall convey to the holder of fee title of the street the perpetual right to discharge storm water runoff from the street and surrounding area onto and over the affected premises by means of pipes, culverts or ditches, or a combination thereof, together with the right to enter said premises for the purpose of making such installations and doing such maintenance work as the holder of such fee title may deem necessary to adequately drain the street and the surrounding area. r+ e. A note shall be placed on the final plat stating that the sight easements shown hereon shall convey to the holder of fee title to the abutting streets the perpetual right to enter the easement area for the purpose of clearing, pruning or regrading so as to maintain a clear line of sight in either direction across such triangular area between an observer's eye three and five-tenths (3.5) feet above the pavement surface on one street and an object one (1) foot above the payment surface on the other. The initial establishment of clear sight lines within the site easement area shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. f. Zoning boundaries shall be shown on the final plat to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, and a note placed on the plat as follows: "Existing zoning boundaries as of (the date of such revision)." g. A note shall be placed on the plat that the area of the temporary turnaround outside the 225 foot horizontal curve of the through road shall revert to adjoining property owners of Lot Numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the event the through road is constructed. The side lot lines separating Lot 3 from Lot 4, Lot 4 from Lot 5, and Lot 5 from Lot 6 shall be shown as extending to the 225 foot outer horizontal curve of the proposed through road, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 21 �I� l September 14, 1993 5. The final plat, revised as required above, shall be endorsed by the Westchester County Department of Health prior to signing by the Mayor. 6. The applicant shall, prior to the signing of the plat, prepare and submit a revised Tree Preservation Plan satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 7. In order to ensure that access to the Messina Subdivision shall be from King Street only, prior to the signing of the plat, the applicant shall submit a covenant to run with the land satisfactory in form and content to the Village Attorney, providing that all existing easements from the parcel to Hillandale Road shall not be used for access by the owners of the lots and shall record the covenant with the final plat. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit proof satisfactory to the Village Attorney that said easements have been extinguished and the instruments extinguishing the easement have been recorded. 8. Prior to the signing of the plat, the applicant shall submit proof satisfactory to the Director of Public Works that applicant will be able to obtain road opening approval from the State tt� and any other applicable public agency for the connection to King Street (Route 120A). i. 9. Prior to the signing of the plat, the applicant shall submit proof satisfactory to the Director of Public Works that the applicant has received all necessary approvals for water and sewer j connections from all applicable public agencies. OTHER CONDITIONS 10. In any construction, the noise regulations of the Village of Rye Brook will be strictly complied with. 11. The applicant shall submit five (5) copies of the final plat showing the endorsement of the v County Clerk-to the Director of Public Works within thirty (30) days of the date of filing. 12. The applicant shall furnish a copy of this final subdivision approval Resolution to each purchaser of a lot in the subdivision prior to the transfer of title and shall present verification that such notice has been given to the Village Attorney in the form of a receipt signed by the purchaser. 13. This approval is contingent on the grant of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals in respect to the average lot depth of Lot 7, as Lot 7 has been re-configured, and the plat shall not be signed unless and until the variance is granted. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this approval of a final subdivision for the "Messina Subdivision" shall expire 90 days after the effective date of this Resolution unless the final subdivision plat has been filed with the Westchester County Clerk or an extension of this conditional final approval has been granted by the Board of Trustees; and be it 22 September 14, 1993 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall have an effective date of September 14, 1993. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING NAY TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING NAY MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE Mr. Heller pointed out that according to this resolution, if the Zoning Board of Appeals did not approve lot seven, would they have to come back to the Village Board with a new site plan. Trustee Zuckerman stated that if they deny lot seven, the whole subdivision would fold. Attorney Powell stated that the provision says the plat will not be signed unless the variance is granted, so according to this resolution, they would have to come back. If this is not the intention of the Board, we should amend this. C On Motion made by Trustee Daly, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION f I AMENDED CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE "[ MESSINA SUBDIVISION Section 1, Block 7, Lots 311-4, 3B-5, 3C-4, 3C-5 WHEREAS, an application