Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning File Planning Board Meeting single-family home by RMG Architects for the Tigani residence at 2Edgewood Drive. addition, new wood deck and demolition of a single story in rear at an existing 3. Review of a site plan application for a second story addition, two-story rear the Stiler residence at 18 Hillandale Road. front portico to an existing single-family home by Brad Demotte Architects for 2. Review of a site plan application for (3) one story additions, multiple decks and North Ridge Street. single-family home by Darcy Gibson Architect for the Papp residence at 79 1. Review of a site plan application for a second story addition of an existing NEW BUSINESS: UNFINISHED BUSINESS: for the Tigani residence at 2 Edgewood Drive. 4. Acting on setting a public hearing for Site Plan application by RMG Architects Architect for the Papp residence at 79 North Ridge Street. 3. Acting on setting a public hearing for Site Plan application by Darcy Gibson the property at 13 Knollwood Drive. 2. Acting on the application for a Site Plan submitted by Mr. William Luceno for property at 18 Rocking Horse Trail. 1. Acting on the application for a Site Plan submitted by Mr. Malek Samad for the RESOLUTIONS: submitted by Mr. William Luceno for the property at 13 Knollwood Drive. 2. Public Hearing regarding a site plan for an addition to the single family home single family home submitted by Mr. Malek Samad for the property at 18 1. Public Hearing regarding a site plan for demolition and construction of a new PUBLIC HEARINGS: ROLL CALL: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2005 VILLAGE HALL, 938 KING STREET PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MINUTES REGULAR MEETING 1 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting corrected and they are ok at this point. My other comments were with the Storm Water up a discrepancy as far as the amount of trees being removed – but that has been schedule – I did not see the second schedule – in terms of tree protection – I had picked provided a photograph – we felt the rendering was important. As for the planting south side of the house as to what the neighbor would be looking at – the applicant has Mrs. Mohamed – In terms of retaining walls – we asked for a visualization looking at the addresses all the issues. believe thatadded as requested and the hay bales around the stockpile area have also been added. I will be a 2 x 2 yard drain in the southwest corner of the house added. There is a silt fence the side of the house at the neighbor’s request. Mr. Samad met with Mr. Carosi – there schedules – one for evergreens and one for the others. We have mixed up the plantings on - 2 foot walls and we have added screening to reduce the impact. There are 2 planting There was an issue on retaining walls – the walls are shown on the site plans – there are 2 Mrs. Mohamed believes it to be 93. We defer to the Building Inspector on that issue. response. A request for clarification of the average grade – we believe it to be 94 and We have a recent memo from Mrs. Mohamed and have copies for the Board of our Mr. Demotte – this is our third meeting here and we believe we have all issues addressed. residence. plans. This is application for demolition of a one story residence and rebuild a 2 story First item on agenda is 18 Rocking Horse Trail. Applicant has submitted revised site Next Planning Board meeting is November 10, 2005. Board members and staff and advised the Public of the rules of the meeting. Chairman opened meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Agatston introduced Victor Carosi – Village Engineer Mike Nowak – Jr. Village Engineer Jennifer Porter – Village Attorney STAFF: Mrs. Marilyn Timpone Mohamed – F P Clark Chairman Agatston Mrs. Romano Mr. Winter Mrs. Fredman Mr. Zuckerman Mr. Grzan PRESENT: Mr. Accurso experience with amended zoning code section 209-1 2. Report and recommendation to the Board of Trustees as to the Planning Boards regarding nonconforming uses, structures and lots. 1. Review of proposed Local Law amending Chapter 250 of the Village Code DISCUSSION ITEM: 2 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Chairman asked for comments from the Board. Motion made by Mrs. Romano and seconded by Mr. Grzan Chairman asked for a motion to accept the resolution. Resolution read into minutes. conditions 1 – 3 – 7 and 8 have been satisfied. Chairman asked Mrs. Porter to read the resolution into the minutes and noted that Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Motion made by Mr. Zuckerman and seconded by Mrs. Fredman Chairman Agatston asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. None from either. Chairman asked for comments from Public. Chairman Agatston – asked for Board comments. trucks. Mr. Carosi – there is grading on site – may be balancing from site – but yes about 10 Mr. Accurso – so about 10 dump trucks Mr. Carosi – 15-20 years per truck Mr. Accurso – 204 yards of required fill is required – how many trucks would that be? Mr. Carosi – yes – in the front. Mr. Accurso – there is substantial grading regarding? erosion control recommendations with the use of hay bales and they have complied. additional dry wells on the property. Beyond that we have instilled some additional have complied. The rest of the calculations for storm water are adequate. There are 3 the home – we asked for the yard drain to capture any additional standing water – they protect the downstream properties from run off – a good portion of the grading is toward proposed walls are compliant. We looked at storm water – it was our opinion that to stone walls – the walls are going to be built with concrete and will 2-3 feet at most. The We are all within a foot of each other and the project is compliant. We also looked at the the new dwelling. The calculation was 93.6 – so we are talking about a small difference. average grade – the actual calculations were done by me. We took 17 data points around walls and the Storm Water Management. We looked at the height of the building and the Mr. Carosi – as far as the Engineering Review – we looked at the grading, the retaining Mrs. Mohamed – we have done this in other applications and it can be addressed. can control that but be can discuss it. Chairman Agatston – we do have a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Handler. Not sure how we recommend that the neighbor to the South be involved in approving that landscaping. requested to have them staggered – the row of plantings is the problem – I would actually the plantings – the owner of 14 Rocking Horse made a comment about the plantings – he of discuss that. In terms Management and Erosion Control and I believe the Engineer will3 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting plantings. Chairman Agatston – the only thing is working with the neighbor to the South on the evening? We want to confirm. Mrs. Whitehead – the only revisions are the ones that the architect addressed this Chairman Agatston – lets leave 6 in as #2 and let’s vote on it. Mr. Carosi – I say leave it – we don’t have the plan before us. Chairman Agatston– I will defer to Victor. know why we need it here. Mr. Grzan – we should delete old number 6 – we have never had a number six and don’t Engineer. Chairman Agatston - #4 which is now #1 is with the Consultant and #2 is with the the 2 conditions and giving final approval – Mr. Zuckerman – I still have a problem with the 2 – but if the Board is comfortable with Chairman Agatston – are we ready for a vote – we now have 2 conditions. approval – old number 6 is now #2 and stays as originally drafted. Mrs. Porter – old number 4 has been revised to be new #1 and adding the term - and Chairman asked Mrs. Porter for which items are in the conditions. Mr. Carosi – it is an easily identifiable issue – we can handle in house. Mr. Zuckerman – one is a revision and one is an approval of that revision. Chairman Agatston – we are taking out number 2. Mrs. Fredman – I withdraw my amendment to the resolution. Mr. Zuckerman – the architect asked if we want a 3-D mock up or are we satisfied. Mrs. Mohamed – if you are comfortable now – you can vote now – if you are not…. now? Mr. Grzan – if they are going to provide this rendering at a future time – how can we vote requested was for your benefit so that you can visualize. determination – that that is fine – you can eliminate that condition. The rendering I Mrs. Mohamed – if the Board feels that the photo and rendering are adequate to make the Mr. Carosi – This is more of a Planning matter – maybe need some more bedding. responsibility – are you satisfied? Chairman Agatston – Victor – since these are issues that are your Departments conditions are all satisfied. new home with some technical problems originally – we need to be sure that these approving the resolution with any of these conditions because we are giving approval to a engineer are satisfied with the picture I am ok with that – but I do have a problem received paperwork just before the start of the meeting if the board and the Village have a problem with issuing resolutions with conditions – and especially since we just Mr. Zuckerman – there was 8 original conditions of which we have disposed of 4. I still walls. planning on providing anything more – these are only 2 foot walls – they are staggered Mrs. Whitehead – represents the applicant – we have provided a rendering – were not something is going to come in – something is going to happen. add – and approval by the planning consultant of a rendered elevation – that way Mrs. Fredman requested to redo the resolution – on new #1 after the word provision – rendering from the applicant. Mr. Grzan asked about Item 2 regarding the word provision – this had to do with the 4 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting the Applicant in connection with the application, including an Environmental , the Planning Board has reviewed the information submitted by WHEREAS erosion and sediment control; andsteep slopes, tree preservation and protection, storm water management and recommendations regarding building height and bulk, grading and retaining walls, Planning Board have reviewed the information submitted and made , the Village Planning Consultant, Village Engineer and the WHEREAS Assessor’s Map as Section 129.75, Block 1, Lot 3 in the R-15 Zoning District; and at 18 Rocking Horse Trail, Rye Brook, New York, designated on the Tax requesting site plan approval to construct a new residence on the property located Garfinkle to the Village of Rye Brook pursuant to Chapter 209 of the Village Code Malek Samad has made an application on behalf of Gilbert WHEREAS, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD FOR 18 ROCKING HORSE TRAILAPPROVING A SITE PLAN RESOLUTION October 27, 2005 __________ Mrs. Porter – re read the resolutions as follows: Chairman Agatston – does