[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6199423,"mediaKeyId","3833602-53317322a868f4e98435838adb3d1e1b","parentId",3833602,"title","Planning board sets July 10 public hearing for minor steep‑slope amendment at 47 Hawthorne Avenue","audioSeconds",1816,"startMs",7197000,"endMs",9013000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3833602-53317322a868f4e98435838adb3d1e1b&start=7197&end=9013","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3833602-53317322a868f4e98435838adb3d1e1b/thumbnail_7197000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6199423/Rye-Brook/Westchester-County/New-York/Planning-board-sets-July-10-public-hearing-for-minor-steepslope-amendment-at-47-Hawthorne-Avenue","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6199423-5b4fd7dda661761ed5831332d45271ac/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180663&Signature=ieVjw2XzRFehQLN6SSTIcBi-F6dOvFhTXRVcZBHF1N6a71gNznol6mvHkK3xvaSpq8nY67l9suXg6RdNFdxFC4yuQ5Ple-wp1Am4BE5wnwkvqt1-wvZH8oMdfqF1gQmXXnWbeFaBYQmx9RyJGCmXUE5KKwx-cv~wB4dkklm5f8Ip01vpl-0bPv2OME9yUT-u6JYG5nYRoYbDSRYLovdsYFTqU5uLB3KVwsJ9-LDshhA2YGG2~0YECyqLC152ooLR0w336yBMFvQDVQ7yIxTaHa25Hd3e8~-rhn6uYbodykoohi~8bqBeJnneEOLf0MA2uOAkBnCQhUZnDT0HDV1FNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Village of Rye Brook, NY","date","2025-06-13T13:22:28Z","article","The Rye Brook Planning Board on June 12 scheduled a public hearing for 6:30 p.m. on July 10 to consider a minor amended site plan and steep‑slope permit for a single‑story home at 47 Hawthorne Avenue.

Applicant Greg Veron, the owner and general contractor, and landscape architect Abigail Adams presented the request to regrade a limited steep‑slope area on the south side of the lot (approximately 320 square feet of the 2,916 square feet of steep‑slope area on the site), defer some plantings until later construction stages and shift an eastern property‑line fence slightly closer to the property line to protect two new street trees. The team told the board the regrading would use material excavated for a proposed drainage system and that no work is proposed within the site’s SROD vegetated buffer.

Adams described the proposal as a modest regrading intended to remove an awkward high point in the central yard so the patio and lawn areas will be on the same elevation and more usable. She said about 235 square feet of the change lies in the 15–25% slope band and roughly 85 square feet in the 25–35% band; the plan keeps grading and drainage patterns consistent with the approved site plan and does not intrude on the scenic/riparian buffer.

Veron (applicant) explained the pool installation will be deferred; he said finishing grading and smaller hardscape/landscape elements now makes construction sequencing more efficient while heavier pool work is scheduled for a later date. The board indicated the proposal appears minor and that village staff had no objections; a planning‑board member asked staff to confirm there would be no need for a retaining wall visible to neighbors, and staff said they had no major concerns and that Michael Nowak had been consulted.

The planning board adopted a resolution to set the public hearing by roll call vote; members present voted yes: Mister Grusan (sic in roll call), Mister Mendelson, Miss Schoen, Mister Taig, Mister Vaeseman and Chairman Goodman (6–0).

What’s next: the board will hold the public hearing on July 10 at 6:30 p.m.; the application will be advertised and the applicant will provide required notifications under Village Code section 250‑40. The applicant and staff expect to address any neighbor questions at that hearing and to provide any additional engineering detail requested by the building department.

Direct quotes from the presentation:
\"We're looking to regrade approximately 320 square feet of steep slope area,\" Abigail Adams, landscape architect, said while outlining the contours and proposed grading changes.