for approval of a subdivision plat titled: "Subdivision of the Messina ' Property," representing an 8-lot subdivision of a 4.86 acre tract with frontage on King Street in the Village of Rye Brook, has been submitted by Donald Messina and Paul Messina; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel is classified R-15 and R-20 Residential under the Zoning Law of the Village of Rye Brook; and WHEREAS, the tract currently has two existing single-family residences of which one dwelling is to be demolished; and WHEREAS, the Village Board of Trustees referred the application to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation and the Planning Board on February 11, 1993 recommended conditional approval of the application; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 1993, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance in respect to the lot depth of Lot 7; and WHEREAS, final subdivision application consists of the following plan sheets: 23 qq��1 September 14, 1993 a. Subdivision Plat of the Messina Property, originally prepared March 26, 1990, last revised on August 4, 1993, prepared by Richard A. Spinelli, Land Surveyor (1 sheet); b. Grading Plan, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); C. Utility Plan, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); d. Erosion Control Plan, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); e. Drainage Study Map - Tributary Areas, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); f. Profiles Control Structure and Access M.H. Details, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); g. Details, originally prepared April 4, 1988, last issued August 16, 1993, by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C. (1 sheet); h. Tree Preservation/Street Tree Plan, originally prepared July 14, 1993, by Horseman & Lester with a latest revision date of August 16, 1993; WHEREAS, the final plat shows the establishment of seven new single-family residence lots and an existing residence with a road to be constructed ending in a cul-de-sac and the plat is to be revised to show an additional unimproved right-of-way extending from the cul-de-sac in a generally southerly w direction to the property line of the adjoining parcel, to make provision for a road interconnection in the future with an adjacent parcel, which road and unimproved right-of-way are intended by the applicant to be offered for dedication to the Village; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 22, 1993, as required by the Village Law and Village Subdivision Regulations, on the said subdivision application at the Village Office, Rye Brook, at which time all persons wishing to be heard on the application were provided an opportunity to be heard, and the Village has received a referral recommendation from the County Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the applicant has offered and acknowledged that an assessment district to construct a drainage improvement regarding a condition on Loch Lane would also benefit the tract and has agreed that the tract may properly be included in such assessment district if the Village deems such action desirable; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that a park or recreation facility cannot be suitably located on the subject tract and that a need for recreation facilities exists in the Village of Rye Brook, therefore, a recreation fee shall be paid in lieu of such land reservation; and 24 01 September 14, 1993 WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has reviewed an Environmental Assessment Form submitted in reference to this application and has determined that the action is an Unlisted action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the within action is found to be an Unlisted action and the accompanying negative environmental declaration is adopted; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the application of Donald Messina and Paul Messina for approval of a final subdivision plat as shown on the plans identified above is hereby granted and the Mayor is authorized to sign the final plat subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE PLAT IS SIGNED 1. The applicant shall pay a recreation fee in the amount of$46,270 prior to the signing of the final plat. If not paid within 90 days after the effective date of this Resolution, the recreation fee shall be determined in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time the applicant requests that the approved final plat be signed. r 2. The applicant shall pay an inspection fee in the amount of three (3%) percent of the cost of improvements, as determined by the Director of Public Works, prior to the commencement of any construction or the signing of the final plat, whichever is first requested by the applicant. If not paid within 90 days after the effective date of this Resolution, the inspection I fee shall be determined in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of payment. 3. A performance bond in a form acceptable to the Village Attorney and approved by the Board of Trustees shall be posted in the amount of one hundred (100%) percent of the total cost of the site improvements, as determined by the Director of Public Works prior to the signing t of the final plat. The performance bond shall provide that all improvements shall be completed within three years from the effective date of this Resolution. If not posted within 90 days after the effective date of this Resolution, the amount of the performance bond shall be reviewed by the Board of Trustees to determine if it is still adequate. 