everyone understand the resolution? Mrs. Whitehead – we will try to work it out. Mr. Winter – it will come back here if they can’t work it out. here? Mr. Zuckerman – if we do that and there is a disagreement – then how does it come back Chairman – the resolution is on the floor. just let Marilyn deal with this. Mr. Winter – do you care what type of plants as long as there is a mixture – we should Chairman Agatston – this goes to item #4 of her memo. Mrs. Whitehead – we are satisfied. Chairman Agatston – I agree – are we satisfied with that as a condition. weeks – but it is not up to anybody but the Planning Board. or the neighbor. The disagreement should be resolved here – and if not today then in 2 Mr. Zuckerman –who is the approval authority here – the Planning Board, the consultant Chairman Agatston – would be glad to hear from him. and the mixing of the plants. Mrs. Whitehead – we would prefer not to have to do that. This plan shows the staggering 5 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting or machinery, or dumping of construction debris.” storage of construction equipment, vehicle parking, movement of workers vegetation protection areas: grading, excavation, stockpiling of materials, that all construction activities including the following are prohibited within on the site to indicate areas of protected vegetation. The signs shall indicate Revision of Note #8 on Sheet A002 to read “Warning signs shall be located 2.Village Planning Consultant. Frederick P. Clark Associates dated October 19, 2005 and approval by the recommendations in Item #4 of a memorandum to the Planning Board from Revision of the Landscape Plan by the Applicant according to the 1. residence at 18 Rocking Horse Trail subject to the following conditions: Board hereby approves the site plan for a new Planning Village of Rye Brookfor reasons stated herein, the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, water management facilities. and storm water management on the lot will be improved by installation of storm height and retaining walls, as many existing trees as practicable will be preserved landscape plantings will be employed to mitigate the visual impacts of building reduced to minimize visual impacts, construction on steep slopes will be avoided, , the extent of grading and heights of retaining walls were WHEREAS Planning Board closed the public hearing on October 27, 2005; and an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said application and the hearing on the subject application, at which time all persons interested were given , on September 22, 2005, the Planning Board opened a public WHEREAS the project; and , the Planning Board is familiar with the site and all aspects of WHEREAS Consultants and Village Engineer; and Assessment Form (EAF) and the reports and recommendations of the Village 6 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting to do with front and side yards among other things. The only thing I was asking is the there are a number of non consistencies here but they will not be changed and they have Mrs. Mohamed – Most of the comments in my previous memo have been taken care of – Chairman Agatston – asked for questions from the Board – none. This has to go to the Zoning Board and can be dealt with then of needed. changing its original height – it would remain at 24 feet and the max requirement is 30. not provided because it is an existing house and the height requirement – it is not shown – and that would be from the portico – the question on the horizontal circle was The 3 questions raised had to do with frontage – the requirement is 30 feet – 25.1 is being some zoning material that was not submitted – the architect could not be here tonight. item is rd restrictions that come with it – it would not be practical for this size lot. The 3property – the applicant desire not to have a Conservation Easement because of the within the buffer – the buffer extends about 95% so theoretically it would be the entire is the creation of a Conservation Easement nd property – we are in favor of doing that – 2is a recommendation that a silt fence for erosion control be pushed to the rear of the are all in agreement with. There are 3 items I would like to discuss tonight. The first item received a review memo from Mrs. Mohamed and I am happy that most of the items we higher ceilings without changing the height of the existing building or its ridge line. I exterior deck in the rear – a front portico and adjustments to the roof line to incorporate conforming house by virtue of the size of the property – proposed work includes a new Mr. Salinitro – representing applicant – 13 Knollwood Drive – this is a pre-existing non- Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Motion made by Mrs. Romano and seconded by Mr. Zuckerman. to hold a Public Hearing – Chairman asked for motion to open Public Hearing. Next item on the agenda – 13 Knollwood Drive – resolution approved at 9/22/05 meeting Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman No Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Motion made by Mrs. Fredman and seconded by Mrs.Romano approve. That is what needs to go in the resolution. Mrs. Fredman – the applicant will do the revision and the Planning Consultant will Chairman asked for a motion to accept the amended resolution. 7 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes and seconded by Mr. Zuckerman – Chairman asked for motion to close the Public Hearing – motion made by Mrs. Fredman Chairman brings up the issue of revised plans – applicant agrees. Mr. Salinitro agrees to reduce the deck 1% - 3 square feet to resolve the issue. applicant reduce the size of the deck to avoid the variance all together. be required at this point. The Board has it within its discretion to suggest that the Department in the interim has stopped requiring variances. 5 of the 6 variances would not this is part of the new local law that we will be discussing this evening. The Building Mrs. Porter – the original checklist indicated 6 variances for existing non conformities – Chairman asked for comments from the public – none. channel – I am sure there is some deterioration. Mr. Carosi – I can’t tell you that without further examination. It is an older stone line Mr. Winter – is the condition of the brook in that area poor? Is there any need for repair? plans. This is a dormer addition and no grading issues are involved. We are satisfied with the just recommend some additional silt fencing to protect stream bank during construction. addition there is a proposal to capture the deck run off as well. Sediment erosion – we will handle the run off from the roof area – this is an improvement. We are satisfied. In the revised plans and found that the plan is acceptable. He has installed 3 dry wells which Mr. Carosi – from an engineering perspective – Storm Water Management – we reviewed Chairman asked for any questions for Marilyn. – None address the Storm Water Management Plan. the Board. They provided a tree preservation protection plan and the Engineer will We believe they are appropriate and adequate. The conservation easement is really up to providing new planting – repair of the wall along the embankment and proper drainage. increase of impervious surface is the buffer is now only 91 square feet. They are also has removed an existing area of impervious surface that is no longer required so that the the applicant provide a plan that does not increase the impervious surface. The applicant provided a calculation of what will be disturbed during construction. We recommend that deck and the construction of the storm water management facilities. The applicant has – the east branch of the Blind Brook – or the buffer would be affected by the proposed Mrs. Mohamed – it should not be asked for – it should just be there. As far as the wetland Mr. Carosi – yes. Chairman – asked Mr. Carosi if that was part of the new check list. that we can just run down that list and see what is going on. It would be helpful if that zoning tabulation table should be a complete table – existing – proposed and required so 8 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Porter as follows: Chairman Agatston – on the motion for the resolution as amended read again by Mrs. Mr. Grzan – I agree but we should have made that requirement at the next meeting. Mr. Carosi – it is really just a formality. Voice vote – all agreed Chairman – motion to amend is to delete number 2 from the resolution. the Building Department anyway. Chairman Agatston – can we amend number 1 by just taking it out because it has to go to Mr. Winter – there is room here for change. sediment control and the zoning calculation tables. Mr. Zuckerman – would prefer not to have conditions – want to see the erosion and Mrs. Romano – the zoning table is not complete and he has to comply. applicant to go through adding additional plans. No need for it. Mr. Grzan – would like to remove number 1 – does not add anything. Don’t want the Mr. Accurso – concurs. Easement requirements. Mr. Winter – I am in agreement with the applicant about deleting the Conservation Discussion Motion made by Mrs. Romano and seconded by Mrs. Fredman Chairman Agatston asked for a motion to accept the amended resolution Mrs. Porter read the amended resolution into the minutes: we have a resolution – we can comment on this. Chairman – we did that on one property already and there was a good reason for it – once opinion. don’t put it on our parkland – how can we mandate our citizens? That is my personal matter – we should not advocate homeowners putting easements on their property. If we Mr. Accurso – with all due respect – I have a problem with the Conservation Easement 9 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Planning Board closed the public hearing on October 27, 2005; and an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said application and the hearing on the subject application, at which time all persons interested were given , on October 27, 2005, the Planning Board opened a public WHEREAS the project; and , the Planning Board is familiar with the site and all aspects of WHEREAS the Village Consultants and the Village Engineer; and Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and the reports and recommendations of submitted by the Applicant in connection with the application, including an Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), has reviewed the information , the Planning Board, as Lead Agency pursuant to the State WHEREAS management and erosion and sediment control; andconstruction monitoring, buffer mitigation plantings, tree protection, storm water buffer, mitigation for the disturbance in wetland buffer that includes post-recommendations regarding impervious surface coverage within the wetland Planning Board have reviewed the information submitted and made , the Village Planning Consultant, Village