Planning Board

Village of Nyack Planning Board NOVEMBER 1, 2021 Minutes 1 Members Present: Also Present: Peter Klose - Chair Walter Sevastian, Village Attorney Laura Rothschild Don Yacopino - Chief Building Inspector Jennifer Knarich alternate Bob Galvin—Village Planner Seth Kestenbaum Peter Voletsky Absent: Karen Roberts alternate-- Englander has resigned from the board and we thank him for his service COVID-19 PANDEMIC STATUS~ VIA ZOOM THIS MONTHTopic: Village of Nyack Planning Board MeetingTime: Oct 4, 2021 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)Join Zoom Meetinghttps://us02web.zoom.us/j/85176307028 Meeting ID: 851 7630 7028. Conflict Check: The Chairman polled the members of the Board regarding the issue of possible conflicts of interest regarding the application. Peter Klose cannot sit on 87 Piermont Application, and will not participate-- RECUSED All others affirmed there were no conflicts of interest or reasons for recusal, unless otherwise noted. Other Business: Chairman stated that the minutes for the OCTOBER 4th 2021 meeting were distributed to Planning Board Members for their review prior to this meeting and at that time asked if there were any corrections. As there were no corrections, Chairman made a motion to approve the September 13, 2021 Minutes as distributed. Motion seconded by Kestenbaum and then cannot vote by a Vote of 2-0. 1. 53 Route 59. NY Fuel Distributors. Continuation of Site Plan application for the demolition of existing building and gas pump canopy and re-locate on site and request for recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals for required variances. APPLICATION APPEARS ON AGENDA FOR ADJOURNMENT PURPOSES ONLY BOARD-- Motion by Klose NONE -  Page -2- November 1, 2021 2. 74 Jefferson Street. Kier Levesque for Bonnie Mincu. Site Plan application for a two- story rear addition and enclosed porch, and request for recommendation to ZBA for rear yard variance. Property is in the TFR zoning district. Building Inspector- An area variance is required from Article IV, VON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1 for a rear yard of 27.6’ where 37.5’ is required. The ARB conditionally approved the project on September 22, 2021. SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(11) “construction or expansion of a single family, a two-family or a three-family residence on an approved lot including provision of necessary utility connections. LWRP - based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Village Planner-There are no apparent site plan issues related to this application. It will need a 10’ area variance for the rear yard setback. Applicant-- NO APPLICATION FOR THIS EVENING Public -- hearing none 3. 87 Piermont Avenue. Kier Levesque for Paul and De Gray. Site Plan application for the construction of a new single-family home and request for recommendation to ZBA for required variance. Property is in the TFR zoning district. Planning board does not grant variances and that the applicant is coming to the board for a recommendation to the ZBA. We will try to address the variance separately from the site plan application. Building Inspector -Application was sent out for GML review on 10/8/2021. ARB approved the application as presented on September 22, 2021. An area variance is required from Article II, VON §360-3.2E(3)(c)[1] for attached garage doors facing the street not set back the required four feet behind the front façade of the dwelling. SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(11) “construction or expansion of a single family, a two-family or a three-family residence on an approved lot including provision of necessary utility connections. LWRP - based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. 2  Page -3- November 1, 2021 Village Planner- The ARB approved the project including the garage doors facing the street. The plans show one car in the garage and the second car outside in the existing curb cut apron on the south side of the house. Plans show a proposed gravel parking pad in front of the garage. While this may be code compliant, it is unclear how the car in the garage would enter and exit without crossing the lawn in the front yard. I would suggest that the Applicant provide a new curb cut and gravel or pervious driveway be established on the north side of the property leading directly into the garage. The existing driveway on the south side could be closed which would provide an on-street parking space. There would be no loss of on-street parking. This would be a direct route for a vehicle into the garage and would not entail crossing the lawn in the front yard. Applicant-- Kier: property does not enable one to drive by the side. Code requirement is a setback but the site doesn’t enable this setback or inset of garage door without it being detrimental to the proposed building. ARB approved. Will redesign with driveway and new curb cut as per planner’s suggestion. Kier was asked why he believed the variance requested will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. He