4. The final plat shall be revised to show: a. A fifty foot right-of-way extending in a generally southerly direction from the cul-de- sac to the property line of the adjoining parcel identified on the plat as now or formerly of Marcel Perlman, with a radial curve of not less than 200 feet, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; b. A note shall be placed on the plat stating that access to and from the lots shall be from Messina Lane only. 25 LIN September 14, 1993 C. A note shall be placed on the plat that the proposed house on lot 2 shall be located not less than 20 feet from the brook on the lot and complying with all yard setbacks in the district to avoid potential disturbance of the brook. d. A note shall be placed on the final plat stating that the drainage easements shown hereon shall convey to the holder of fee title of the street the perpetual right to discharge storm water runoff from the street and surrounding area onto and over the affected premises by means of pipes, culverts or ditches, or a combination thereof, together with the right to enter said premises for the purpose of making such installations and doing such maintenance work as the holder of such fee title may deem necessary to adequately drain the street and the surrounding area. e. A note shall be placed on the final plat stating that the sight easements shown hereon shall convey to the holder of fee title to the abutting streets the perpetual right to enter the easement area for the purpose of clearing, pruning or regrading so as to maintain a clear line of sight in either direction across such triangular area between an y observer's eye three and five-tenths (3.5) feet above the pavement surface on one f street and an object one (1) foot above the payment surface on the other. The initial establishment of clear sight lines within the site easement area shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. f. Zoning boundaries shall be shown on the final plat to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, and a note placed on the plat as follows: "Existing zoning boundaries as of (the date of such revision)." j g. A note shall be placed on the plat that the area of the temporary turnaround outside the 225 foot horizontal curve of the through road shall revert to adjoining property owners of Lot Numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the event the through road is constructed. The side lot lines separating Lot 3 from Lot 4, Lot 4 from Lot 5, and Lot 5 from Lot 6 shall be shown as extending to the 225 foot outer horizontal curve of the proposed through road, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 5. The final plat, revised as required above, shall be endorsed by the Westchester County Department of Health prior to signing by the Mayor. 6. The applicant shall, prior to the signing of the plat, prepare and submit a revised Tree Preservation Plan satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 7. In order to ensure that access to the Messina Subdivision shall be from King Street only, prior to the signing of the plat, the applicant shall submit a covenant to run with the land satisfactory in form and content to the Village Attorney, providing that all existing easements from the parcel to Hillandale Road shall not be used for access by the owners of the lots and shall record the covenant with the final plat. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit proof satisfactory to the Village Attorney that said easements have been extinguished and the instruments extinguishing the easement have been recorded. 26 y1 !7 September 14, 1993 8. Prior to the signing of the plat, the applicant shall submit proof satisfactory to the Director of Public Works that applicant will be able to obtain road opening approval from the State and any other applicable public agency for the connection to King Street (Route 120A). 9. Prior to the signing of the plat, the applicant shall submit proof satisfactory to the Director of Public Works that the applicant has received all necessary approvals for water and sewer connections from all applicable public agencies. OTHER CONDITIONS 10. In any construction, the noise regulations of the Village of Rye Brook will be strictly complied with. 11. The applicant shall submit five (5) copies of the final plat showing the endorsement of the County Clerk to the Director of Public Works within thirty (30) days of the date of filing. 12. The applicant shall furnish a copy of this final subdivision approval Resolution to each purchaser of a lot in the subdivision prior to the transfer of title and shall present verification that such notice has been given to the Village Attorney in the form of a receipt signed by the purchaser. C 13. This approval is contingent on the grant of a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals in respect to the average lot depth of Lot 7, as Lot 7 has been re-configured. If the variance is not granted, the plat shall be signed without the existence of Lot 7; and be it I FURTHER RESOLVED, that this approval of a final subdivision for the "Messina Subdivision" shall expire 90 days after the effective date of this Resolution unless the final subdivision plat has been filed with the Westchester County Clerk or an extension of this conditional final approval has been granted by the Board of Trustees; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall have an effective date of September 14, 1993. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE Trustee Daly was excused at 11:30 p.m. due to the fact that the person taking care of her child fell 27 September 14, 1993 DISCUSSION 3. REZONE OF HAWTHORNE AVENUE Mr. Gissen, Frederick P. Clark Associates, stated that on May 27, 1993 he sent a memorandum to the Board of Trustees regarding various zoning amendments for the possible adoption of a new zoning map and some amendments within that. Based upon discussion that took place with the Village Administrator and others, we understood that there might be an interest in pursuing a zoning analysis and possible rezoning for one or more areas which included Hawthorne Avenue and also the Anderson Hill/King Street area. Mr. Gissen added that we have looked at each lot on Hawthorne Avenue, based upon the tax maps that were available to us. If you were to zone from R7 to R10, to R-12, to R-15 to R-20 the initial part of the study that we are undertaking is to look at how many lots would you make non-conforming because, while it may be appropriate to bring them up, it does not constitute good planning if that were to result in 90% of the lots maintaining deficiencies. Trustee Zuckerman questioned what would be an appropriate percentage. Mr. Gissen stated that already some of the lots are non conforming and it is really a judgement call and it is really a matter of what von-conformances are being created. Mr. Gissen added that those lots are generally pre-existing non conforming lots, and those requiring a variance, a balance would be preferred if it is a matter of lot width, for example that you may decide is less of a problem than if it has to do with setbacks to an existing structure. Basically we reviewed all lots on Hawthorne Avenue and we believe with perhaps the exception of the lots that actually front out onto the adjoining streets, that all of those are appropriate for a study. In undertaking a rezoning, you could do a number of things. You can pursue the rezoning and, given a time table, if you would like certain information available by a certain date make a decision"by some date after that. This will take much serious discussion. Another possibility is to identify that area specifically for a limited term moratorium with an extension period so you can study it and have the opportunity to study it a little more thoughtfully and not have to feel that you had to make a decision when you didn't feel you were ready to do so. Trustee Zuckerman questioned the percentage of non conformity based on the size. Mr. Gissen stated that he would estimate that approximately half of the lots would maintain some non conformity and that is why it is important to look at that if you wanted to go up that high. The issue isn't just nonconformity, but the impact of nonconformity against the ability of individuals to rezone their property. Trustee Zuckerman stated that first you need to start with the area size before you get into where the nonconformities are. 28 September 14, 1993 Mr. Gissen stated that they are all important because the other ones naturally have a greater impact on the ability of a person to make a minor adjustment to their home, such as a nursery or a deck. If you had conforming yard setbacks plus twenty feet in certain areas, but you had a deficient area, you wouldn't need a variance to add on a deck or a nursery because as long as you didn't create a non-conformity where one previously didn't already exist. Bob Davis of 8 Hawthorne Avenue asked for a clarification for the change between R7 and R15 setbacks. Mayor Cresenzi stated that the R15 has a front rearyard setback of 40 feet, and a side yard setback totalling 40 feet with 15 feet being the minimum. They get a little bigger, but do not change dramatically. Jim Sapione of 28 Hawthorne Avenue stated that time is of the essence. Dr. Gentile stated that there has been a concern in this area for a long time about whether to take on these builders case by case or to rezone the area. The average lot size in the area is about 21,920 feet and we are in an R7 Zone. Obviously, we are significantly underzoned. A 6 builder can come in, according to the current zone, build and maximize. However, if you have kl a zone itself that is inappropriate to the area, then you have an enormous discrepancy. The ambiance of the area will be totally changed. There is a major concern that since it is underzoned, it is highly attractive to builders to come in and build three homes where only one is appropriate to the area. This is simply not an R7 zone. Dr. Gentile added that it is his understanding that if a builder begins to submit plans to build, there is a sixty day ruling that the Board has to come to some determination. Mr. Sapione stated that if the clock has already started to tick, the Board should really impose a moratorium. Trustee Pellino stated he would like to obtain an original copy of the code to see what the zoning was and why and when it was changed to 7,500. Mayor Cresenzi questioned if there was any justification from a planning point of view as to why someone would make an area R7. I Mr. Gissen stated that there could have been a desire to encourage development back then. Also, there is a theory of planning where you move gradually from smaller lot sizes to larger lot sizes. Another argument that this Board may want to consider is when you have an area that is fairly fully built out to a larger lot size than is on the zoning district, is there something unique to that particular area that is worth preserving. Hawthorne Avenue is unique in the lower portion of the Village and has a distinctive character which may be worth preserving in the southern part of the Village. i i 29 September 14, 1993 Trustee Pellino questioned if legally, this could be done based on historical/architectural reasons for rezoning