Engineer and the WHEREAS District; and Tax Assessor’s Map as Section 135.44, Block 1, Lot 62 in the R-10 Zoning property located at 13 Knollwood Drive, Rye Brook, New York, designated on the residence and construct a new deck and storm water management facilities on the approval and Chapter 245 requesting a wetlands permit to alter an existing Rye Brook pursuant to Chapter 209 of the Village Code requesting site plan William Luceno has made an application to the Village of WHEREAS, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD FOR 13 KNOLLWOOD DRIVEAPPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT AND SITE PLAN RESOLUTION October 27, 2005 __________ 10 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting three (3%) percent. conform to the impending surface coverage requirement for the deck of Revision of the plan to reduce the area of the deck by one (1%) to make it 5.replanted. to include the area of the rear yard adjacent to the watercourse to be Revision of the erosion and sediment control plan to relocate the silt fence 4.and maximum height requirements. Revision of the Zoning Tabulation Table to include frontage, horizontal circle 3. following conditions: the site plan and permit to perform regulated activities in a wetland subject to the , that the Planning Board hereby approves BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED ending the State Environmental Quality Review process; and Board adopts a Negative Declaration, hereby Planning Village of Rye Brookfor reasons stated herein, the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, improved by installation of storm water management facilities. will be protected and preserved, and storm water management on the lot will be special drainage facilities will be constructed for the deck, existing mature trees plantings will be installed, the rock rip-rap along the watercourse will be repaired, buffer has been reduced to the maximum extent practicable, additional mitigation , new impervious surface coverage within the watercourse WHEREAS 11 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Mrs. Porter read the resolution to hold Public Hearing on December 8, 2005 as follows: minutes. Chairman Agatston – asked Mrs. Porter to read resolution for Public Hearing into Chairman Agatston – asked for any questions. None Mrs. Mohamed – I have not done calculations yet. Mr. Winter – don’t we fall under the threshold? Mrs. Mohamed – explained by drawings. Mr. Winter – where are the steep slopes? Mr. Gibson – it is attic space only – that will be corrected on drawings. Mrs. Fredman – is this 2 and ½ story or not Chairman – correct. Mr. Zuckerman – this is a 75% item but yet we have a steep slopes permit issue as well. Chairman Agatston – questions from the board. Mr. Gibson – yes – we will. coming back with a complete application. report from our Consultants- we would like to schedule the Hearing subject to you matter. Our Board is unhappy with applications that are deficient – you have a complete move this meeting along. We are prepared tonight to call for a Public Hearing on this Chairman Agatston – applicant needs to address and come back to us. I would like to shown as well. of the house. This would require a steep slopes permit. Tree information needs to be home and I believe it is a mislabeling. There are steep slopes on the property at the rear most appear to conform to the requirements. Our code however does not allow a 2.5 story should be included on the site plan – the proposed alterations would increase the height – 2059 square feet which is less the maximum allowable. The zoning tabulation table Mrs. Mohamed – The addition would increase the gross floor area of the dwelling to application. The whole issue is the 75% rule. floor that will make the entire house 2100 square feet. That is the total intent of our bedrooms – wants to expand by 160 square feet to extend the kitchen and add a second Mr. Gibson – the existing house is less then 900 square feet - 1 story house with 2 residence at 79 North Ridge Street. addition of an existing single-family home by Darcy Gibson Architect for the Papp New Business – first matter – Review of a site plan application for a second story Next matter on the agenda. Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Chairman asked for a motion to approve the amended resolution. 12 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting with Section 250-40 of the Village Code regarding notification. , that the Applicant is directed to comply BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED requirements of SEQRA; and proposed action to be Type II, requiring no further review pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared by the Applicant, determines the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and after review of the , that the Planning Board, pursuant to the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED application for a steep slopes work permit and site plan approval; and p.m., at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider the Brook Planning Board shall hold a Public Hearing on December 8, 2005 at 8:00 , that the Village of Rye NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as Section 135.75, Block 1, Lot 37 in the R-5 Zoning District. North Ridge Street, Rye Brook, New York, designated on the Tax Assessor’s Map permit to construct additions to an existing residence on the property located at 79 requesting site plan approval and Chapter 213 requesting a steep slopes work Papp to the Village of Rye Brook pursuant to Chapter 209 of the Village Code G. Darcy Gibson has made an application on behalf of Istvam WHEREAS, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD STREET ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 79 NORTH RIDGE CONSTRUCT A STEEP SLOPES PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPLICATION FOR RESOLUTION October 27, 2005 __________ 13 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Chairman Agatston – we will see when we here from Mrs. Mohamed. issue. if the edge of the wetland is at the far most corner of the property – it really is not an on Mrs. Mohamed’s memo – everything has been addressed except 2 small issues. Even properties – we are questioning that. It is a moot point and I request it be waived. Based We have done the whole yard. Now you are requesting that we show trees on the adjacent purposes. Another issue – the check list says to list trees only in the limits of disturbance. protection around all the canopies except for the one closest to the house for practicality close to the house – it blocks the house – so this is posing a problem. We have tree we are not proposing any new trees. If you put a tree protection fence on a tree that is have an Arborist come in – both have issues and are not in hood health – based on that – our property. The trees – 2 trees were proposed to be removed – what we have done is branch of the Blind Brook. The maps that we have show that the Brook is to the West of – there is a discrepancy – Mrs. Mohamed says that in the back of the house is an east Mr. Demotte – We have adjusted the set backs – we are conforming – the wetlands issue Chairman Agatston – we will address that later. – not an existing house – is that correct? foot circle diameter was put on the site plan. That requirement should be on a new house regarding the garage – the garage is attached to the house – it is not detached. The 125 responded to and copies were given to the Board. There was a misunderstanding because of the 75% rule. Received a memo from Mrs. Mohamed which we have Mr. Demotte – representing applicant – went over what is being proposed – we are here Board has received an e-mail from Mr. Dean Stanton that explains his concerns. the Stiler residence at 18 Hillandale Road. front portico to an existing single-family home by Brad Demotte Architects for Review of a site plan application for (3) one story additions, multiple decks and Reconvene Chairman called for a 3 minute adjournment. Next matter – 18 Hillandale Road – Mr. and Mrs. Stiller to alter existing residence – Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Motion made by Mrs. Fredman and seconded by Mrs. Romano Chairman asked for motion to accept the resolution. 14 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting little smaller. You said that you could amend the site plan and submit it tomorrow. I Chairman Agatston – we will do a site visit and you might want to consider making it a Mr. Demotte – yes and there will be plantings to screen from the road. Mr. Accurso – right in front of the house? Mr. Demotte – 2 parking spots – 24 feet Mr. Accurso – how many cars will fit in the driveway or parking area? Chairman asked for further comments. driveway – I feel that it lends itself to having parked cars there and it is unsightly. Mrs. Gamson – 6 Hillandale Road – having seen the plan I was also struck with the Hearing. Chairman asked for comments from the public. Welcome to speak or can do so at Public Chairman Agatston – we can do a site visit on a weekend – aesthetically pleasing. There is only parking for 2 cars there – there will be landscaping and it will be Mr Stiller – we got the idea for the front of the house from other houses on the street. is a good idea. they are improving the property – but not real happy with the driveway. I think a site visit Chairman Agatston – Mr. Stanton will be here for the next meeting – he is happy that Mr. Demotte – there is no way to have a side entrance. impacts. Mrs. Romano – I would like a site visit and I am concerned about the front visual driveway and 3 car garage. Do we think a site visitation would be helpful? Chairman Agatston asked for any comments from the Board at this time as far as the the Boards attention for visual impact. They are within the zoning code for the addition. driveway for instance. He is within the percentage requirements but I am bringing it to develop a little further. The impacts in the front of this project are an issue – a larger office has not yet looked at the Storm Water Plan – we are waiting for the project to east branch of the Blind Brook – it starts up in the Arbors and works its way down. My Mr. Carosi – as for the stream – there is one – it is part of the headwaters that create the Chairman Agatston – asked for questions. None protected. The construction plan should also include equipment access routes. or stock pile items – you can potentially damage trees. Those trees should be noted and We are asking for trees within 30 feet of construction – if you are going to run equipment been removed with the proper permits – the architect will remove those from the plan. are a maximum of 3 feet. Tree preservation – there are 2 trees in the front yard that have There are steep slopes but the construction would not impact them. The retaining walls hundred foot buffer and that