[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:02] Any welcome all to the village of Ryebrook planning board meeting?
[0:07] Let us all rise for the pledge of allegiance.
[0:29] Welcome to applicants, clients, professionals and members of the public.
[0:33] My name is Rob Goodman.
[0:36] I'm a chair of the Planning Board.
[0:38] Board members also in attendance tonight as John Bresan,
[0:44] Donald Trump, Scott Mendelssohn, Matthew Retner, Amy Schoen,
[0:48] and Jeffrey Richmond is joining us.
[0:51] Jeff has been on the ZBA, on the zoning board of appeals
[0:56] for two years, from 2015, from 2012 to 2015.
[1:01] and he was actually a colleague of ours on the planning board from 2015 to 2017 and he
[1:10] is entering as Dan Tartaglia, a longtime member of the board for the last 12 years, has taken
[1:17] leaves to expand his practice and so Jeff, you know, thanks for coming in and filling Dan's
[1:25] shoes, look forward to working with you and it's also nice seeing all the board members together
[1:31] after the holiday.
[1:35] I also want to acknowledge David Heiser, who is our liaison from the Board of Trustees,
[1:43] our Village Attorney Jew Gamles, our Superintendent of Public Works, Michael Noak,
[1:49] on our village planning consultant from Hardestian Hanover, Sarah Brown.
[1:54] As always, we thank Terralanda in spirit for assembling all the minutes that we have to review
[2:02] and for all the back office things that she does to keep us going here.
[2:10] I think the minutes, actually, there are a couple of minutes that are ready for review.
[2:17] See,
[2:25] we have minutes from July 2022 and minutes from February 10, 2022.
[2:35] I think there we have a quorum for both, maybe.
[2:44] As anyone who attended those meetings have anything to add to those minutes,
[2:53] let's take
[2:53] February 10, 2022 minutes. If not, can I have a motion in the second to adopt a minute?
[3:00] Luke. Second. Second.
[3:06] Yes. Mr. Crom. Yes. Mr. Mandelson. Yes. Mr. Rettner. Yes.
[3:25] The
[3:25] And I think, one, two, three, we have a quorum for that.
[3:31] So does anyone have any additions amendments to the July 2022 minutes?
[3:38] If not, can I have a motion in a second to adopt those minutes?
[3:43] Oofed.
[3:43] Second.
[3:46] Just because they're just in?
[3:47] Yes, again.
[3:48] Mr. Krum.
[3:50] Mr. Mendelsen.
[3:51] I believe I have to abstain.
[3:54] Mr. Retner.
[3:56] Mr. Richmond.
[3:58] I'll have staying again.
[4:00] Michelle.
[4:01] Oh, vote.
[4:03] Thank you.
[4:05] Chairman Goodman, please.
[4:07] Thank you.
[4:09] Okay.
[4:09] And that should happen.
[4:11] Really?
[4:12] Yeah.
[4:12] Are we like up to date?
[4:14] Yeah.
[4:15] Wow, that's pretty terrific.
[4:17] What a board.
[4:18] For once.
[4:19] We're going to have a different day.
[4:20] Right.
[4:21] Well, congratulations to Tara and the staff.
[4:26] That was a huge endeavor.
[4:28] Well, they were novelas these minutes.
[4:32] They really were.
[4:33] The members of the public just to appreciate this,
[4:36] when we were doing Zoom meetings,
[4:38] under the governor's requirements,
[4:40] those meetings had to actually be transcribed word for word.
[4:44] So you can imagine,
[4:45] Every man can be massive.
[4:47] He's minutes were and people from the village had to put them together and revise them and edit them and it was a huge endeavor.
[4:55] So we have finally caught up and our hats off to our staff for being able to do it.
[5:02] No, so minutes are supposed to be released to the public within two weeks. There's no time for him to approve them, but if there's a foil request and we have a draft ready, we have to release the draft.
[5:15] Even though he may not be approved.
[5:16] Even though there not be, and there's nothing in the law that requires that minutes be approved.
[5:20] Thank you.
[5:22] Okay, our first matter is seven Bobbi Elaine.
[5:27] Is that on?
[5:30] Go into here.
[5:32] Yes, it's on.
[5:32] Okay, good.
[5:35] Any additional information regarding that application?
[5:39] Is the applicant going to?
[5:42] I had a conversation with their engineer.
[5:45] He has moved on from the practice to another municipality, actually.
[5:51] And he said, he will follow up on it, that was last week, Thursday.
[5:56] It's the wait.
[5:56] But Michael, what's the problem?
[5:58] He's the Stonewater Management issue that we are waiting for.
[6:02] Because I remember, this was last time we addressed this,
[6:05] was when he looked over.
[6:05] Yeah.
[6:06] And I thought we had it.
[6:07] It's close.
[6:08] There are some technical items that AI engineers are asking for,
[6:14] which may alter the Stonewater Management.
[6:17] I've read the James Memo today and the Memo was written when sometimes in October, and nobody from the applicant responded to any of that.
[6:27] That's how long we've been trying to obtain this information.
[6:32] The applicant has consulted with other engineers, but legally other engineers cannot take over someone else's design.
[6:40] As the same question, so I just as drew to the application, how long can we drag this on without having to go back to the square one?
[6:50] Yeah, there's no legal requirement. I think our practices, we won't really go beyond six months.
[6:56] And then the board, if the board feels, it's necessary, we can require them to re-nodes if it's been, you know, a substantial amount of time.
[7:03] because my concern is that, you know, if you go for six months, and that is no more public
[7:10] careing, is it open or has been closed?
[7:12] It's still open, or it's been adjourned.
[7:14] Yeah, we schedule it.
[7:15] Also, it is.
[7:16] Some people come as they can still come back and, okay, then I'm fine.
[7:19] But we would require him to re-notice at this point, since it has been, since September, I think.
[7:25] I think one of the issues, though, that you raised was that if a new engineer has to come
[7:31] board, they have to resumit, they have to resumit the site plan, a new, not only that, but it
[7:38] has to be a whole new design, it cannot be the same design.
[7:42] Oh is that so?
[7:43] Yes.
[7:44] It's a variation of the design.
[7:44] Yep.