an area upward and also the term "spot zoning" was just used and he further questioned what literally constituted "spot zoning." Attorney Powell stated that there is no specific definition, it is really zoning without regard to a comprehensive plan and zoning as to a specific site for the benefit of the property owner rather than the interest of the Community. Mayor Cresenzi instructed Attorney Powell to look into the different legal issues. Trustee Pellino questioned the upward zoning of one large block, which Hawthorne Avenue is, an if this is a spot zoning issue or not. Attorney Powell stated that he would look into that. He questioned what legal issues the Board would like him to research. Mayor Cresenzi directed Attorney Powell to look into the moratorium issue. Peter Murray of 762 King Street owner of the property at 6 Hawthorne Avenue, stated that he went through a huge lawsuit against the Village, who fought vigorously for a line between subdividing his property from the R7 to R2F and the Village won. Now, in bad faith, the Village is attempting to confiscate my property rights. If the intention was to rezone the property five years ago, then that is the course of action that should have been taken. There was probably good reason for the property being zoned R2F. Mr. Murray added that in January, he sent a letter to be referred to the Planning Board and nothing has happened since. Now, the Village is attempting to rezone the whole area, damaging my property rights. Mr. Harrison stated that he wrote the letter requesting a rezone prior to Mr. Murray purchasing 6 Hawthorne Avenue. The request by the community constitutes a confiscation of his property. Dr. Gentile stated that the intent of the petition was not targeted toward any particular property. We are here this evening to determine what the area should look like. The fact that it took Mr. Murray forty years legally is a signal that if you cannot build case to case and you can fine line every single regulation and setback all you want, but you will get community response each time unless you have a higher method about what an area should look like. Trustee Zuckerman agreed with Dr. Gentile and what he is referring to is master planning. Development of a master plan for the Village, takes into account each specific area, its own characteristics and determines what should be there on a long range basis. In order to do this, we will need very accurate maps of whole areas and unfortunately, we have not been successful in obtaining those. We are not only speaking of Hawthorne Avenue, but where we want to put different facilities in the future, where we want our Village Offices to be some day, where we want our recreational facilities, parks, open spaces and various activities. This can only be done by involving the entire community in a lengthy process which must be started soon. The master planning process encompasses uses as well as how large the properties should be. i 30 September 14, 1993 Mr. Gissen stated that the master planning process is a more involved process, including changing of zoning districts while the uses remain the same as well as changes in the uses. It involves an analysis which is a little more thorough and looks at a variety of things such as your sewer capacity and what density is appropriate from everything from neighborhood aesthetics to the capacity of the roads. Mr. Sapione reiterated that the issue is one of the clock and being that the property at 6 Hawthorne Avenue will be on the next meeting agenda to be referred to the Planning Board, we must decide what to do now. He thanked Trustee Zuckerman in his deliberations with regard to the Messina property. Bob Davis pointed out that it is his understanding that the reason that this area was zoned 2 family was so Mr. Walder's chauffeur could live over the garage. We are not speaking of one piece of property, probably 14 of the 19 pieces of property on Hawthorne Avenue are suspect of being rezoned and used for multi-family. Mayor Cresenzi stated that Mr. Gissen will continue to make recommendations to the Village Board and Attorney Powell will review the legal issues that would be involved and have information available to us for the next Village Board meeting on September 28, 1993. Attorney Powell stated that the Board must deal with the subdivision application even if we decide to adopt a moratorium. Trustee Solomon questioned if we voted on a moratorium, would this project be grandfathered under the old zoning. Attorney Powell stated that the moratorium and the rezoning are separate from a specific application. Mayor Cresenzi stated that the clock does not start running until the application is referred to the Planning Board, which has not yet been done. Mr. Gissen suggested that the Board wait until Attorney Powell completes his research. Mayor Cresenzi stated that he was informed by the previous Village Attorney, that you could change the zoning up until the time the shovel went in the ground, so there are differences in opinion. Mr. Sapione suggested that to allay the fears of the Hawthorne Avenue residents to really stop the clock on this issue by putting a moratorium in effect. If the clock is not stopped and the research concludes accurate in time limit, in which Mr. Murray's rights supersede the rights of the community, it would all have been in vain. Mayor Cresenzi disagreed with Mr. Sapione and added that prior to stopping anything, we need the legal advice regarding a moratorium. 