should be on the plan as well as the location of the stream. look over the property line you see a running stream – if there is a stream there it has a site plan as far as set backs go. As for wetlands if you go in the back of the property and maximum allowable gross floor area. The adjacent residents should also be shown on the Inspector it is 1.19 and the site proposed is 1.49. The house plan would conform with the correcting. There is a correction with the height set back ratio – according to the Building with the Building Inspector and he agrees that the garage is attached – does not need proposed front yard requirements and set backs should be added and corrected. I checked being on a set of plans – it is a record for the Building Dept and the Planning Board. The Mrs. Mohamed – My comment about the zoning had to do with the zoning calculations 15 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Mrs. Porter read the resolution into the minutes as follows: Chairman – is there a resolution for a Public Hearing to be held on December 8, 2005 Chairman Agatston – any questions – none that will be added to the site plan. expanded the fencing around more of the property. There are fences that are remaining the Engineer and are providing new drywells. Wehave included silt fencing and have have covered all the requirements – we have discussed Storm Water Management with regulations – that is being incorporated into the plan – I have copies for the Board – we they included adding additional tree protection – we have included zoning schedules and into the setback which will be removed. We received comments from Mrs. Mohamed – is an existing 1 story garage that will remain. There is a portion in the rear encroaching Mark Mustacato – Architect – we propose adding a second floor to a 1 story house. There single-family home by RMG Architects for the Tigani residence at 2 Edgewood Drive. addition, new wood deck and demolition of a single story in rear at an existing Next matter -Review of a site plan application for a second story addition, two-story rear None We want everyone to be happy here. Any further comments. Chairman Agatston – I don’t think that is true. Mr. Demotte – we got bumped from the last meeting. through Mr. Carosi and we can schedule it that way. Then we can schedule from there. would suggest a site visitation instead of setting the Public Hearing tonight. Please go 16 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting with Section 250-40 of the Village Code regarding notification. , that the Applicant is directed to comply BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED requirements of SEQRA; and proposed action to be Type II, requiring no further review pursuant to the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) prepared by the Applicant, determines the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and after review of the , that the Planning Board, pursuant to the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED application for site plan approval; and p.m., at Village Hall, 938 King Street, Rye Brook, New York to consider the Brook Planning Board shall hold a Public Hearing on December 8, 2005 at 8:00 , that the Village of Rye NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED District. Tax Assessor’s Map as Section 135.28, Block 1, Lot 31 in the R-20 Zoning property located at 2 Edgewood Drive, Rye Brook, New York, designated on the for site modifications and construction of additions to an existing residence on the Brook pursuant to Chapter 209 of the Village Code requesting site plan approval Teri Tigani has made an application to the Village of Rye WHEREAS, VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 2 EDGEWOOD DRIVE CONSTRUCTION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR SITE MODIFICATIONS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPLICATION FOR RESOLUTION October 27, 2005 __________ 17 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting in review fall within the 75% rule. need to look at the existing square footage against what is proposed. Half of the projects We determined that 29 applications that would have been candidates for this law. You present – analyzing those projects to determine if those projects were caught in the web. decision. We decided to include the Building Permits issued from January 2005 to and develop a data set so that the Planning Board has sufficient background to make a Mr. Carosi – the chart provided shows a lot of numbers and data – the purpose is to try much more important then we first envisioned. and those who are in the process already. We need to take another look at this – it is there is a huge outcry from people who are thinking about making changes on their home have tightened the Zoning Code too much – the needs of today’s family has changed – With regard to the 75% rule – the Board of Trustees has referred this to you – we may is more formal. – I might suggest that the recommendation be made that it is part of a check list so that it about the Zoning table – we hear it all the time – if this is the will of the Planning Board In addition we have heard a number of discussions tonight – there were the comments hard to find someone to handle the minutes. of Trustee minutes are behind – Mr. Bradbury has assured me that they are looking very Mr. Rosenberg – I actually spoke to Mr. Bradbury about this very issue – even the Board we need to review it would be helpful to have minutes. minutes in a number of months – it is very difficult to go back and see what was done – if Chairman Agatston – I have been making a number of comments – we have not seen in the Building Department Mr. Carosi – before you have a chart of a number of projects that we have been tracking surfaces. I would like to hear from Jennifer or Victor. applications – especially the ones that don’t affect wetlands, steep slopes or impervious This is regarding the 75% rule – need to do something to alleviate the vast number of All agreed through voice vote. Motion made by Mr. Zuckerman and seconded by Mrs. Romano like to move 2 to 1 and 1 to 2. Chairman requested a motion to take out of order our discussion items listed and would Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Motion made by Mr. Zuckerman and seconded by Mr. Winter. Chairman Agatston asked for a motion to accept the resolution 18 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting neighborhood and the environment. The purpose of the rule was to have a public airing of when they review a site plan and the larger houses that create big impacts on the Mrs. Mohamed – I have some general comments pertinent to what a Planning Board does Marilyn now. passing this new legislation – we want to capture some of these homes – lets here from at it again – I know residents are complaining – we spent a lot of time and energy in more – maybe changing the 50% to 40% - at our joint meeting they said they would look Chairman Agatston – I know what the BOT wants to do – I would like to see something other suggestions. – maybe there should not be site plan review – we have a Planner who probably has some Mr. Carosi – Maybe the Board should consider that if the project is not disturbing the soil Mr. Winter – perhaps the small projects are the exception instead of the rule here. through site plan. We should take action on this rule tonight. of Trustees– our residents have come before us with 200 or so dormers that have to go reducing the 50% to 40% - we should look at other things and recommend to the Board type of remedy. You have given some ideas as has our Chairman. We may consider have gone through site plan review. We have to address that and see if there is some other that purpose because it has captured too many small construction projects that should not One of the tools that we have used is this 75% rule – I don’t think it has accomplished make Rye Brook a better place by controlling the type of development that we permit. Mr. Zuckerman – there are 2 separate issues here – the overall one is that we are trying to Board is more of a black and white picture. they don’t have a much flexibility as you do – you can get into greater detail. The Zoning Mr. Carosi – its difficult to say – your standards are different then the Zoning Board – would we have gotten to the same point by eliminating one step in the process. Mr. Winter – was the outcome achieved on the property at the lower part of the Village – Mr. Carosi – on some of the larger projects – probably. under the 50% increase rule? Mr. Winter – the couple of projects you mentioned – wouldn’t they have been covered higher or lower. We try not to internally make opinions – we just go by the code. have on the neighborhood. It is difficult to say if 75% is the right number or should it be complicated ones. We have to determine where are the impacts and what impact do they correctly. This is the data – it is really impact driven – there are simple ones and there are where you come in – we want to make sure the development of these homes are done where are we going as far as growth – there needs to be a little bit more control – that is environmental concerns – height setbacks – steep slopes – storm water management – Mr. Carosi – what are the impacts of growth having on the Village – there are a lot of the law. don’t want to capture a house that wants to just add an addition to a house that falls inside changed this law a year and a half ago to cover the homes that had run off issues etc – we you can think of in modifying this rule – for example the demolition process – we Chairman – if the 75% rule is capturing to many applicants – are there other things that data available. Mr. Carosi – not from that data we have been keeping. At this point we only have this for other reasons? Chairman Agatston asked of that 50% - how many of those might have come before us 19 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Mrs. Porter – paragraph 5 – small change – change - shall be to must Mrs. Fredman – it is a small issue. motion and argue. Chairman Agatston – we will vote on it as it is. We will have a resolution you can raise a “use – structure or lot and changed situated to located. Board needs to decide about #4. Mrs. Porter – the 3 definitions are amended – non conforming uses – I would like to add Mrs. Porter – if you are using it for storage Mrs. Fredman – the non-conforming use of unapproved land – what is this? Mrs. Mohamed – page 2 – number 5 – one is 30 days and 1 is 6 months – why is that? Mr. Grzan – good. Mrs. Porter – A and B are gone. Mr. Grzan – 9A – if you have destruction of more than 50% Fire Code – they would have to follow it. Mrs. Porter – it is subject to New York State Building Code already – if there is a new Chairman Agatston – could we add something else- with respect to public safety – they have to rebuild it as it was. Mrs. Porter read some laws