[7:45] If one engineer designs it, that is proprietary and historical data under their license, so they
[7:52] cannot.
[7:53] Why?
[7:53] Why doesn't the old engineer just enter into a waiver agreement with the new engineer and just
[7:59] his rights to, I'm not a dirty claim, so I don't know, and I'm not getting in the middle of
[8:06] the whole owner and their professional.
[8:08] I know.
[8:09] But it's like, you know, they should either finish up the application or withdraw it and
[8:14] resumide it.
[8:16] See, if you can get them to the next month's meeting, if they're not going to do anything
[8:21] by next month, then I think we should have a discussion about, you know, maybe taking it off
[8:26] agenda until they resummit it. Okay, 32 Lincoln Avenue. New
[8:34] matter on?
[8:37] How are you? How are the holidays?
[8:42] Happy New Year. Happy New Year.
[8:45] Nice.
[8:46] It's a new year.
[8:48] Yeah, right.
[8:52] We're not going to wait too for this one to start.
[8:55] We're going to wait for this one to start.
[8:58] Yeah.
[9:52] I want to watch the Michigan game. You're not part of the FLH system, are you?
[9:57] That's it.
[10:02] This could be a cable, if everything's a cable. Particularly, it's up to
[10:10] me. Hello, Fred. Going Fred.
[10:14] Okay, so they got one screen going. Well, can we start, can we start?
[10:20] Yeah, can we start the other screen? So you can see it. You really can't see that it's great, right?
[10:26] We can, we can, we can, yeah, I think it's it's hard for our colleagues on the other side.
[10:33] Thank you.
[10:34] I think you can move it, John.
[10:39] We could move.
[10:41] We could move.
[10:43] We could move.
[10:44] We could go sit at that there.
[10:47] All right, that's good.
[10:48] Okay, we can see that's good enough.
[10:50] That's what Jeff can use.
[10:51] The professionals do.
[10:53] All right.
[10:54] That's fine.
[11:01] Okay.
[11:03] So this is the third you're linking to Avenue, which is the fairly new houses.
[11:08] Do you start mine?
[11:09] I'm sorry.
[11:10] We want to go.
[11:11] No, I'm good.
[11:14] Okay, so this is the front of the house.
[11:16] It's not linking to Avenue, which you all know is on the scenic overly district.
[11:19] And it's, you really can't park on the street.
[11:23] So it has landscaping,
[11:30] looking out at Lincoln Avenue, it has the fence in the hedge, it has the one-lane driveway coming in right now that's kind of two parking spaces or it could be a catering.
[11:41] So that's where they have right now.
[11:42] But it's very difficult when people come to their house and then other people come, you can't turn around.
[11:48] So if you park in it, you can't turn around so you have to back down the driveway onto Lincoln Avenue,
[11:54] which after living there a couple of years has become a problem.
[11:57] So what they want to do, and this is from the road, what we want to do is
[12:01] fan out the driveway after you come in and then just fan it out and make that spot
[12:06] bigger so that you can park cars pull it closer to the side yard
[12:11] and then you can be able to turn around to somebody's park there
[12:13] also so you can get it out of the garage and you can turn around.
[12:16] So John, this is from Nami's second, not the fact that they have lack of parking.
[12:24] More of issuers and access to the main road in an hour.
[12:28] The biggest issue is backing out onto it.
[12:31] It's a safety issue.
[12:33] It's a safety issue.
[12:33] And the way the driveway is, if you have cars parked, you have to back down the driveway.
[12:37] So they were trying to move the park cars over a little further so that when somebody goes
[12:43] or you try to get out, you can turn around and not have to back down the driveway.
[12:45] And knowing that the two times I've been there to put the sign up and down, and I've had back out the driveway during the day, it is a challenging driveway to get out of.
[12:54] So that's the phone.
[13:00] Yeah, so what would that mean in terms of expanding the parking spot?
[13:33] I think this is what they wanted to do.
[13:37] So we're proposing to do, right? This is the line of the existing.
[13:46] We're proposing to do is take this 21-foot piece and push it out 11 feet, just like half of a car length.
[13:55] So we can push it in and then we're just going to angle this piece so that you have more room just swing around.
[14:01] So this way the cars are parked further in and then you can back out and go out and somebody's here, they can tack and then go out of the driveway.
[14:07] That drive is a two-car drive from the straight to the house, is it?
[14:11] It's really not too lame at the road. It fans out.
[14:16] You can't park too car side by side in this piece of it.
[14:18] At the beginning.
[14:19] Double one.
[14:19] It was a single one and then it fans out.
[14:23] Was that something as part of...
[14:25] Because this is not new.
[14:26] I mean, this is not new.
[14:28] This house was of what two years old?
[14:29] Was this a part of the...
[14:32] All the approval did we ask for a narrow driveway?
[14:35] Well, normally you do. Well, normally somebody does.
[14:38] because normally when you're doing a new house if you like a most new house in Rybrook
[14:41] you usually have a one-lane drive with that in fans out
[14:43] right because you don't like the approach from the road to be too wide you kind of want
[14:48] to fan out we want to make sure drivers in Rybrook are good so they can back down their
[14:53] driver they can. That's not the case with me my my is a two two two yeah your house was built
[15:01] You're a belt, you're a belt. I mean, most ribo houses that are older. Yes.
[15:05] With the two car garage, have a two-lane driveway. But if you look at most of the newer homes, they don't. Okay.
[15:12] Some do, but most don't. So this house because it was a larger lot. You kind of have the area closer to it. It was designed with kind of from the road approach, one lane, and then a fan's out.
[15:22] And our problem really isn't at the road being narrow. It's really the space by the house to turn around.
[15:27] So I'm not sure that like a two-lane wide driveway, the road is really going to help us.
[15:34] But we really need more space at the house.
[15:35] Yeah, it's the house with regard and Rinkon Avenue, slightly under the curve.
[15:42] It's before a tall car.
[15:43] So it's right before and you're wrapped in the park.
[15:46] Rinkon Avenue does curve.
[15:47] It does curve.
[15:48] So when you're backing out the cars coming from the hodge, you don't see as well as the ones coming from us.
[15:53] Exactly.
[15:54] And those are the ones that are going to hit you as you're back now.