31 September 14, 1993 Attorney Powell stated that if the Village chose to declare a moratorium we need to discuss exactly what the scope of it would be, what it would apply to and for what period of time would it be in effect. Trustee Zuckerman stated that basically, we are talking about halting all building permits for subdivisions and variances on existing homes. He added that we should get down to this master planning process as quickly as possible. Mayor Cresenzi agreed that we definitely need a master plan and asked Mr. Gissen if his office was involved with master planning. Mr. Gissen stated that he could supply the Village with the master plan of New Castle which is complex or Fishkill which is limited and were both handled by Frederick P. Clark Associates. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #5-1993 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 158 NOISE ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ESTABLISH HOURS DURING WHICH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MAY BE OPERATED On Motion made by Trustee Solomon, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the public hearing was adjourned to the September 28, 1993 meeting. TRUSTEE DALY VOTING AYE TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE DISCUSSION 2. PLANNING PROCESS Mayor Cresenzi announced that this discussion would be held over to the September 28, 1993 meeting. Trustee Pellino requested a special meeting for next week to deal with items that were not dealt with tonight. He added that at the September 28, 1993 meeting, he would like to recommend that the Board resolve the Recreation Commission and the Birthday Committee responsibilities. This must be resolved before the end of September so that plans can be made if we elect to go forward with a Village Birthday party and Run next year. c 32 f U `1 c September 14, 1993 Trustee Zuckerman suggested that we meet three times a month from now on. Mayor Cresenzi stated that he agreed and stated that perhaps we should meet four times a month. Trustee Solomon stated that he did not have a problem with meeting more often, but perhaps we could meet earlier than 8:00 p.m. 5. AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY FOR COMPOST CIRCULATION EQUIPMENT On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION WESTCHESTER COUNTY COMPOSTING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the County of Westchester has conducted a Composting Equipment Circulation Program whereby the County provided the Village of Rye Brook with specialized composting equipment and trained operation personnel; and WHEREAS, said equipment consists of a Compost Shredder and Compost Turner; and WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook has used this equipment over the past years with significant results; and WHEREAS, the County of Westchester has waived payment for Refuse Disposal District #1 for the term of this contract commencing on April 2, 1993 and terminating on December 31, i 1993. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT i RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook, in an effort to continue a successful composting �I program hereby agrees to enter into a contract with the County of Westchester; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby authorized, this 14th day of September 1993 to execute said contracts in order for the Village of Rye Brook to rent this equipment on an as needed basis. f TRUSTEE DALY ABSENT TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE I f 33 i September 14, 1993 7. APPROVING DONATIONS TO THE ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION FUND RESOLUTION On Motion made by Trustee Zuckerman, seconded by Trustee Pellino, the following resolution was hereby adopted: APPROVING DONATIONS TO THE ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION FUND RESOLVED, that donations in the accompanying fist are hereby accepted for the Anthony J. Posillipo Community Center Reconstruction Fund: ANTHONY J POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION FUND Leonard Fiorilli $50.00 16 Berkley Court Briarcliff Manor, NY 10562 Rye Brook Seniors $166.00 c/o Village of Rye Brook 90 South Ridge Street Rye Brook, NY 10573 Brookfield Salvage $331.94 (Scrap Metal) Total of this resolution..................................$547.94 TRUSTEE DALY ABSENT TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 8. BUDGET MODIFICATION RECREATION DEPARTMENT (INDOOR CENTER) On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following resolution was hereby adopted: 34 f September 14, 1993 RESOLUTION BUDGET MODIFICATION RECREATION DEPARTMENT (INDOOR CENTER) RESOLVED, that $2,250 be hereby transferred from the Contingency Account #101.1990.424 to the Indoor Center Account #101.7180.100 for the purpose of reinstating the supervisor for the Drop In Center. FROM TO 101.1990.424 101.7180.100 (Contingency Account) (Indoor Center) TRUSTEE DALY ABSENT TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 9. BUDGET MODIFICATION RECREATION DEPARTMENT (BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION) On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION BUDGET MODIFICATION RECREATION DEPARTMENT (BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION) RESOLVED, that $2,850 be hereby transferred from the Birthday Account #401.2389.238 to the Seasonal Maintenance/Attendants Account #101.7140.150 for the purpose of reimbursement for personnel expenditures for the Birthday Run and Celebration. FROM TO 401.2389.238 101.7140.150 (Birthday Revenue) (Seasonal Maintenance/ Attendants) f TRUSTEE DALY ABSENT TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE I 35 ' Lf` ; September 14, 1993 10. AWARDING CONTRACT #9308 TRAILER MOUNTED LEAF LOADER On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT #9308 TRAILER MOUNTED LEAF LOADER WHEREAS, the Village of Rye Brook conducted a competitive bidding procedure on Contract #9308 for the furnishing and delivering of one Trailer Mounted Leaf Loader; and WHEREAS, one bid was received on this contract which bid was publicly opened and read aloud on September 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, Trius Inc. submitted the lowest bid at a bid price of$19,486.