and rulings to the Board. If they rebuild within 12 months – giving them the right to do it as long as they do it within 12 months. depends on the level of destruction – if it is more than 50% for example – we are now #9 – it is split into 2 sections – if a building is destroyed by an act of nature or God – more clarity – after doing the legal research – I have done more revisions. New section Mrs. Porter – this law has undergone numerous revisions – I have a few more that add Chairman Agatston – moving on – changing Chapter 250. Chairman- the sub committee will work with Marilyn and Jennifer. so we can compare. also get a listing of the size of the change – how large are the additions that we have seen how many would have been before us but for the 75%? That would be helpful. Could we Mr. Zuckerman – the one thing we don’t have on the chart – of all the items that exceed – deeper. At our November 8 meeting we have to decide how to recommend this. see what we can do – Mrs. Romano will assist as well. At our next meeting we can delve Chairman – between Marilyn and Jennifer – would Mr. Winter care to work with them to without us getting back to them? Mrs. Fredman – procedurally – it has been referred to us – can they set a Public Hearing Maybe at the next meeting we can have some definite plan before us. meeting? at. I don’t think we have the time or ability to do that tonight – can we defer to our next Chairman Agatston – I hate to make a decision tonight that we can’t come back and look should still be looked at. Jennifer will speak about some things that can be done. done anywhere else. Maybe there is a different way to capture them – but I believe they Planning review – that can only be done here. Community character would also not be review but a review that is more oriented toward Planning. Building and Zoning to not do 100% mark within a certain range the house is large enough to require not a technical those projects that are at the limits of tolerance on the lots – but even if it’s below the Planning Board so a neighbor could not air their concerns. We were trying to capture these projects – they are not subject to open meetings if they don’t come before the 20 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Grzan and seconded by Mrs. Fredman. Chairman Agatston – I would like to cover this at the next meeting while we are fresh. than we should hold off those potential st Mr. Zuckerman – if it is effective January 1takes a few months and we can’t put those applications off. Chairman Agatston – I know where you are going with that Gary and it can’t be done. It rule. recommending other items – we will also be recommending the elimination of the 75% Mr. Zuckerman – no incomplete applications and if it seems likely that even if we are at the calendar for the next meeting. would like to have a reasonable amount of time to discuss this. Please take a serious look Chairman Agatston – we will have 2 members of our Board working on the 75% rule – I Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Accurso Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Chairman asked for a motion to accept the resolution – Zuckerman and Fredman Mrs. Porter – read the resolution into the minutes as follows: a motion. Chairman Agatston – why don’t we make a recommendation to approve – someone make Mrs. Porter – there is always a means of remedy. Mrs. Fredman – if there is a strike or a shortage of supplies? small changes to be noted. conform it will be must conform. We need to change shalls to musts. There are additional Mrs. Porter – page 3 – the new B – will break down and add in small I’s – instead of shall Mr. Carosi – I have to check. entire structure instead of just the enlargement? Mr. Winter – is there a case where the entire building might require conformity by the 21 October 27, 2005 Planning Board Meeting 1. Site Plan Review Check List DISCUSSION ITEM: MINUTES REVIEW: OLD BUSINESS: Code regarding nonconforming uses, structures and lots Review of proposed Local Law amending Chapter 250 of the Village 3. Partnership, L.P. Property Location: 1100 King Street 2. Site Plan Application for Generator installations. Reckson Operating Dr. Submitted by Mr. William Luceno - Property Location: 13 Knollwood 1. Review a Site Plan Application for an addition NEW BUSINESS: RESOLUTIONS: TO BE ADJOURNED TO OCTOBER 6, 2005 Property Location: 18 Rocking Horse Trail for a New Single Family Dwelling Submitted by Mr. Malek Samad 1. Public Hearing Regarding Site Plan Application PUBLIC HEARINGS: ROLL CALL: Thursday, September 22, 2005 938 KING STREET VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK MINUTES PLANNING BOARD MEETING 1 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Motion made by Mrs. Fredman and seconded by Mr. Zuckerman someone on the board to adjourn this matter to October 6, 2005. has approved that Hearing be adjourned to October 6. I will accept a motion from First matter is a continuance of a Public Hearing for 18 Rockinghorse Trail. Applicant Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Motion made by Mrs. Romano and seconded by Mr. Zuckerman Chairman Agatston asked for a motion to change the meeting schedules. meeting. If necessary, we may call a special meeting in December. nd December 22Changed meeting schedules for October and November and we have canceled the from the public and of the Board as well so that we can move matters along. agendas for some very large matters. On that note, we are going to try to limit comments meeting in October and November. we are anticipating heavy nd that meeting – the 2Next meeting is October 6, 2006 – there is a heavy agenda planned for that night – after procedure for the meeting. Chairman Agatston explained the purpose of the Planning Board and the rules of Mr. Mike Nowak Mrs. Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed Staff Mr. Victor Carosi Absent Mr. Accurso Chairman Agatston Mr. Zuckerman Mr. Winter Mrs. Romano Mr. Grzan Present Mrs. Fredman Chairman Agatston asked Mr. Grzan to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting short of not building the deck…. Mrs. Mohamed – in order to build anything additional would add impervious surface – so have any suggestions? Mrs. Romano – you suggest that the total impervious surface not be increased – do you Mrs. Mohamed – no – not as of yet…not a planting plan. Mr. Zuckerman – we do not have any mitigation plan? schedule the Public Hearing for that night. If we feel that we are ready and that all documentation can be ready by October 6, we can Chairman asked for questions from the Board. added. this property be considered by the Board as well. We also asked for a tree survey to be required as well. Again I want to bring up the possibility of a Conservation Easement on being made to the storm water management on the plot. A mitigation plan should be and with the addition. Beyond that, the Board can consider the improvements that are to work within the wetland. We asked for a calculation for a total impervious surface now encourage the applicant to install plants that do not require pesticides. They need a permit for that area disturbed by construction. All work is being done within the buffer. We impacted by the building of the deck. The front yard landscape plans were not provided graphic information – there is an area of what appears to be steep slopes – these may be not increase the height. We asked the engineer’s plans be completed in terms of the asked that all zoning calculations be included on the plans. The proposed alterations do Mrs. Mohamed – we reviewed the provided plans and they were dated July 10, 2005. We would like to proceed as shown. not feel that adding the deck will create any adverse impacts to the environment so we Mr. Salinitro – there was a request to not add the deck as part of the proposal – but we do Chairman Agatston – do you have any questions regarding those notes? received Mrs. Mohamed’s notes and we are making changes accordingly. disturbance. We will be using piers for the deck – by hand –rather then equipment. I along that run date back before codes were codified – we will minimize the area of shows that we will capture the runoff into drywells. It is a wetland buffer – the homes provide for a deck addition where the area below the deck will be gravel – the drawing entryway – it is proposed to change the roof and add some columns. It is proposed to height will remain the same – minor interior alterations. Front of the house had an Mr. Salinitro – Engineer for the applicant – there are some alterations to the structure – rear of the home – all within 100 feet of the east branch of the blind brook buffer. Drive. The application involves the change of the pitch of the roof - adding a deck to the Second matter is new business – a site plan application by Mr. Lucino at 13 Knollwood Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes 3 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Village and were issued Certificates of Occupancy by the Village. It was after that that it generators – those were installed in good faith reliance of a permit that was issued by the and one for a phase 2. For the phase 2 application, it calls for the legalization of existing recommendation. There are 2 applications before the board – 1 for a phase one property Executive Park. As you know this is a referral from the Village Board for your Kings Street is currently developed into 2 phases of the 3 phases of the Reckson Janet Garris – on behalf of Reckson Associates – As you know the property at 1100 matter in an advisory capacity. generators and a permit to add 4 more in the future. The Planning Board is hearing this 1100 King Street. This application is to amend its site plan to legalize 3 existing Next matter is a site plan application by Reckson Associates for generator installations at Chairman Agatston Yes Mr. Zuckerman Yes Mr. Winter Yes Mrs. Romano Yes Mr. Grzan Yes Mrs. Fredman Yes Motion made by Mr. Zuckerman and seconded by Mrs. Fredman. Chairman asked for a motion to accept the resolution. Public Hearing for October 27, 2005. Chairman Agatston – asked Mrs. Porter to read the resolution into the minutes setting the from that area Mr. Carosi – this is an east branch of the blind brook – this is much further downstream Mrs. Fredman – is this the water course that has all the newspapers upset? not increasing the footprint of the house – we just are trying to get the deck. can go over them with you and they will be on the drawings for the next meeting – we are Mr. Ciraco – Architect – just wanted to let you know that I have all the calculations – I from an Engineering perspective it is well developed and compliant. were reviewed and everything is accurate – he has included silt fencing and hay bales – drywells – this is an improvement over what is there now. The calculations and field tests we have reviewed the storm water