Ending: The board treated the application as a routine minor amendment and set a formal public hearing to allow neighbors to comment before the board decides. The applicant will return in July with required notice and any additional documentation requested by staff.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rye Brook Planning Board - 12 Jun 2025 @ 6:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The Rye Brook Planning Board scheduled a public hearing for July 10 to consider a minor amended site plan and steep‑slopes work permit for a one‑story single‑family home at 47 Hawthorne Avenue. Applicant asked to defer some landscaping and adjust a fence to protect street trees.","taxTitle","Rye Brook, Westchester County, New York","taxId",70721,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6199427,"Planning board leaves public hearing open on Kingfield/The Arbors impervious‑surface swap as neighbors debate fairness",4647,3193000,7840000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3833602-53317322a868f4e98435838adb3d1e1b&start=3193&end=7840","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3833602-53317322a868f4e98435838adb3d1e1b/thumbnail_3193000.jpg","/articles/6199427/Rye-Brook/Westchester-County/New-York/Planning-board-leaves-public-hearing-open-on-KingfieldThe-Arbors-impervioussurface-swap-as-neighbors-debate-fairness","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6199427-43668052e46720c08287105b917e6f72/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180663&Signature=a5TcRzGt53zoxRksR3M2HfhG2aScz2EFOM7GWpd~7~114synTVEskwSnBCT3LrjMgwcKGd4QbhvxhKd9vum2MfuZQ4YfFMe3CDIXHJSp8tsL5eI4yBYjWZTiB8KPhl8LX5Y6zwg4-7j6poRoAeB-fUOmk47wZv3hW0~NuPEwpwd3rALJCWXaOMuLTOXLyluAtCto6ONhxb~dss3oiSXXOSEWTySOEOqqU2CwulYv3ZLyF9Xn--D5-w09S3blISjvwN2nuk40NSNVq6tY5iuZdv1YajXt~KwN~kCV-JzDUV14sR-KIwlaAmL2IUxvEznXECnUcYHm2Px2HzFvP40zfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rye Brook Planning Board left the public hearing open on June 12 for an application that would swap up to 4,835 square feet of impervious‑surface coverage from common areas into homeowners’ lots in the Kingfield/The Arbors development, after a lengthy public discussion about equity, enforcement and stormwater impacts.

The application seeks an amendment to the original PUD/site‑plan approvals so the homeowner association (HOA) can allocate unused impervious‑surface allowance to individual homeowners who previously expanded patios, driveways or other exterior areas without fully permitted approvals. Neighbors and board members spent more than an hour debating whether the planning board should approve such a swap or require the HOA to produce a fair allocation plan first.

Jim Lombardo, president of the HOA, said many patio expansions took place before a resident HOA board was established and described the situation as a legacy of early developer activity; he urged a practical fix so homeowners with existing unpermitted work can pursue legalization without losing a sale or title transfer. Several homeowners said they bought properties with improvements installed by the developer or earlier owners and feared being penalized now.

Opponents and cautious board members raised these key concerns:
• Fairness and equity: Many residents and planning‑board members worried that the swap would effectively legalize larger expansions for the subset of homes that already expanded their patios while denying similar opportunities to other homeowners who have not expanded.
• Enforcement and process: Board members emphasized that owners of altered properties must still obtain building permits, pay fines where applicable, and present construction drawings; the village building inspector (referred to in the meeting as Mr. Fuze) retains enforcement authority. The board discussed whether building‑inspector review, zoning relief or further site‑plan analysis would be required for some properties.
• Stormwater and drainage: Members and the board discussed whether additional stormwater analysis would be required before reallocating common impervious area, though village staff said the existing stormwater plan accounted for the 4,835 square‑foot allowance; some members said a targeted drainage review could still be prudent if more than the accounted amount were used.
• HOA governance: Several speakers — including Lynette Zimmerman and Elizabeth Petrucci — urged the HOA to develop a formal, written guideline and voting process to allocate any transferred square footage equitably among homeowners. The board repeatedly noted that the HOA has the institutional role and governance mechanisms to craft allocation rules among its members.

Board counsel and staff cautioned there may be legal questions to resolve before a final vote: the planning board may have the authority to amend prior site‑plan restrictions, but members requested staff and counsel review legislative and record history to understand why the original plat contained the prohibition on using the buffer for patios. The chair and board members asked staff to research the prior approvals and the rationale for the earlier restriction before the board completes its review.