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Contract#9308 for the furnishing and delivering of one Trailer Mounted Leaf Loader is awarded to Trius, Inc., Bohemia, New York for the amount of $19,486.00. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution. TRUSTEE DALY ABSENT TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 11. APPROVING BOND RESOLUTION ACQUISITION OF LAND On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $11,375 CAPITAL NOTES AND $216,033 SERIAL BONDS OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR THE VILLAGE OF I RYE BROOK PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL FINANCE LAW OF NEW YORK j 36 September 14, 1993 RESOLVED, by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Rye Brook, New York as follows: Section 1. The Village of Rye Brook shall issue it Serial Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of$216,033 and Capital Notes in the amount of$11,375 pursuant to the Local Finance Law of New York in order to finance the specific object or purpose hereinafter described. Section 2. The specific object of purpose (hereinafter referred to as "purpose") to be financed by the issuance of such Serial Bonds and Capital Notes includes and is limited to the following purpose to be undertaken or completed during or after the year 1993; the acquisition of land on Ellendale Avenue in the Village of Rye Brook. Section 3. The Board of Trustees has determined and hereby states that the estimated maximum cost of such purpose is $227,408 and that it plans to finance such cost by the issuance of Capital Notes in the amount of $11,375 and Serial Bonds in the amount of $216,033 as authorized by this resolution, and except as hereinbefore stated, no monies have been authorized to be applied for the financing of such purpose. Section 4. The Board of Trustees hereby determines (a) that the purpose for which said bonds are to be issued is set forth in subdivision 21 of paragraph (a) of Section 11.00 of said Local Finance Law and that the period of probable usefulness of said purpose is thirty (30) years; (b) The proposed maturity of the Serial Bonds hereby authorized is in excess of five (5)}ins; and (c) No part of the cost of the purpose authorized by this resolution has been or shall be specifically assessed on property specially benefitted thereby. Section 5. Subject to the terms and contents of this resolution and the Local Finance Law and pursuant to the provisions of Sections 30.00, 50.00 and 56.00 to 60.00 inclusive of said law, the power to authorize bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the issuance of Serial Bonds authorized by this resolution and the renewal of said notes, the power to sell and deliver said Serial Bonds and any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of said bonds is hereby delegated to the Village Treasurer, the Chief Fiscal Officer of the Village. The Village Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign any Serial Bonds issued pursuant to this resolution and any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the issuance of said Serial Bonds and the Village Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal to any of said Serial Bonds or bond anticipation notes and to attest such seal. Such execution/attestation by the Village Treasurer and the Village Clerk may be by a facsimile signature provided that such bonds or bond anticipation notes are authenticated by the manual countersignature of a fiscal agent or a designated official of the Village. The authority to designate such fiscal agent or designated official is hereby delegated to the Village Treasurer. 4 1 E 37 r i September 14, 1993 Section 6. When this resolution shall take effect in the manner provided by law, it shall be published in full by the Village Clerk together with a notice in substantially the form prescribed by Section 81.00 of said Local Finance Law and such publication shall be in the Westmore News, a newspaper having a general circulation in said Village, and published in the County of Westchester and State of New York. The validity of said Serial Bonds or of any bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation of the sale of said Serial Bonds may be contested only if such obligations are authorized for an object or purpose for which said Village is not authorized to expend money, or the provisions of law which should be complied with at the date of publication of this resolution are not substantially complied with, and an action, suit or proceeding contesting such validity is commenced within twenty (20) days after the date of such publication, or if said obligations are authorized in violation of the provisions of the constitution of the State of New York. Section 7. This resolution is subject to a permissive referendum in accordance with the provision of Article 9 of the Village Law of the State of New York. TRUSTEE DALY ABSENT TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE f 12. APPROVING HUMANE SOCIETY AGREEMENT Trustee Zuckerman questioned if this could be held over to the next meeting. Administrator Russo explained that we really need to do this as