[15:56] It's really good.
[15:57] This is on the right side, so come in from the hot, yeah.
[16:00] Yeah, okay.
[16:01] So I mean, the subject here was
[16:03] pushed closer to the house or you're further from the road.
[16:06] We tried to keep it out of the buffer as far as we could,
[16:10] but it's difficult to do.
[16:20] And any additional screening,
[16:23] to Shrevery, any detail?
[16:24] I mean, I know on the letter, it said,
[16:26] I have to look at if the increase of the driveway
[16:31] affected those trees, which I need to put on there.
[16:33] But we will, right now the house is well-lanskated from the road.
[16:37] We could put a little bit of landscaping along the parking spot if we.
[16:41] It's a little bit more.
[16:43] It's just a little bit more.
[16:43] Isn't the issue like this is a designated scenic road?
[16:47] So that actually there is a vegetated buffer requirement that actually cuts through the new
[16:52] parking place.
[16:53] Right, it cuts through a five feet of the parking space.
[16:56] But if you look at the pictures of the house, the vegetation really is by the road closer
[17:00] with the fence and all the plantings.
[17:02] So, we can always add more.
[17:07] So, where is the scenic, just remind me, where is it?
[17:10] So, it's not just five feet, it's not just 10 feet.
[17:15] Yeah, right, it's 10 feet.
[17:17] Yeah, you're an important 10 feet in the scenic over.
[17:21] So, it's not bad, so, it's not bad.
[17:24] So, we could add, like right now, it's heavily kind of with the fence and landscaping along
[17:28] the fence.
[17:29] They've got some layers of it, and then there's some trees.
[17:31] We have to verify those trees or one of the trees might have to move over.
[17:36] So we will at the landscape into the plant.
[17:39] That's what they are and we can't add.
[17:43] You can take our.
[17:44] My name is Malik Samad.
[17:47] I was the builder.
[17:48] I did five houses in Raibrook.
[17:52] And Mr. Martinez willing to plan more landscaping to hide the parking.
[17:58] and then we have private hatch all along the fence that we can increase.
[18:04] So, um, um, positive that let's say once we move and they put the, they put the body and the side of the house.
[18:12] We don't see it as much obvious like now because they're going to be shaded by plants by, by shrub.
[18:18] Is that we're going to plant along the, the new end of the driveway.
[18:23] And Sarah, would as your opinion as far as screening is concerned, better it's feasible and not feasible.
[18:33] I think it is feasible to add additional screening.
[18:37] I would like to see if those pinox have to be relocated, because that might dictate what we then
[18:44] screen with further, because they will eventually be shaded.
[18:50] When I looked at this application when it was presented to us, first time, I had a concern
[18:58] of the President setting, but I took a ride, and because if you looked through the application
[19:06] the way it was presented the first time, there was no mention there at all about the safety issue
[19:10] and the degree of difficulty of getting out on the drive and on the major road, it was kind
[19:15] presented as, you know, my family is coming over and I need additional parking space.
[19:22] And I did not have the positivity reaction to that at the time, but now looking at this
[19:29] and the fact of where the house is located and I agree with Mr. Skala that it's kind of very,
[19:35] very difficult to get out of that driveway onto the main road. Especially coming from the
[19:45] we love to speak about that, don't we? It's not, it's not, yeah, so I think my reaction to it is, you know, as long as it's safety related.
[20:00] He's not the permanent parking, he's more for a kind of turning vehicle or an, so you can go, you know, front out, and with the proper screening, you know.
[20:10] But again, he's up to the zoning board, really, to the ranch of variance.
[20:15] Yeah, I also drove, I drive past it every day and I think Talcott actually is right there, right?
[20:21] It creates even more.
[20:24] Yeah. So it's just bad, it's a bad interest, it is.
[20:28] It's really not going to address the speed limit, it's the other way.
[20:30] Well, that's slow-censure, but even if they did, it still is still a difficult place.
[20:35] I was always under the impression that there was some safety involved.
[20:41] And frankly, I don't think the scenic overlay will be disturbed in any way.
[20:45] I think it will be enhanced by adding additional screening and depending on the kind of planning that you use.
[20:51] So you're killing two birds with one stone, I think.
[20:55] I hope anything.
[20:55] What's his thought in landscape?
[20:57] Nobody will notice he got bigger because it's really close to the house and it's kind
[21:00] of pushing.
[21:05] I might be the minority and I'm sensitive to the safety issues, for sure.
[21:09] But let me just point out all the scene in highways and ride book are major roads.
[21:12] You're talking King Street, Ridge Street, Lincoln Avenue, Anderson Hill Road.
[21:18] They're all major roads, people speed on all those roads.
[21:22] We're not the zoning board, but if I was on the zoning board I would be thinking about
[21:28] the precedent because that's the same argument anybody. I mean why not want to just make
[21:33] the driveway double white, wouldn't start.
[21:37] Double white, wouldn't help this turn. But I mean
[21:40] you've got the ability to turn. The driveway that you've got gives you the ability to turn.
[21:44] You're looking for more parking. We're looking to move the parking over so you can turn
[21:48] when cars are parked. You have the ability, if you parked, for instance, in the garage,
[21:52] you have the ability to turn. You're looking for more parking. We're actually,
[21:57] I mean, we're creating the exact two spaces we have.
[22:01] We're just pushing them 11 feet further back,
[22:03] so that when you pull out of the garage,
[22:04] if cars are parked, you can actually turn around,
[22:07] or somebody else came, they could turn around.
[22:09] No, they could be at that.
[22:12] I'd like, like, like, like, like,
[22:13] I'd all think making the driveway too lane-wise
[22:15] from the road is a better for the scene
[22:17] to go over Lake District.
[22:18] Well, let me ask you a question, if there's clearly
[22:21] a problem if there are more than two cars there.
[22:24] But if you have two cars there,
[22:27] is that manageable, just with two cars.
[22:31] You have two cars there, you're backing down the driveway.
[22:32] You're still backing down the driveway.
[22:34] If you're going out of the garage, you're backing down the driveway.
[22:35] Please, don't go on the number of cars.
[22:37] It's a single family car.