plans – he is capturing all the water in underground has been going on behind scenes for a while – the applicant has been responsive to us – Mr. Carosi – the proper notices were sent out as required – for an update – this process Mr. Carosi – yes I believe it does. Mr. Salinitro – whatever it takes – does this have to go before the Zoning Board as well? work. Chairman Agatston – just work with Victor and Marilyn and I am sure we can make this an enjoyment use – there are neighbors with decks as well and I have pictures. proposing to have a gravel area to capture the water as well as the dry wells – the deck is Mr. Salinitro – we are sensitive to the environment – in terms of mitigation we are Chairman Agatston – comments from the public or applicant? wetland buffer – but it can work – we do work with the applicants Chairman Agatston – we are not crazy about increasing the impervious surface in the 4 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting see if it is an issue for anyone. firm that I have retained to do some personal work for me and I want to disclose that and Mr. Zuckerman – would like to state that the law firm representing the developer is a law Mr. Schwaby - yes to a building – will the trucks be coming in through the parking lot? Mrs.Fredman – access of refueling facilities – if those are inside a jogging trail and next I want to keep this thing moving. Chairman Agatston – they already said that they would address that in Phase 3. Mr. Schwaby – yes it was. jogging trail part of the original site plan? Mrs. Fredman – where is Bellefair on your plans? Where is the jogging trail? Is the Mr. Grzan – I don’t understand why you would need so many generators. Mr.Schwaby – we can put together some specs for you to look at. – what kind of emissions are coming out of these units? – I am also concerned with the size of the units – and I am concerned with the emissions standard for you to follow. I am concerned – especially with the units closest to Bellefair Mr. Grzan – we don’t have a noise ordinance in this Village but there should be a Mr. Schwaby – I believe they would but to my knowledge there have been no complaints. yourself? Mr. Winter – would the people of Bellefair know about the testing times better then 28 concrete pad with 3 generators – the average size if 350 KB – Mr. Schwaby – about a 250 megawatt generator – the exhibits that we gave show an 18 x Mr. Winter – what size are the generators you are proposing? Mr. Schwaby – yes they are located in these tenant spaces? Mr. Winter – are these generators sized specifically for the data facilities specifically Mr. Schwaby – I am not sure but I know that it is done in accordance with local law. Chairman Agatston – what time of day do they run the test? landscaping the noise will not be an issue. enclosed and they meet all the regulations and we believe with proper screening and we can tie in the jogging trail at that time. The last item – the noise level – they are fully do whatever it takes. The jogging trail has no set line and I believe that as part of Phase 3, landscaping and we have no problem with that. We would work with FP Clark and will about an hour during the testing. We received some comments about additional operate on a daily basis. They are tested once a week as normal protocol. They run for is why we do not get just one big generator. These are for emergencies only and do not these kinds of operations, the generators are controlled by the tenants themselves and that updated. We want to at this time also plan and apply for the additional generators. With adjacent to Bellefair. The 3 generators have existing landscape that we admit could be represents Phase 1 and Phase 2. The existing generators are on the northern property line tenants. They are 3 generators – fully enclosed and fully landscaped. The drawing Mr. Schwaby – there are emergency generators at the site that are serving the current generators have become a necessity. generators since 9/11 – since the black out of a year ago and since Hurricane Katrina – generators are not installed yet and would like permission to do that. The installation of was determined to be an error and required site plan approval. In addition, the other 5 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting remain the same and the generators fit on them. 4 new generators are being proposed –all maximum aggregate size if you were to give the approval. The size of the pad would concrete level pads and the pads are 50 feet long by 18 feet wide. There would be a Drive – they range in size from 15 – 40 feet wide and 10 – 15 feet high – they sit on materials – the applicant has installed 3 generators to the east and north of International Mrs. Mohamed – we reviewed plans dated August 25, 2005 – and the application Mrs. Fredman – so the technology is not there yet. Mr. Schwaby – the solar panels would be enormous Mrs. Fredman – is it out of order to suggest solar instead of fuel? Mr. Schwaby – yes Mrs. Romano – so there will be one more in the same spot. one immediately. Mr. Schwaby – there will be one more going on that side – there is an existing need for any more going in that vicinity or are they going on a different side. Mrs. Romano – the generators that you are putting in – there are 3 existing – are there Mr. Garris – that is correct. Chairman – and you can’t pinpoint a particular size generator for a particular tenant. also an important marketing tool for perspective tenants. those legalized and we want to get the new generators for the two existing phases – it is Mr. Schwaby – this is not for Phase 3 – these are the existing facilities – we want to get Mr. Grzan – I am familiar with Phase 3. Mr. Schwaby – both. Mr. Grzan – is this the tenant for the existing phase or the new phase. only for Phase One and Phase 2 – not Phase 3. required for operations for some of these tenants for critical information retrieval – this is Mr. Schwaby – we want to assure that this is a viable project – these generators are Mr. Grzan – to approve these emergency generators for the future does not make sense. need to consider. to be running at the same time – the noise level would be high – that is something that we Chairman Agatston – we have to consider that – my concern is that if these are all going generators will have to come back before us to deal with at that time. Mr. Winter – It is not inconceivable that we can approve what is requested and that future meet, we can move forward. and they have to be addressed. When we have these answers, hopefully the next time we Chairman Agatston – the noise, the size – the emissions – these are all important issues – one. far as size. The biggest issue is the noise concern and we want to make sure it is a quiet Mr. Schwaby – we will be sensitive to the site and we have also put on the plan a limit as when you don’t know what you will need in the future. The citing and the installing are not the problem – but it is difficult to approve a plan something that we don’t know for sure about yet? How do you get around that? Mr. Zuckerman – I don’t have a problem with the concept – but how can we approve Mr. Schwaby – we are not sure yet. Mr. Zuckerman – the future generators – do you know how big they will be? None from Board or applicant. Chairman Agatston – asked if it was an issue for anyone. 6 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting emissions are a concern for the wildlife as well as the people. Also – could we please get most likely be open so the noise is an issue – also – how will it effect the wild life and the for the noise – in a blackout situation when these will be running – our windows will Mr. Zelman – Bellefair Road – I didn’t know much about this before the letter came – as Chairman Agatston – comments from the public? Mr. Grzan – you can get an enclosure to limit the noise – there are regulations. look at it. are existing trees and the issue of the jogging trail. Where it makes sense – we can take a Mr. Schwaby – it might be – especially near Doral. Along the northern property line there Mr. Zuckerman – is it practical to consider the creation of a berm? residents, why not place them more into the parking lot – consider relocating them. matters. Why are they installing them on the outside edges of the property near other have a consultant review and make a recommendation because to me that is all that regarding that. I think we need to have technical data on the generators and we should I think the key issue is the noise and I don’t think we have sufficient information Mr. Grzan – emissions and fuel storage becomes an issue as well –air is used for cooling. Mr. Winter – is it possible to enclose these or is it a safety issue? sound that travels in the summer versus the winter. on the ground – the noise will be less – maybe the applicant can address the level of the Chairman Agatston – you said that trees will not buffer the sound – but if there was snow what mitigation will be provided. operation of the generators – what are the maximum decibel levels – does it conform – desire to provide adequate screening. The only open item is the noise and the regular asked that all existing trees and shrubs be listed as well as sizes. The applicant has voiced some other type of screening plants. It is also possible to use some kind of fencing. We and to trim or remove some of the existing plantings in the Bellefair line and replace with would have to be handled in some other matter. We also asked for additional evergreens more evergreen trees in a naturalistic matter. This will not mitigate noise though – that they are insufficient to screen the large structures – we would want the installation of as well. We got into the landscaping – there are some evergreens proposed but we feel At least of one of the generators would disturb the steep slopes so that permit is required higher so people in the home and senior housing are looking down onto the generators. provide screening in the Scenic Roads Overlay District. The Bellefair Development is landscaped very well so I am sure that the same kind of landscaping can be done to visible structures. It is the size of a small garage. Some of the other generators are are within the Scenic Roads Overlay District of King Street –they are very large very exist that there is a railing to protect joggers. The other issue has to do with the generators would also be tucked in and a retaining wall would be built. If the trail were to be used or hazard. The generator is tucked into the slope and the new generator being proposed sits – there is a retaining wall that holds back the slope and that would pose a safety particular – the jogging trail goes adjacent to the edge of the pad on which generator 4 jogging trail would be on the plan and so we are asking for additional information. In We looked at certain cite features like the jogging trail. It is unclear as to where