Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pud Impervious Swap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board leaves public hearing open on Kingfield/The Arbors impervious‑surface swap as neighbors debate fairness
Summary
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.
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.