[22:39] You have two parking spaces in the garage, two parking spaces on the driveway.
[22:43] So I think if you stop pushing the number of cars,
[22:46] parking spaces needed for the cars, you're going right into his bucket.
[22:53] And I think the issue here as far as I see it is safety.
[22:58] It's based on the chart of cars.
[22:59] It's made to measure it.
[23:02] But not, you know, if we are proving this because the applicant needs two additional parts,
[23:06] it's based in the fact that he's probably going to park six far the right now,
[23:11] that you're going to lose me on that one.
[23:13] We're taking the two spaces, shoving them 11 feet over so you can actually get out of the garage
[23:17] and turn around of cars of cars.
[23:19] Well, I think that's where the safety issue.
[23:22] And that I think is what's driving the sentiments
[23:26] and favor of your application is that there is now.
[23:29] Now there could be a lot of properties
[23:33] that have the same problem.
[23:35] And if they were to get before the board
[23:37] to make a viable safety argument,
[23:40] we would probably be very sympathetic,
[23:42] notwithstanding the scenic overlaid.
[23:44] I mean, we get a lot of applications
[23:45] involving the scenic overlaid district
[23:47] where we don't even know why they're here.
[23:49] Because I have to say, because I have to co-organize it.
[23:54] But I think it's not sacrosanct.
[23:59] It is assessed on an individualized basis.
[24:05] You're going to have to make the argument
[24:08] to the ZBA that are not just safety reasons
[24:13] that are seriously implicated here.
[24:17] because Don, you know, raises the issue that they will raise, which is, if all you
[24:23] want to do increase the number of parking spaces, well, that's everyone's problem.
[24:27] And they shouldn't relax the code, the zoning code for that.
[24:33] But if you can make a safety-related argument, then I think that would be much more compelling.
[24:42] I haven't actually myself gone to that area, I think other colleagues have.
[24:48] You know, I credit their opinions.
[24:50] If it's low, if the property is located in an area where there could be a distancing problem,
[24:56] a site-distance problem.
[24:58] Well, that's an individual.
[25:00] I think procedurally what we're going to do is we're going to refer the matter to the ZBA for next month.
[25:07] And we're also going to schedule a public hearing. Now when does the ZBA actually meet?
[25:13] Okay, so theoretically, theoretically we've got a determination from the ZBA in advance of our public hearing so that we can move forward without delaying the application.
[25:26] Okay, so I guess we should do the referral resolution first.
[25:31] Do a quick little summary, whereas an application was submitted for safe plan approval for the extension of a driveway to create two conforming parking spaces located a 32-link an avenue.
[25:44] In the scenic roads overly district and the R12 zoning district and whereas pursuant to the building inspectors notice of disapproval did November 28, 2022.
[25:53] The following variances are required for the proposed plans.
[25:57] A 10-foot scenic roads overly district,
[25:59] vegetative buffer setback variants where the minimum required scenic roads overly district vegetative buffer setback
[26:06] is 35 feet pursuant to village code.
[26:10] And whereas the applicant wishes to apply to the ride brook zone board of appeals for the above variance
[26:14] rather than modify the project to conform to the above reference sections of the village code.
[26:19] And whereas the planning board reviewed and considered the application and is January 12, 2020 meeting and
[26:25] Whereas the proposed action is a take to action under Seeker now therefore be it resolved that for the reason stated here in the village of Ryebrook planning board here by refers the application listed in here
[26:37] listed here in to the zoning board of appeals
[26:40] any
[26:42] Any modifications concerns additions to that resolution
[26:47] If not, can I have a motion without endorsing it without endorsing it without endorsing it?
[26:54] I was going to actually take that out and I last time we referred something to the ZBA.
[27:01] This was my error.
[27:03] The planning board had expressed kind of a favor of the variance and the zoning board.
[27:08] They have to evaluate it on their five criteria.
[27:11] So I think the best strategy going forward is unless there are blatant planning concerns
[27:15] that you'd like to express in the resolution,
[27:17] we should not state whether or not the planning board,
[27:20] favors or disfavors the variance.
[27:22] So no comment.
[27:23] You know what I'm saying without, yeah, no endorsement.
[27:26] Without endorsement.
[27:27] Yep.
[27:27] We're just gonna work for, we're just gonna work for.
[27:30] Okay, so that's the language is as you indicated.
[27:38] They indicated, yeah, I had left a blank
[27:40] for any planning issues, but I took that blank out
[27:43] from the draft.
[27:44] So straightforward, just like I read.
[27:47] Okay, can I have a motion this second to a second?
[27:50] So move.
[27:56] Mr. Gazan.
[27:57] Yes.
[27:57] Mr. Crom.
[27:58] Yes. Mr. Mendelssohn.
[28:00] Yes. Mr. Redner. Yes.
[28:01] Mr. Richmond.
[28:02] Yes.
[28:02] Michelle.
[28:03] Yes.
[28:03] Chairman Gomez. Yes.
[28:04] Thank you.
[28:05] And now we have a motion, a resolution to schedule the public hearing for next month.
[28:12] So Sarah, I'm sorry.
[28:14] Whereas in application for site plan approval has been submitted for the expansion of a driveway at the property located at 32 Lincoln Avenue in the village of Rybrook.
[28:24] Now therefore, be it resolved the planning board of the village of Rybrook will hold a public hearing on February 9, 2023 at 6.30 pm in village hall or in a virtual format as may be determined depending on public health concerns.
[28:38] It further resolved that the applicant is hereby directed to comply with section 250-40 of the village code regarding notification of the public hearing.
[28:48] Okay, I was there any modifications. Let's move. Okay, second.
[28:58] Mr. Gerson.
[28:59] Yes.
[28:59] Mr. Crom.
[29:00] Yes. Mr. Mendelsen.
[29:02] Yes.
[29:02] Mr. Gerson.
[29:03] Yes.
[29:04] Chairman Gilman.
[29:05] Yes. Thank you.
[29:06] I would like to follow up on a question on this notification.
[29:12] I know there is two weeks.
[29:14] Is it that the neighbors have to receive the letter like two weeks in advance?