soon as possible. We worked all the details out and we also solicited information from the New Rochelle Humane Society. The Westchester Shore Humane Society is completely under new management. We have held meetings with them and they are offering completely authorized wildlife control which no one else could offer us in addition to random patrol plus on-call service. This is the best deal for this Village. They are going to assure us that we will get proper patrol. We have them sign in at the Police Desk and we monitor them more closely and spot check them. They log in and log out. The problems we had were with the management of the Humane Society. Administrator Russo added that the contract provides tremendous service to our residents for a very good price. k On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Solomon, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH WESTCHESTER SHORE HUMANE SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES k 38 i r E I September 14, 1993 WHEREAS, Agricultural and Markets Law provides that the Village shall provide for certain animal control services; and WHEREAS, the Westchester Shore Humane Society has proposed such agreement to provide those services and additional services including provisions for handling all wildlife and the continuation of random patrol. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of Rye Brook is authorized to enter into an agreement with the Westchester Shore Humane Society, Inc. for the period of September 1, 1993 to May 31, 1994 at an amount not to exceed $11,962.50 for the provision of animal control services; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is authorized to execute and deliver all documents necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution. TRUSTEE DALY ABSENT TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE 13. PERSONNEL MATTERS This item was held over to the next Village Board meeting. 14. CHECK REGISTER E On Motion made by Trustee Pellino, seconded by Trustee Zuckerman, the following resolution was hereby adopted: RESOLUTION CHECK REGISTER WHEREAS, the following checks, representing payment for services rendered, have been submitted to the Treasurer's Office for payment and have been certified to by the Village Administrator; On-Line Checks: 7368-7485 E Payroll Checks: 10821-11014 Manual Checks: 7199, 7200, 7360-7365 Environmental: 388-389 Recreational Trust: NONE Capital Pre Paid: NONE Capital 2064-2074 i i 39 i i i September 14, 1993 NOW, THE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this board hereby approves payment of the above-mentioned claims and authorized payment thereof. Trustee Zuckerman requested that a status report be provided concerning ongoing litigation and questioned if the computer class that Kathy Latella was taking was related to word processing. Administrator Russo stated that he would look into a status report and replied that the computer class was for Lotus and WordPerfect. TRUSTEE DALY ABSENT TRUSTEE PELLINO VOTING AYE f TRUSTEE SOLOMON VOTING AYE TRUSTEE ZUCKERMAN VOTING AYE MAYOR CRESENZI VOTING AYE Mayor Cresenzi stated that we would discuss the sidewalks near the Port Chester Middle School also at the September 21, 1993 meeting. i WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 15. GEORGE O'HANLON, VILLAGE ATTORNEY VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER RE: ALARM FINES/COLLECTION This item was held over to the next Village Board Meeting 1 NEXT MEETING DATE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 219 1993 - 6:00 PM. SPECIAL MEETING RE: MATTERS CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 219 1993 - 7:30 P.M. RE: PC/RYE BROOK LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING RELATING TO FIRE SERVICES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 289 1993 - 7:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING {th4 P f II 40 �tol 31 September 14, 1993 ITEMS FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28TH PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #5-1993 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING CHAPTER 158 NOISE ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ESTABLISH HOURS DURING WHICH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MAY BE OPERATED 2. PROPOSED LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY #4-1993 ENTITLED: A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE ZONING LAW OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK TO ADD A NEW SECTION 66-35 AND TO REPEAL OR AMEND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING LAW AND OTHER LOCAL LAWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REGULATIONS 3. CONSIDERING AGREEMENT FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICES WITH THE VILLAGE OF PORT CHESTER RESOLUTIONS 4. MODIFYING SECTION 240.19 OF RYE BROOK VILLAGE CODE PARKING RESTRICTIONS 5. REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL SECTION 1, BLOCK 15, LOT 38 6 HAWTHORNE AVENUE 5. REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD SITE PLAN APPROVAL/SIGNAGE RIDGE BOWMAN ASSOCIATES SECTION 19 BLOCK 19, LOT 3B-2 9 90 SOUTH RIDGE STREET DISCUSSION 6. ANTHONY J. POSILLIPO COMMUNITY CENTER RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 7. PORT CHESTER/RYE BROOK AMBULANCE CORP. 24 HOUR SERVICE PROPOSAL h 41 i qcl 3 Septembe 14, 1993 I 8. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION COUNCIL PROPOSED WETLANDS LAW ADJOURNMENT Mayor Cresenzi adjourned the Village Board Meeting at 12:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, El azi eth Bottali Secretary to Village Board I i I i I 42