the environmental impacts which includes the 1 hour a week test that the generators undergo. the generators are in proximity to residential areas. There is a concern about noise and 7 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Mr. Carosi – maybe we could develop 2 – 1 residential and 1 commercial. residential – this way you don’t have to read through the whole thing. Mrs. Romano – first we should number these – organize them by commercial or professional to identify and deal with the problems that may occur. Mr.Carosi – most projects will require an engineer or an architect – you need a that what you are saying. Mr. Grzan – so a resident cant come to us alone – they have to have a professional – is Mr. Carosi – it is more geared to the professional to help his client through the process. Mr. Grzan – how does this help the resident? Mr. Carosi – it is important Mr. Grzan – the abutting property section is long Mr. Carosi – there are different lists – residential or commercial Mr. Grzan – when I looked at this – I didn’t know what was scarier during the process and we can move things along quicker. plan application – it explains the process and what is required – it will help the applicant Mr. Carosi – we have developed a check list that has items that are required for a site Chairman Agatston – you are waiting for approval of this board. Mike –we are waiting for approval Mike and Victor – how are we doing with the check lists – are they being used or not? Next Matter – Section 250 – Chairman Agatston – anything further? . th Chairman Agatston – we can get you on for the following meeting on the 27too early for us. Mr. Schwaby – we need to get together with Mrs. Mohamed – I think the next meeting is Chairman Agatston – at what point will you be prepared to visit us again? Mr. Schwaby – I also have to look at the leasing issues with the tenants. Mrs. Fredman – if you have excess parking – maybe there is space to work with. see if that is something we can consider. Mr. Schwaby – from a zoning code I don’t think we can do that – I will have to check to because this will create another issue as far as zoning. Mrs. Fredman – are you short of parking area – is any being absorbed by the generators have a better answer. Chairman – probably somewhere in between – hopefully at our next meeting we will Mr. Capagna – I am not an engineer – is this noise like a lawnmower or a jet engine. so that the developments surrounding can have a better idea and maybe it will be helpful. Chairman Agatston – in the next session – maybe you can develop a larger map and scale Mr. Schwaby – all the electrical components are in that place – Mr.Campagna – why can’t you move that closer to the interior of your property? Mr. Schwaby showed the gentlemen on the plans where they are. someone show me? staff – is it possible to show me where the generators are in relation to Bellefair – can Mr. Campagna – Bellefair – backyard faces the generators – this has been shown to the notice of when the tests will occur – I never knew that these generators existed before this 8 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting needed to simplify the process for the applicant and for us and that some kind of checklist Chairman Agatston – in our meetings with the Board of Trustees, we all felt that we through the Building Department before it ever gets to us? Mr. Winter – why do we need this check list at all? Isn’t this something that needs to go maybe it will come down to 2 or 3 pages that we really have to look at. look at, maybe can be dropped down to others – we all know what we generally see and Chairman Agatston – One other suggestion, things that occur vary rarely that we ever considerable amount of information here. check for redundancy – when you start looking at this you will see that there is a complete set of plans to come to this board – I think we can break out the commercial and Mr. Carosi – we want to simplify it but we want to make it comprehensive – we want a about it. just put a yellow line through the whole section so that we don’t have to even worry the next meeting – secondly – there is a lot of reading for us here – if it doesn’t apply – Chairman Agatston – I have a suggestion – lets see how it goes – lets see the sample at step by step. Mrs. Romano – I disagree – I think it will be easier for the applicant to go through this an application that is going to have all of this ready. Mr. Grzan – what are we trying to do here? I don’t believe that you are ever going to get comments – that would also be helpful. Mrs. Romano – if at the end of each section there were a section for Building Department matter. I think it would be beneficial for this Board to know what the jurisdiction is. before us – a statement setting forth the jurisdiction of the Planning Board to hear this those should be attached to the application – secondly I would like to see when it comes is complete. There are some things I would like to see – 1 is the zoning calculations – in conjunction with the Building Department and consultant so that when it comes here it this document as a document that not only needs to be submitted by the applicant by also Mr. Zuckerman – this is a document that is complete except for the numbering – I regard Mr. Nowak – we have done a lot of research – this is comparable to other municipalities. expertise to determine what is or isn’t necessary. topographic information is not needed – Mike and I can review them and use our Chairman – there are 1 or 2 applicants right now that we have told them off the top that Mr. Carosi – that we would want done by letter. Mrs. Romano – where would they request a waiver on this form? and we are sort of triaging those right now. Mr. Carosi – there are a lot of plans in the hopper – we are going through the checklist Chairman Agatston – maybe this should go back to you for your review first. help the process go smoothly for everyone. and helps them prepare to come here prepared – it is a document we are developing to Mr. Carosi – we want the applicant to fill this out – it guides them through the process applicants? Chairman Agatston – is this document going to be in house to submit to us or is this the Mr. Carosi – we can do a draft. it is just an idea. maybe fill one out as an example so that we can better review it and make suggestions – Chairman Agatston – maybe you could submit something to us before the next meeting – 9 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting approved plans. There are a number of ways to address this issue. put as a requirement that the extended variance relief is limited to the alteration on the the board for that to be done. The question is due we want to create exceptions – we can the height that is in increase in non-conformity – they would have to come back before height because that would have an impact – it is very difficult to explain – if you impact variance –then they want to go and do additional bumping out – they want to segment out very confusing – this was put in essentially because the if the applicant gets a set back respect to continuation of existing uses. Under sub section 3 is the issue of height – that is conforming uses – we added new language with respect to unlawful uses of land and with the existing provisions with respect to non -conforming uses and limited that to non- conforming structure and one for non conforming lot. The second thing we did is we took definition of a non-conforming use and provided two new definitions, one for non The first thing we did is split the definitions – we took buildings and structures out of the uses. Since non-conforming buildings and non-conforming uses are two different things. and non-conforming buildings which have conforming uses and then non conforming not be necessary under our code. What we want to do is separate out non-conforming lots applications before us where the board feels that the variance relief to be sought should Mrs. Porter – these proposed amendments were prompted due to the number of respect to non-conforming uses. Chairman Agatston – ok – back in order – Chapter 250 – proposed new regulations with move things along much quicker. Mr. Zuckerman – I like Marilyn’s view of the process – by the time it gets to us we can Chairman Agatston – we will still see this checklist – Board. list. We are trying to streamline the application process – for the residents and for the that Victor and Marilyn will go through without having at least discussed what is on the heard is to split the checklist into commercial and residential. This is a working document comfortable with the process and appear hear fewer times. One of the best ideas I have Mr. Rosenberg – This checklist is not for this board – it is for the applicant to feel more the process and make things clearer, so be it. length of the process and not knowing what is next – if this checklist is going to speed up are not griping about the volume of the information, what they are frustrated with is the Mr. Grzan – listening to some of the comments and frustrations of the applicants – that necessary for you to begin your review. This way we can move things along quicker. gathered, this other piece of paper kicks in with the comments and the information that is for the amount and type of information that the applicant would be required. Once that is is really for the applicant and the building department and me as well to set up a template written by Mickey, Victor or I. That is a different piece of paper from that checklist. This documents. What the Planning Board should be looking at is what the notes that are Mrs. Mohamed – I want to address that – what we are talking about is 2 separate Mr. Winter – I am not questioning the checklist, but why we need to review it. It is a test to simplify the process. have before us and what if anything is missing. This way we get a complete application. in front of us would show us what exactly was submitted so that we can know what we 10 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Mrs. Fredman – do you mean the time of sub division? created shall be deemed a continuing non-conforming structure use. Mr. Zuckerman- what about uses, structures or lots that were non-conforming when Mrs. Fredman – we need to present it with wording that will clear it up for everybody. something illegally. Mrs. Porter – existing legal non-conforming – this means you are not covered if you did don’t understand F1 and I hope you can explain it to me. definition. It just seems to me that the non-conforming use definition is not enough. I also conforming use is something that is not presently in compliance. I thing we need a step did think along the lines of Gary’s comments that the definitions were confusing. A non- Mrs. Fredman – I think the natures of my comments don’t need to be aired at this time. I height carve out is not appropriate. to insert existing