Rye City Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2012

Transcription

1 Rye City Planning Commission Minutes MEETING ATTENDANCE: Planning Commission Members: Nick Everett, Chair Martha Monserrate, Vice-Chair Barbara Cummings Carolyn Cunningham Hugh Greechan Peter Jovanovich Peter Larr I. HEARINGS. Old Post Road Other: Christian K. Miller, AICP, City Planner Lori DeCaro, CC/AC Chair JoAnn Rispoli, Secretary The applicant requested a continuation of the public hearing. There was no discussion of the matter. ACTION: II. Carolyn Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Martha Monserrate, that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on wetland permit application number WP, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair: ITEMS PENDING ACTION. Milton Road Seth Mandelbaum (applicant s attorney) stated that on October 0 there was a well-attended Blind Brook Lodge shareholder meeting to review the applicant s proposed plan and address questions. Mr. Mandelbaum stated that the majority of residents that attended the meeting favored the proposed parking expansion. He stated that there was a vocal minority of participants that did not support the expansion. f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

2 Page of Mr. Mandelbaum stated that he submitted to the Planning Commission five letters of support for the project from area neighbors. He stated that the applicant is eager to start the project in the spring since the existing arrangement the applicant has to park at the nearby Methodist Church will expire at the end of the year. Mr. Mandelbaum requested that the Commission provide an advisory recommendation on the application to the Board of Appeals in advance of their November meeting. He stated that the application requires a variance from the Board of Appeals to expand the existing parking area on the Milton Road property. The Commission reviewed alternative plans presented by the applicant. The applicant stated that it was trying to provide a minimum of one parking space for each of the units in the Blind Brook Lodge building. Alternative plan provided a total of spaces, reduces the encroachment into the victory garden area on the rear portion of the lot and preserves one of the two tennis courts on the property. Alternative plan provided parking spaces and generally confines construction to the existing improved areas of the parking lot and tennis court. The Commission agreed that it preferred an alternative plan that used existing improved areas on the site. The Commission agreed that with some additional plan modifications, a : parking ratio could be achieved on the property. The Commission noted that by using existing improved areas existing mature trees could be preserved and the victory garden area could be preserved. The Commission acknowledged that the plan would not allow for the construction of a tennis court. Mr. Mandelbaum stated that the applicant is willing to forego the tennis court to construct the parking. The Commission requested that the City Planner prepare for its review at its next meeting a memorandum to the Board of Appeals supporting the requested variance to allow for the expansion of parking. The Commission requested that the memorandum should include a recommendation on the minimum and maximum number of parking spaces.. Johnson Place The Commission agreed that the application was complete for the setting of a public hearing. that the Planning Commission set a public hearing on wetland permit application number WP, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair: f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

3 Page of Starboard Properties, LLC The Commission questioned the size of the shell/boat that was used in the graphic simulation depicting the turning movements required to navigate through the docks. The applicant confirmed that the simulation assumed an -person, -foot shell. The Commission stated that the applicant should be prepared to discuss the hours of operation for the facility at the public hearing. The Commission stated that the existing City Boat Basin had no restriction on the hours of operation. The City Planner added that the proposed recreational boating use is consistent with the requirements of the City Zoning and is supported by the policies of the LWRP, which encourages the promotion of water-dependant uses in Milton Harbor. The City Planner reminded the Commission that the existing apartment at the property has a valid certificate of occupancy and is proposed to be preserved as part of the application that the Planning Commission set a public hearing on wetland permit application number WP and site plan and special use permit application SP, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair:. Forest Harbor Homeowner s Association The Commission requested that the applicant provide more clarification on when each of the proposed four phases would be implemented. The Commission stated that the mitigation should not be left to the final phase since the applicant may not choose to complete all of the four phases. Each phase should have its own mitigation program. The Commission agreed that the mitigation plan cannot be completed first since it would be damaged by construction activities. f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

4 Page of The City Planner recommended that the mitigation plantings be diversified and that the plan would benefit from the input of a landscape architect. that the Planning Commission set a public hearing on wetland permit application number WP0, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair:. 0 Philips Lane The applicant s consultant stated the project is underway and is approaching completion. He stated that he requires an additional four months to complete the project. The City Planner stated that he inspected the property and confirmed that all of the wetland mitigation plantings have been installed and the patio has been removed as per the Commission s approved plan. The Commission agreed to the four month extension of it prior approval. that the Planning Commission to provide a four-month extension of time to resolution number -0 approving wetland permit application number WP, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair:. Shenorock Shore Club The Commission reviewed and discussed alternative plans B, C and D prepared by Rex Gedney (applicant s architect). Alternative plan B would add the proposed paddle court on the north side of the existing court and encroach in the lawn area used by the club for summer camp. The Commission noted that plan B had the least tree loss, but that the three trees to be removed are in healthy condition and have a likelihood of long-term survivability. Alternative f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