[29:20] I was reading some material for tonight's meeting and one of the neighbors sent us an email
[29:27] where she was pointing out that she did not receive the notification of the meeting,
[29:31] popular hearing until about day early day one day before the meeting of the hearings on the
[29:40] agenda for tonight. So there's no I'm just asking you generally there's a you have to
[29:46] send them 10 you have to send them 10 days before there's a postmark. Yes.
[30:00] Postmark 10 days. So if she got it one day before, that's just the mail. But it's, you know, there are, there's a postmark, there's the lady went through the whole process explaining where the letter was mail got a statement.
[30:13] And I just don't want to be, I said, you know, when we scheduled these, so it is a 10 days postmark 10 days and there's no requirement that you may, no requirement that you mail it from in state.
[30:24] I mean, so that's why we have the newspaper, that's why we have the signing properties.
[30:29] So there's other things we try and do to account for those errors, but sometimes it just happens like that
[30:35] Yeah, I know what you're talking about
[30:39] Okay, our next item is a 44 Rock Ridge Drive
[31:10] The
[32:42] design engineer on the project at 44 Rock Ridge Drive
[32:48] Currently, the site has is
[32:52] We have access via black top driveway in this area. There are no padios in the rear.
[33:02] How do I clear this?
[33:09] Let's see that at all
[33:11] Excuse me.
[33:26] Is there any way of swinging that a little bit further?
[33:32] No
[33:35] That's better. Much better. It's better. Thank you. Do you see a check? Yeah, okay
[33:41] So, existing conditions on a lot, there is an existing deck in the rear, composite deck
[33:49] with steps, there's a front porch, a driveway, and then a walkway access to the front door,
[33:57] existing conditions are shown on the left-hand side in this area, and then proposed,
[34:08] we're
[34:08] eight foot wide at the entrance to the driveway, and then another
[34:15] apron, three foot wide at the entrance to the garage.
[34:22] What do you mean by
[34:23] driver apron? What's an apron to a driver? It's like a walkway out of asphalt. It's
[34:30] like pavers or some type of cobblestone belt and rock. In this case we're
[34:35] closing pavers as the as the apron in addition we wanted to add two walkways to access the
[34:44] rear of the property we have a proposed paver walkway on over here on the right side of
[34:52] and then we have a proposed P-Grabble bed surrounding a blue.
[35:01] There's a proposed paper walkway on the left side of the home and a proposed patio of 398 square feet, with a associated stormwater management and landscaping, which I'm going to get to
[35:25] now.
[35:47] On the right side of the home, separating the front of the home from the rear, there'll be a white PVC fence,
[35:56] with black posts, that'll be separating the front from the rear on the right side and
[36:11] rear
[36:11] deck.
[36:12] We're going to be adding steps down to the proposed patio, which are going to be tracks
[36:17] or composite decking with a pebble stone gray finish to match the existing.
[36:31] Then we're going to have the blue stone paper walkway on the left side of the home, surrounded
[36:36] by P gravel bed, which will resemble this picture here.
[36:48] This is the pavers that I was talking about for the aprons,
[36:53] as well as the paver walkway on the right side of the home.
[36:57] They're going to go with an on-exnatural Cambridge pavers.
[37:11] The patio will be done with thermal blue stone.
[37:14] As a finish,
[37:22] here's another picture of the rear patio stone.
[37:25] And
[37:30] there will be some permeable synthetic turf proposed as part of this project, which will go in the rear of the property in this corner here, as a play area.
[37:51] The reason that you use in the papers and the turf, is it to get around the percentage
[37:58] of the impervious surface to be within the code regulation?
[38:04] No, actually.
[38:04] Or is it just for the aesthetics of…
[38:06] It's for the aesthetics only.
[38:08] If we were considering papers to be impervious, would you still be within the percentage
[38:16] of within the core of the requirement,
[38:19] so much of the impervious surface on front, you can have.
[38:22] Right, so if the pavers were considered pervious,
[38:26] then we would meet the requirement.
[38:28] But I did not consider the pavers as being pervious.
[38:30] I considered them as impervious for purposes of the application.
[38:34] And since we are within 100 feet of the water course
[38:38] in the rear, that's what triggered us
[38:42] to have to come present to the planning board.
[38:45] And the existing asphalt driver would remain asphalt, or you would say, yeah, the driver would remain asphalt with the exception of the aprons, but you can drive on the paper.
[38:56] Correct. Yes. It's not going to look very, it's going to look kind of like there are a number of homes that have it's like a picture frame. Yeah, okay, all right, it's a so how much in the way of additional impervious surface, are we talking about?
[39:15] So, the total additional impervious surface is,
[39:34] here at the schematic of existing impervious areas, versus proposed, and existing, we have 3,561 square feet of impervious area, and proposed, we have 4,329, so there's an addition.
[40:00] National 768 square feet of impervious being proposed as part of the application. And we did receive comments from Mr.
[40:14] Noak and hand over. And we didn't get a chance to address them yet, but we are going to take those into consideration.
[40:25] revisit the plan and try and reduce some of this disturbance that we have in the rear due to
[40:32] stormwater management. So since we are required to capture all impervious surfaces on the
[40:37] lot, we have to install a stormwater and the front of the property is higher than the rear.
[40:44] So some areas of the home can be captured by bringing the water to the front, but some will
[40:52] have to get captured in the rear, and I'm going to do my best to balance that out to decrease
[41:00] the amount of disturbance in the rear, which was one of the concerns that I saw based off
[41:05] the comments.
[41:06] Now, Sarah, this is a wetland area.
[41:11] Where's the wetland buffer?
[41:13] The wetland buffer goes through.
[41:15] The house is mostly contained within it.
[41:17] I think it's like right along the front door.
[41:21] there's a small portion of the front of the house that's not in it.
[41:25] Yeah, there it is, right, that line that goes through the footprint of the house.
[41:29] All right,
[41:32] so when it comes to stormwater,
[41:34] I mean, what do you, what do you do? The whole thing, the whole backyard is,
[41:39] and I correct the whole backyard is in the wetland buffer?
[41:42] Yes, but the board needs to understand why this property is in the wetland buffer.
[41:47] All the way at the far back, there's a retaining wall.