No final action was taken June 12; the board said it will continue the public hearing at a subsequent meeting and expects additional materials from staff, counsel and possibly the HOA. At the end of the meeting the board agreed to adjourn the discussion to next month and keep the public hearing open so residents and the HOA can proceed with drafting guidance and to allow staff to gather the legislative history and technical information requested by the board.

Quotes from the hearing:
\"If this board were to give the 4,800 square feet, and then the HOA will decide how to allocate that, it will ultimately be up to the board of that HOA to decide what to do with those 4,800 square feet,\" a planning board member summarized during the discussion.

Ending: The impasse centers on whether the village should authorize a site‑plan amendment that hands allocation discretion to the HOA now, or whether the board should require an HOA allocation scheme and additional technical review first. The planning board left the public hearing open to allow legal and technical follow‑up and to give the HOA and residents time to develop allocation options for the board to review.","The Rye Brook Planning Board kept the public hearing open June 12 on an application to reallocate 4,835 square feet of impervious‑surface coverage to homeowners in The Arbors/Kingfield development; residents and the HOA debated fairness, enforcement and stormwater concerns and asked the HOA to propose allocation guidelines.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6199432,"Rye Brook planning board approves amended site plan for Sunrise Senior Living at 900 King Street",2283,461000,2744000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3833602-53317322a868f4e98435838adb3d1e1b&start=461&end=2744","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3833602-53317322a868f4e98435838adb3d1e1b/thumbnail_461000.jpg","/articles/6199432/Rye-Brook/Westchester-County/New-York/Rye-Brook-planning-board-approves-amended-site-plan-for-Sunrise-Senior-Living-at-900-King-Street","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6199432-348829939eb786de7e8fd2edb8499d6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771180663&Signature=lIk-XLYamSq4uRWtBbrYQx3DTPFRHf3-nXHTJ-M939RxgFkP8Yml8u58xe6YwLwDUnTEjpLqg-tRs8B4fEX8zu7Txp6thyqME6zpUn6TeJfjE~J9w-Vi0q07Yk5DBxnhY4YBplRzY-dVXUll5Z6ykxiuuVpKJYVI2XS5h4wTUiBibfFyzY2cq8U-FvlrLqHFYe0swhT9lpTggrQE-e78X8Bq5qqDdpeZMVmazNIoujGnXPStF9R44VspqpCF3ULiSBduu1EiRRXNGJV2V7xI8KtiVfurg9nKll-yNir6qG2XKXOxZti-fPliVfJGngIumYErBz7Y2nLcLAyCSA~ovA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rye Brook Planning Board unanimously approved an amended planned unit development (PUD) site plan for Sunrise Senior Living’s 900 King Street project on June 12, voting to adopt a resolution that reads the amended PUD approval together with an amended SEQRA finding statement and a set of conditions.

The approval came after a public hearing during which the applicant reviewed small design changes to a previously approved project, and residents pressed for additional safety, traffic and construction-management protections. The board’s vote was 6–0 in favor; members present voted yes: Mister Guzan, Mister Mendelson, Miss Schoen, Mister Taig, Mister Vaeseman and Chairman Rob Goodman.

The amended plan reduces portions of the building footprint for the independent living and assisted living wings, reconfigures the entry driveway and porte-cochere, tweaks courtyard and balcony layouts and clarifies parking and fencing details. Applicant and project counsel told the board these are “minor modifications” to a design the village previously approved; village staff and the applicant said no change to overall bed or unit counts was proposed.

Sunrise’s attorney, David Steinmetz of Zarin & Steinmetz, told the board the village board of trustees — acting as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act — amended its SEQRA finding statement on June 10 and concluded there were no new significant adverse environmental impacts that would require additional studies. Anthony Nestor of JMC, the project’s civil consultant, reviewed drawing changes that were added to the application package: a concrete sidewalk from the Arbor Drive driveway to King Street (including a retaining wall), clarified fence types (limited picket safety fences atop retaining walls; a 6-foot aluminum fence around an assisted‑living garden; and an 8-foot PVC privacy fence at the staff/service area), and an updated on‑site fire protection plan that adds roof access to each building wing and new fire‑lane signage.