5 Page of plan C would located the proposed paddle court on the south side of the existing court, but would require the removal of five existing mature trees and require the relocation of the existing driveway. Alternative plan D would shift the existing courts north and install a new court on the south side adjacent to the existing driveway. Relocation of the driveway would not be required, but there would still result in the loss of eight mature trees on the north and south side of the paddle courts and encroach in the lawn area used for summer camp. The Commission agreed that the applicant s proposed plan is preferred. It would result in the loss of seven trees having a caliper of eight inches or greater, but the health of some these trees is only fair or poor. The Commission requested that the applicant amend the proposed plan to provide seven hardwood delicious trees as mitigation. These trees should be located in the 00-foot setback from Stuyvesant Avenue to provide screening of the proposed paddle court from the roadway. that the Planning Commission to set a public hearing on site plan application number SP0, which was carried by the following vote: Martha Monserrate, Vice- Chair:. 0 Kirby Lane The Commission stated that the application presents a number of challenges and requires a balance between the requirements of the City s Wetlands Law and Zoning Code. The Commission noted that there are legal concerns as to whether the applicant has a right to build on the property, which the applicant s attorney should address. Jonathan Kraut (applicant s attorney) stated that the property is a legal flag lot that has access to and frontage on Kirby Lane. He stated that no portion of the building envelope (i.e. the area of the lot conforming to the setback requirements of the City Zoning Code) is located outside the regulated wetland or 00-foot wetland buffer on the property. Mr. Kraut stated that the applicant has a right to construct a residence on the property and it s the Planning Commission s responsibility to evaluate the application and it s consistency with the City s Wetlands Law. Mr. Kraut stated that the Commission has approved the construction of residences within the wetland buffer. f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

6 Page of The Commission requested that the applicant prepare a written analysis of the legal framework for reviewing the application. The Commission questioned whether the applicant would be willing to impose a conservation easement on a portion of the property to provide for the enhanced protection of the wetland. Mr. Kraut stated that he would discuss the Commission s request with his client. The Commission stated that the application will require that it balance the setback requirements of the City Zoning Code with the ecological considerations of the City s Wetlands Law. The Commission requested that the applicant prepare a revised plan that reduces the amount of impervious area on the property. The Commission requested that the applicant consider a new plan and house design that provides for a front yard setback of feet and a wetland buffer of 0 feet. The Commission reasoned that feet is the required front yard setback for residences in the R- District that are not flag lots. The Commission asked for questions from the public. Property owners of 0 and 0 Kirby Lane stated that their lawyer would provide comments to the Commission at a later date. Ms. Allen of 0 Kirby Lane stated concern with the application and the undesirable precedent it would set for future applications in the area.. 0 Stuyvesant Avenue Prior to the discussion of the matter the property owner confirmed for the record that he was the individual that signed the application forms. Bonnie Von Olsen (applicant s consultant) provided an overview of the application and property. Ms. Olsen provided a comparison of the proposed plan to the previous condition of the site before the Planning Commission s subdivision and wetland permit approval for the lot in 00. Ms. Olsen noted that the proposed plan would include approximately,00 square feet of impervious area in the wetland buffer and that the proposed residence would be located outside the wetland buffer. She stated that the site has or previously consisted of,000 square feet of impervious area. Ms. Olsen reviewed the mitigation plan with the Planning Commission. The Commission stated that the applicant should provide a revised analysis that compares the amount of impervious area, fill and other considerations of the current plan to the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission in 00. The Commission stated its concern with improvements in the regulated wetland buffer and flood zone noting that the subdivision was approved based on plans that had little or no encroachment in these areas. f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc

7 Page of The City Planner requested that the applicant confirm the structural stability of placing fill in the FEMA Flood zone. He noted that if the fill was washed away it could jeopardize the below grade habitable space. The project engineer stated that he would provide that information. The property owner stated that all habitable space below grade would not be located within a designated flood zone.. 0 Stuyvesant Avenue Linda Whitehead (applicant s attorney) provided an overview of the application and the property. She noted that the.-acre property is located in the City s R- Residence District. The applicant is seeking to construct an addition to a 00 s residence and to construct terraces and a pool within a 00-foot buffer of Milton Harbor. Ms. Whitehead stated that the project would result in an approximately,000 square-foot increase in impervious area in the wetland buffer. She stated that the location of the pool and terrace were in part dictated by the location of a - inch beech tree located in front of the residence outside the buffer. She stated that shifting the terrace and pool away from the buffer would impact this significant tree. She noted that the landscape plan proposes over,000 square feet of mitigation plantings. The City Planner stated that the wetland is tidal and that more information should be provided as to how the tidal wetland boundary was delineated on the plan. Glen Tichert (applicant s landscape architect) stated that the boundary was based on the mean high tide line consistent with his understanding of the City s prior practice. The City Planner requested that the tidal wetland boundary is based on New York State law and that the applicant should confirm this delineation. The Commission requested that the applicant provide a revised plan more clearly delineating existing and proposed improvements. The Commission stated it would conduct a site walk of the property on November Minutes The Commission approved the minutes from its September, 0 and October, 0 meetings. f:\new planner 00\minutes\0 pc minutes\0 pcminutes.doc