[41:50] right great and that was what like eight feet high or six feet high. It's a stone rubble wool. There's a
[41:56] There's a brook that comes down from
[41:59] metal arc and King Street and comes down and it's basically drainage channel
[42:04] So that's why this house is essentially in a wetland buffer because if you do
[42:09] Man made natural added on to over the years. It's there. It's a brook it flows even on a blue sky day
[42:17] It's got water in it, but this property is actually 8-feet higher than the level of brook.
[42:22] But in technicality because the brook is there, there's a 100-foot wet land buffer.
[42:28] But this property is actually 8-feet higher than so roughly, I'm just saying.
[42:33] So what in general, when it comes to storm water, would you recommend the sounds like you
[42:38] could, you know, if you're actually above what the buffer is, it's sort of a faux buffer.
[42:46] So the house is really higher than whatever the wetland would be.
[42:51] So how would you drain the water that attaches to that part of the house with it?
[42:58] Well, and that's what we were talking about on the phone the other day.
[43:02] There are certain things that we're going to look for, especially the driveway is going to go into the wetland, the buffer area because driveway comes down.
[43:11] Okay, so we're going to look for pre-treatment of the water.
[43:14] Could that we need a water, it goes into the stormwater system,
[43:16] at least your oils and your great gets captured out.
[43:19] So things like that are going to be done.
[43:21] Porsan of the house, Google towards the front.
[43:24] Resta house is just going to have to go in the back.
[43:27] There's just no way, okay, but we're going to try to
[43:30] balance that out equally and try to do our best to get as much
[43:33] out of the buffer as we possibly can to try not to disturb
[43:38] the buffer as much as possible.
[43:40] All right, and as far as mitigation, Sarah,
[43:42] what based on the, I guess, well, there's 700 feet of additional impervious surface, but
[43:50] how much of that, how much of that is relevant to the mitigation ratio for the wetland,
[43:56] because not all the, is that with that 700, because some of it is actually in front of the house,
[44:03] which wouldn't be, which wouldn't impact the wetland. So how much of the buffer
[44:10] Yeah, and that was the number that we had asked for, a verification of how much actual disturbance is in the wetland buffer, that number wasn't on the plan.
[44:19] So once that has been indicated, but like you said, I would assume it's slightly under 700, so we're looking at probably 1200 square feet of mitigation that's required.
[44:28] But we'll verify that when we get that calculation.
[44:31] Assuming it is, is there a place to put that mitigate those mitigations for the challenges?
[44:43] I apologize. It's one to one now. It's no longer two to one.
[44:47] Correct.
[44:47] Get in the buffer.
[44:48] We just changed it.
[44:50] How did that happen?
[44:51] And it's put my mind.
[44:54] It should have come to us, right?
[44:56] It did.
[44:57] Thank you guys.
[44:58] You guys.
[45:02] The way that it was, it actually didn't make sense because actual wetland disturbance had to be mitigated at one to one, but buffer disturbance, which is outside of the wetland, we're requiring two to one.
[45:19] We wanted to make a consistent.
[45:22] I was caught by surprise for a minute.
[45:25] So we'll probably need roughly 600 square feet, which I believe they will be able to be.
[45:30] And I'll also add that they have a very robust mitigation planting plan with wetland species that is very appropriate.
[45:39] Any questions?
[45:41] What's with the applicant?
[45:43] I have a question about directed to you.
[45:46] Who's issue is it with regard to what type of material is used for the apron?
[45:51] At the end of the slide?
[45:52] At the end of the slide?
[45:53] Is that the ARB that decides that?
[45:56] There's no variance trigger by that pathway on the right.
[46:02] It's very close to the boundary line there.
[46:06] There's no variance issue there.
[46:07] Not structure.
[46:10] Point flat patios like that, or flat walkways right up against the property line.
[46:17] As far as screening goes, the entire perimeter of the property is currently planted
[46:22] with our variety too, so screening isn't an issue as is, and we're only enhancing that
[46:29] with the proposed plantings.
[46:33] Okay. If there are no other questions for the applicant or staff here, why don't we
[46:44] schedule a public hearing to schedule for this matter for next month?
[46:51] Sorry you are the con.
[46:53] Whereas applications for approval of a site plan and wetlands permit for the construction
[46:57] of a patio, bluestone walkway, paper walkway, driveway, aprons, stormwater system and landscaping
[47:04] has been cemented for the property at 44 Rock Ridge Drive.
[47:08] Now, therefore, it be resolved, the planning board of the Village of Ryebrook will hold a public hearing
[47:12] on February 9, 2023 at 630 in Village Hall, or in a virtual format as may be deemed depending on
[47:19] public health concerns to consider the above reference application.
[47:22] The further resolve that the applicant is hereby directed to comply with section 250-40 of the village code regarding notification of the public hearing.
[47:32] Can I have a motion this second to adopt a resolution?
[47:38] Mr. Grazam.
[47:39] Yes.
[47:40] Mr. Carham.
[47:41] Mr. Mendelsan.
[47:42] Yes.
[47:43] Mr. Ritchman.
[47:43] Yes.
[47:45] Chairman Goodman.
[47:46] Yes. Thank you.
[47:48] Thank you.
[47:48] Thank you.
[47:49] Nice job, President.
[47:59] Okay, and last matter.
[48:02] Actually, before we get to the last matter, I just want to bring something to everyone's attention.
[48:07] I tried, last time we did a training session, we talked about adding language to the resolutions that would become standard to enforcement.
[48:15] And so, I tried it out for Bobby Lane, and I just figured, well, it's a short agenda. Maybe I could just read you the two clauses I added and we can see.
[48:24] that I thought was beautiful. Finally, I said there was a little bite.
[48:30] Okay, what really did anyone?
[48:34] I read it this afternoon and I was going through the material.
[48:41] I was away for a long time, so come on.
[48:44] I don't know, I'm a pro.
[48:45] It's, I added two resolve clauses at the very end of the resolution that I'm hoping to make standard.
[48:51] They read, be it further resolved, all construction shall be in performance, in a shall be performed in accordance with all proof plans,
[49:00] and land use approvals and you approve amendments there too and feel changes authorized and improved by the building inspector,
[49:06] the superintendent of public work, slash village engineer or their designate.