Public speakers raised several recurring concerns. Rosemary Schlank, a resident of 9 Bayberry Lane, asked the board to require a “safe streets” study covering King Street and Arbor Drive intersections, saying the project’s traffic study identified higher risk at certain intersections and noting one intersection’s prior fatal pedestrian crash. Steinmetz and the village traffic consultant said the original traffic study (2018) was reviewed and no new study was recommended because project trip generation and unit counts have not changed; the applicant still must secure NYSDOT permits for signal timing, and NYSDOT may request additional information as part of that permit review.

Dan Barnett, president of The Arbors Homeowners Association, asked why condition 70 from the earlier 2021 approvals — calling for exterior security cameras with access to police upon request — is missing from the draft resolution before the board. Applicant counsel said the resolution distributed to the board was missing several lines by oversight and that Sunrise has no objection to restoring the police‑camera provision. Chairman Goodman said the final resolution will include the omitted camera condition (referred to in the meeting as condition 70).

Neighbors also urged stronger access to the project’s construction-management plan and its noise‑mitigation provisions. The applicant and its counsel pointed to condition language in the approved resolution that requires an updated construction-management plan and two‑week look‑aheads for construction — material the applicant said it will deliver to village staff and make available to neighbors through the village building department. The applicant also said it worked with the emergency services task force on the added roof access and fire signage and that condition 18 in the resolution addresses construction management requirements.

Other issues raised and the applicant’s responses included:
• Parking overflow: Neighbors asked that the applicant make some parking spaces available to Arbors homeowners during large visiting days. The applicant said that would be a private accommodation among property owners and not an appropriate condition of planning-board approval, though Sunrise representatives said they have been and will be willing to discuss neighborly accommodations.
• Lighting and photometrics: The applicant clarified it changed fixture styles but not total fixture counts; photometric symbols were simplified for clarity on plans.
• All‑Electric Buildings Act: A resident asked how new state all‑electric building requirements might affect the project and whether a future code change could force a later amendment. Counsel said both the applicant’s counsel and village counsel could opine as needed and that any required change would be addressed through the standard amendment process.

At the meeting the board waived a full reading of the 18‑page resolution but then moved to adopt it with the understanding that staff would restore the omitted camera provision before the final signed resolution. The planning board’s approval was framed as an amendment to the previously adopted PUD approvals (the board clerk’s packet cited earlier actions, including the village board’s September 14, 2021 PUD site‑plan approval and the January 26, 2021 SEQRA lead‑agency action).

What’s next: Applicant counsel said the project team will appear before the village Architectural Review Board in about two weeks to conclude formal ARB review, then prepare construction drawings and a full building‑permit application. Sunrise said it will secure financing while those technical drawings are prepared; the applicant said it hopes to begin construction within roughly a year but emphasized permitting, engineering and supply‑chain timelines will affect any schedule.

Speakers quoted in meeting record:
\"We will be working with the building department at that point to prepare a complete building permit application,\" David Steinmetz, attorney for Sunrise Senior Living, said when describing next steps.
\"The residents absolutely deserve a safe place to live,\" Dan Barnett, president of The Arbors Homeowners Association, said during public comment while asking about omitted camera language and construction‑management access.

Ending: The planning board’s approval advances the long‑running PUD project toward final ARB review and permitting. The final signed resolution will incorporate the camera‑access language the board directed staff to restore; neighbors and board members said they will watch how construction‑management and traffic‑permit steps are implemented by village staff during the permit phase.","After a public hearing, the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board voted unanimously June 12 to approve an amended planned unit development site plan for Sunrise Senior Living at 900 King Street, subject to final wording that will restore a removed condition on security camera access for police.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board sets July 10 public hearing for minor steep‑slope amendment at 47 Hawthorne Avenue

Planning board leaves public hearing open on Kingfield/The Arbors impervious‑surface swap as neighbors debate fairness

Rye Brook planning board approves amended site plan for Sunrise Senior Living at 900 King Street