non-conforming or pre-existing non-conforming. I also agree that the forward to see if there is any non conformity after that date. In Paragraph F I would like Occupancy is issued that there was conformity when it was issued – then you can look The second thing is I think there should be a presumption that when a Certificate of the lot was first created – we are trying to make conforming again what was conforming. definitions – I would prefer that the timing be at the time the use was first commenced or wording – I am in agreement with the thrust of the proposed amendments. In terms of the the variance – it just makes more work and money – I have a couple of suggestions on the Mr. Zuckerman – on top of everything else – I don’t believe that the Zoning Board denies the Zoning Board? disturbing the non-conforming part of the building – why do you have to go back before yard variance – it is a difficult situation that needs to be addressed. If you are not work being done in the back of the house and now they have to go to Zoning for a front is a existing home with a CO – its front yard no longer meets the set back – now there is Mr. Carosi – as a further example – we have another project being currently reviewed – it a variance was needed and the ZBA disagreed and now you have this draft before you. Mrs. Porter – yes and in that case the Building Inspector withdrew the determination that variance when they already had one – this is what we are talking about – correct. deck on the house – and they were told by Building and Zoning that they needed a that issue – a particular resident got a variance for something – then they wanted to put a Chairman Agatston – I had raised something with you a while ago – is this addressing every time they do an addition – to go back and get the same variance is an enormous for it or not – to suggest that the applicant has to continually go back to the zoning board board does this – once there is an existing non-conformity – whether you have a variance Mrs. Mohamed – this whole discussion is very frustrating – virtually no other zoning Mrs. Fredman – is this a grandfathering concept that we are trying to deal with? work with. to put it in here to be brought up for purposes of discussion – this is just the first draft to Mrs. Porter – yes we are – this is really a compromise to address a situation but we want conforming to site plan issues. application necessary – so it seems to me we are mixing conforming and non- Chairman Agatston – if they raise the height of the house – there might be a site plan 11 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting foot requirement – so the issue becomes whether or not it should be interpreted as want them to be included – so rather then tie it in with the dwelling – we reduce the 5 the 5 foot requirement. There is also some concern that with respect to some homes – we wont be added to the gross floor area. The Building Inspector thinks that it should just be limit it to that 5 foot requirement – if ‘less then than – it is not counted as a story and When you don’t look also at the definition of story along with those 2 definitions you can story – and with respect to gross floor area it also talks about the 5 foot requirement. more above the mean level of the finished grade around the building it will be deemed a vacuum and combine them – a basement is defined as if the finished ceiling is 5 feet or of gross floor area. One way is when you look at the definitions and look at them in a is currently drafted with respect to basements – and if it can be included in the calculation Mrs. Porter- This represents two views that can be taken with respect to the way our code Chairman Agatston – I would like to discuss this basement idea – Chairman Agatston – this is not a criticism Mrs. Porter – this was meant to be a working draft. Mr. Grzan – please use plain English can review it at that time. of October and then we th maybe that’s the way to go – then possibly get it back by the 27work together – you both have concepts and ides – you can submit them to Jennifer – Chairman Agatston – I don’t think that was a motion – maybe Michele and Gary can Mr. Grzan – I second that motion any reason aside from the actual wording that we ‘make a recommendation? Mr. Zuckerman – we are all in agreement on the direction of this Section 250 – is there Mrs. Porter –they will keep it open have 8 matters pending already. Chairman Agatston – I don’t think we have time at our next meeting to discuss this – we same so we have additional time to review. Mrs. Porter – the ZBA is going to suggest that the hearing be kept open – we can do the this. Mr. Zuckerman – the Board of trustees has a Public Hearing scheduled for next week on I think that we should not belabor this Chairman Agatston – they have set a limit of 1 year Mrs. Porter – they want to phase out any non-conformities – Mr. Zuckerman – this law would change that. and now my property is non conforming. that the front yards were conforming – now they are not – now I want to sell my house Chairman Grzan – we just created a scenic overlay on Ridge Street – prior to us doing illegal and unlawful and this doesn’t grandfather it – it is still illegal. 40 feet total – and it doesn’t have it – it never got a Certificate of Occupancy – that is remains illegal today – for example – the side lots – it was built in a zone where it needed zone that was never give a Certificate of Occupancy and is totally illegal – that means it Mr. Zuckerman – what its trying to get out is – if a house was built lets say in a certain Mrs. Fredman – no law is not in effect – when it does – that property will be in violation? Mr. Grzan – please put this in English – if I have a non-conforming property – but this 12 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting where the back of the house is sloped and it’s buried – Chairman Agatston – what about the perimeter of the house – we have an applicant it off the top. then it does count as floor area. If you want to put in on the bottom them you have to take Mrs. Mohamed – we are trying to pin the threshold down – if you violate the threshold Mrs. Fredman – under 5 feet doesn’t count Mr. Grzan – so we are not going to count the floor area in the gross floor area? is happy with that – maybe Jennifer can re-word. stay with the 5 feet and now we are talking about undisturbed natural grade – if everyone Chairman Agatston – so we want to get rid of the dwelling – that definition – we want to in and raise the grade and we don’t want that to happen. remove a steep slope? It seems to me that the finished grade portion allows them to come situation. Regardless of whether you put a retaining wall on it – do we want them to Mrs. Mohamed – you could say undisturbed grade – that would work in a tear down Chairman Agatston – I understand your concern Marilyn. Mr. Grzan – we don’t want a basement to become a third story – that is the bottom line. will stop what is being attempted by these applicants. adding perhaps natural grade or some other thing other than finished grade – maybe that grade. We don’t want a big house with its basement sticking out of the ground – so Mrs. Mohamed – I have one concern and that is with finished grade as opposed to natural should serve our purposes. made a standard – for purposes here – the simple elimination of the dwelling requirement how many non-conformities we will create by doing that and for some reason 5 feet was was right on point – we shouldn’t monkey with the 5 foot requirement – we don’t know should we care? I think the Building Inspectors memo was right on point – I think ‘memo basement goes down 20 feet – it has no visual impact at all – if it meets codes – why space has any place in our consideration and should be eliminated. If a homeowner’s Mr. Zuckerman – the key is visual impact – I don’t think that habitability and dwelling the building code is looking at safety, health and welfare. Mr.Carosi – that is already a code defined term – habitability – 7 and ½ feet is habitable – about the bulk? Mr. Winter – if bulk is the issue – do we really care about the habitability as we care existing homes. to push the envelopes on some of these homes and we have to protect the character and Mr. Carosi – they are trying to accomplish controlling the bulk of homes – they are trying Chairman Agatston – what is the Villages thinking on this? careful with that. potentially make a number of homes in the village non-conforming –we have to be to have a 2 story front and you drive around to the back and its 3 stories. We could Mr. Carosi – it is very traditional to be able to utilize a walk out basement – it is common accomplish. stories – the question is what are we trying to prevent in the future –what do we want to building exist that have basements that are 8 feet high – so that makes the structure 3 Chairman Agatston – we need to figure out what we are trying to accomplish – many requirement and that should be the determining factor. including dwelling as an or provision or whether or not to just look at the 5 foot 13 September 22, 2005 Planning Board Meeting Meeting Adjourned All agree. Motion made by Mr. Zuckerman and seconded by Mrs. Romano Chairman Agatston asked for a motion to adjourn. convoluted – maybe best thing to do is have Ed go through it. Chairman – I am not sure if it can be released to us yet – the settlement is very long and Mr. Zuckerman – is the paperwork ready on the settlement issue? we also have the settlement issue to discuss. Chairman – please tell him to be prepared to address the issues at hand with the BOT and Mrs. Porter – Mr. Beane will be at the work session and I will be here at 8 schedule for our regular meeting. with the BOT and I trust that most of you will be here and then we have a very heavy The only other point is our next meeting is October 6 and we have a 7:00 work session Chairman Agatston – so Jennifer – could you do a little re-drafting. Chairman Agatston – the conflict is in the dwelling language. gross floor area – there was an implication of conflict in the code Mr. Grzan – if the basement ceiling is 5 feet above grade level – we include that in the approve it because the code will change. exists now and may need a variance – we could approve subject to ZBA that they Chairman Agatston – if it is our position that the applicant may not meet our code as it Mr. Grzan – are we going to resolve this before we consider the applications before us. Chairman Agatston – that’s where the ZBA has to step in. Mr. Winter – your steep slopes can skew that that as well. around the perimeter which ensures that its natural grade – we should also hook this to One other point – we do now determine the height of the building from the average grade Mrs. Mohamed – but it’s a story that is partially buried. Mr. Grzan – as long as you count it in the floor area calculation – it becomes a story 14 September 22, 2005