[49:10] Any applicant who violates this resolution may be issued a stop work order and summons in accordance with the provisions of chapter 91 of the code of the Village of Ryebrook.
[49:19] Be it further resolved that this resolution
[49:21] sells to proceed conflicting provisions of the village code?
[49:25] Oh, sure.
[49:26] Should it be as authorized by the building inspector,
[49:29] superintendent, et cetera, in writing?
[49:32] So that someone doesn't say, hey, I talked to Mike,
[49:35] and he said it was fine.
[49:37] Or, that's not a objection to that.
[49:41] That's fine.
[49:42] I like that provision, too, more than the other one,
[49:47] because some of these field changes now become
[49:49] matter of record and they are proved so we are not surprised
[49:52] all right
[49:55] i also
[49:56] read this part
[49:57] i also said during construction of the building
[50:00] Building Inspector, Superintendent of Public Works, Sash Village Engineer, may authorize upon written request of the applicant minor changes to the approved site plan. Such minor modification shall be consistent with their design and intent of the approved site plan, the architect or engineer of record shall submit the approved changes on a set of as-built plans, which plans shall be maintained in the permanent file of the building department. All changes to the site plan, other than minor changes described here in, shall require approval of a site plan amendment by the planning board.
[50:30] That's the one I really like.
[50:32] Yes, I think that's the only way to work on it.
[50:36] That's fine.
[50:37] I actually have a question about the very last resolutions,
[50:42] which is that this resolution shall supersede conflicting provisions of the village code.
[50:47] Do we know whether it does, and if it does, do we have the authority to provide the code?
[50:53] Okay, yeah, so you can do, like if you were to condition, this resolution does not, but let's say you put a condition in that's maybe maybe that condition is technically from you could do whatever the condition is you could do it the code allows you to do it
[51:09] But as condition of this site plan you are prohibited from doing it, then that in that case this resolution would govern
[51:17] like a pump location like a pump location right if the pump location
[51:21] complies with the setback you can put it in you know you can put it wherever it
[51:25] will comply with the setback but of this board says it's going to go in this
[51:30] location and it's going to be screened with very specific things will then
[51:33] not write this resolution is more detailed than the code so it's not technically
[51:38] conflict, but it would govern.
[51:42] Okay, I just want to make sure a lot, but yeah, I think you've done a really good job in
[51:47] rapid these things.
[51:49] You know, this is when engineer tries to be a lawyer.
[51:53] Court is approved by the Board, Village Board.
[51:57] And here, if I read this correctly, we can almost make a modification without the Village
[52:02] Board's approval.
[52:03] Like we are pulling aside amendments to the court.
[52:05] Well, you can, you cannot use your power, your approval power to modify the code.
[52:12] What you can do is issue conditions that are relevant to the application at hand.
[52:18] The course says 10 feet, and we said no, it has to be 6.
[52:23] But you're going, the 6 feet would be justified through your conversation and evidence in the record.
[52:28] Um, you know, that's why you're going to do it.
[52:32] We, your legal counsel wouldn't let you arbitrarily put in a random condition, you know,
[52:39] or go forward with something that's out of the scope of your jurisdiction.
[52:43] So you can't go and start, you know, using this resolution to modify.
[52:49] Do you count to a drill not to let us go?
[52:52] Okay, thank you.
[52:53] Thank you.
[52:54] You know, I added that last resolved clause about the conflict because I know we had talked
[53:00] about the power of this resolution and to make people aware that they need to be reading
[53:04] the resolutions.
[53:05] They need to keep this close at hand because it's going to have in some cases specific
[53:10] conditions.
[53:11] And actually, this gives me an opportunity of, you know, in our discussion about the resolution
[53:19] highlighting these two clauses and emphasizing them for the better for the applicants that
[53:27] were washing them basically.
[53:30] And this resolution would have been very helpful, this language, you know, application
[53:34] that we have a few months back.
[53:36] That's what you're saying.
[53:38] All right.
[53:39] I mean, there's no learning.
[53:41] All right.
[53:42] All right.
[53:43] I like this.
[53:44] All right.
[53:45] All right.
[53:46] All right.
[53:46] All right.
[53:47] It's a little better.
[53:49] I know that's good.
[53:51] Thank you very much.
[53:53] Thank you.
[53:53] That was great.
[53:56] OK.
[53:57] We have, while we're at it, Drew,
[54:01] why don't you explain this local law.
[54:04] It sort of makes sense to me.
[54:09] explain it anyway.
[54:13] You're so smart.
[54:14] It's much easier to read than the law itself.
[54:20] It is a technical law, and that the reason for that is because, you know, we want to make sure that the requirements currently, like oil tanks and fuel burning equipment, the regulated in two locations. You have regulated in chapter 162, but then we specifically have generators, permanent stem, and by generators, regulated in the zoning code, which is the reason that this is before you.
[54:46] because we have to modify a provision of the zoning code.
[54:50] What this law does is it now regulates all oil and gas burning equipment just like
[55:00] The generators.
[55:01] Oh, it smokes.
[55:02] That's right.
[55:04] That's right.
[55:05] That's right.
[55:05] Oh, wow.
[55:06] Okay.
[55:06] That's thanks.
[55:08] Staying here for a little while.
[55:09] You need to draw out your explanation.
[55:11] Are we in the buffer or the weather?
[55:13] Might be after this.
[55:15] Yeah.
[55:16] So what this, this language should look familiar because it does come up when we regulate generators.
[55:22] One thing that will change is we had added.
[55:26] at the placement of permanent stand by generators placed for multi-family uses in residential
[55:35] districts will now require site plan and they previously didn't. So this is kind of Mickey
[55:41] is those brain child where he was reviewing these permits and realizing that people weren't
[55:46] being treated fairly for generators but yet you weren't subject to the same standards for
[55:52] oil tank in your yard and didn't make any sense. So this law kind of cleans up the code
[55:57] and make sure that all this type of equipment is all being treated fairly and that the
[56:02] language in chapter 162 mimics the language in section 250-4.1 and I'm only modifying
[56:10] for the zoning code you're only only modifying that one adding that one word that multi-family
[56:16] use everything else in that section remains the same.
[56:20] I'm surprised that hasn't been a regulation, a multi, you know, multi-family applicants
[56:26] can put these generators wherever they want, basically.
[56:29] Right.
[56:29] Well, not wherever they want, right.
[56:31] There are still requirements in subsection B, but now they're going to require site plan
[56:37] a little bit more regulation for those types of uses that seem to make sense.
[56:43] It doesn't make sense to me anyway, because we deal with the safety issue.
[56:49] Hasn't changed the requirement for single family norms?
[56:52] It does not change the requirement for single family homes.
[56:55] So, you single family from that?
[56:57] You can install with that any site plan up to work, correct?
[57:00] Correct.
[57:01] You know, there are still standards, but...
[57:05] And remind me, are you fresh, my memory, Mike?
[57:07] Would the single family on a size of a tank, for example?
[57:10] is there is a maximum tank that an applicant or not that like a homeowner can
[57:16] he store. No, our code doesn't govern the size of tank. I mean if you want to
[57:23] 500 gallon tank or a thousand gallon tank, that's up to you. So if you want 25 hours
[57:28] a run tank, 48 hours a run tank. Not for the maximum. Let's say somebody wants to stole
[57:32] a 10,000 gallon oil tank on the single property, on the single family property, they
[57:38] do that? No, because then you trigger what's just kind of health department approvals and permitting
[57:44] for tanks over certain sides.
[57:50] But health department regulates tanks over 1100 gallons.
[57:54] Okay, all right, okay, thank you. And residential oil tanks only allowed to be a 550 internally,
[58:01] But now there's three, thirty-gown tanks, so you're allowed to go up to two, three, thirty tanks inside a house.
[58:09] So anything over that, you have to get out the apartment room.
[58:14] There's a few different materials out there. There's iron tanks.
[58:21] There are fiberglass tanks. There are hybrid tanks that are plastic and galvanized.
[58:26] There's a multitude of tanks.
[58:28] Board Justice Library just installed a fiberglass tank, so if you'll tank, so in this multitude of tanks.
[58:37] All right, so is there a resolution associated with this?
[58:45] Yes, there is a report and recommendation in the agenda.
[58:49] One two review it with us.
[58:54] This is where I regret getting lengthy.
[58:59] Resolution authorizing submission of a report and recommendation to the
[59:02] Ryebrook Board of Trustees and a local law to amend Chapter 162 and Chapter 250
[59:07] Section 4.1 of the code as a village of Ryebrook concerning construction and
[59:11] installation of oil burning equipment, gas burning equipment, that's in
[59:16] twice. And fuel storage tanks. For the resolve that the Ryebrook
[59:22] planning board hereby submits the attached report and recommendation to the
[59:25] book Board of Trustees in the proposal of the law, a Mending Chapter 162, in Chapter 250,
[59:32] Section 4.1 of the Code of the Village of Ryebrook, concerning construction and installation
[59:36] of oil burning equipment, gas burning equipment, and fuel storage tanks.
[59:40] And be it for the resolve that the Planning Board Chairman is here by authorized to finalize
[59:44] the Attach Report and Recommendation in consultation with the Village Council to accurately
[59:49] reflect the Planning Board's discussion at his January 12th, 2023 meeting prior to such a report
[59:55] and recommendation being forwarded to the Board of Trustees and Belgiumers.
[1:00:14] We have a report and recommendation, right? Yes, we do. So this is the first resolution. Then I go into the actual report and recommendation, where I write, I wrote an overview of the law, which pretty much is consistent with the summary. I just provided. So I can read it if you'd all like, but spare you.
[1:00:35] It was pretty much what I had just, yeah, just a little bit more detail about the specifics.
[1:00:44] And then we get to the discussion, the planning board discussed the provisions of the local law at its January 12th, 2023 meeting during which the village council provided input.
[1:00:53] The planning board provided the following comments on the proposed local law.
[1:00:57] It seems like the comments that we're receiving is pretty much just a general favor of legislation.
[1:01:02] I think the law is proposed.
[1:01:05] Yeah, make sense.
[1:01:08] Just sort of curiosity between the single family homes and the multi-family homes.
[1:01:13] What's the difference between the two that they're treated differently under our code?
[1:01:19] Are they?
[1:01:20] Say that single family and two family?
[1:01:22] I mean, why wouldn't the single family be included among the regulated actors here?
[1:01:28] Well, so single family and two family homes are, they're still regulations, but it does not amount to site plan requirements.
[1:01:37] Now, the idea is that there's more happening for multifamily buildings, more parking to account for more windows to be concerned about landscaping.
[1:01:47] So when you're installing a standby generator, there's more elements that should be looked at and evaluated to make sure it's going in the right place to have the minimal impact.
[1:01:58] to make sense.
[1:02:02] All right, can I have a motion and a second to adopt the resolution as presented by Council?
[1:02:12] Okay, second.
[1:02:17] Mr. Grasant.
[1:02:18] Yes.
[1:02:19] Yes.
[1:02:20] Mr. Mendelssohn.
[1:02:20] Yes.
[1:02:21] Yes.
[1:02:21] Mr. Mendelssohn.
[1:02:21] Yes.
[1:02:24] And then we need and then the resolution directing our report and recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
[1:02:37] Yes.
[1:02:39] Yes.
[1:02:40] Mr. Mendoza.
[1:02:40] Mr. Redner.
[1:02:41] Yes, Mr. Richman.
[1:02:42] Yes, Mr. Chairman Goodman.
[1:02:45] Good night, good Lord.
[1:02:47] Good morning.
[1:02:48] The record, good morning.
[1:02:51] You got a football game.
[1:02:53] Let go of basketball.
[1:02:54] It's not a football game.
[1:02:55] Is there no football games?
[1:02:57] Yeah.
[1:02:59] There are some very dangerous games.
[1:03:00] I can't remember.
[1:03:02] Well, we're going to check in close the meeting.
[1:03:04] Yeah?
[1:03:05] Yeah.
[1:03:05] We're going to check in close the meeting?
[1:03:07] Yeah.
[1:03:07] We're going to check in.
[1:03:09] On favor?
[1:03:09] Hi.
[1:03:11] I bought it after doing so.
[1:03:13] Yes.