responded that several garages in Nyack and South Nyack have front facing garages and that many variances have been granted. He noted some streets with examples in Nyack. Public -- Late notice of objection from Alexander Bursztein. My wife (Marion Breland), my stepson (Jonathan Breland) and I reside at 88 Piermont Avenue, Nyack, New York. Noted that this was entered into the records Alexander Bursztein: Lives across the street. Bursztein stated his concerns/objections which he also reflected in his written statement. He asked for proof of notice requirements being met. Don mentioned that Don had access to the information related to notice for site plan and that the notice was published in the Journal News. This proof was available in the planning department files. In response to Bursztein’s concern that notice wasn’t provided related to the variance, Walter stated that the Planning Board does not grant variances and therefore that notice methods for variances (published, mailed, and posted) was not applicable. Marion Breland: Lives across the street. Breland expressed her concerns related to views and neighborhood character which were also reflected in her written statement. SHK: reminded all that we are going to look at the variance and then the site plan. 3  Page -4- November 1, 2021 BOARD-- Motion by Kestenbaum -close public hearing with respect to the proposed Variance ( An area variance is required from Article II, VON §360-3.2E(3)(c)[1] for attached garage doors facing the street not set back the required four feet behind the front façade of the dwelling.. Seconded by Rothschild- Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 4-0 to close. BOARD -- Motion by Kestenbaum-to issue a neutral recommendation for the respect to the proposed Variance An area variance is required from Article II, VON §360-3.2E(3)(c)[1] for attached garage doors facing the street not set back the required four feet behind the front façade of the dwelling.. Seconded by Peter Voletsky and carried by a vote of 4 -0 - SHK: Switching things to the discussion of the Site Plan Application. Walter noted that there was a new site plan related to items provided to Kier from Rockland County Planning and asked if certain matters were yet addressed. They were not. It was guessed that the matter may be best adjourned until the December 6, 2021 meeting. Motion by Kestenbaum- motion to adjourn public hearing with respect to the site plan. Seconded by Rothschild- Motion to adjourn the public hearing as to site plan passed. Vote 4-0 to close. 4. 65 South Broadway. DR Pilla for Art Café. Site Plan application to construct a wood framed pergola above existing front yard dining and request for recommendation to ZBA for required variances. Property is in DMU-1 zoning district. Building Inspector -Area variances are required from Article III, VON§360-3.2E(1)(c) for an accessory structure not located in side or rear yard, from 360-3.2E(1)(f) for an accessory structure closer than 25 feet from a street line and from 360-3.2E(1)(e) for an accessory structure not located at least 4 feet behind the front façade of the principal building. In addition, the applicant is seeking a variance for 7 parking spaces for outdoor dining from Article IV, VON§360-4.5, Minimum Parking Requirements Table 4-2. In 2005 the applicant received a C/O for “An outdoor dining area at front garden – 4 – tables.” Information submitted with a 2019 permit application to relocate an existing stone walkway indicates an outdoor dining area of approximately 480 square feet in the vicinity of the previously approved outdoor dining facility. Since that time the patio and outdoor dining area have substantially increased without being permitted or approved. Site Plan approval will be required. 4  Page -5- November 1, 2021 SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(11) “construction or expansion of a single family, a two-family or a three-family residence on an approved lot including provision of necessary utility connections. LWRP - based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Village Planner-- The front yard of the Art Café has been used for outdoor dining for several years. Red umbrellas cover the tables in the front yard. There are wooden screens along the front that screen the tables from South Broadway. Public metered parking lot is located at the rear of the Art Café which also services Nyack Library patrons. The meters are in effect 11:00 am – 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday. Applicant-- Sara from DR Pilla--Dan Kramer-- outdoor dining more and more important-- would like to consider future cover of some sort. They want the access to the sun and air-- do not want covered structure- DMU district-- variance are required from Article III, VON§360-3.2E(1)(c) for an accessory structure not located in side or rear yard, -from 360-3.2E(1)(f) for an accessory structure closer than 25 feet from a street line and -from 360-3.2E(1)(e) for an accessory structure not located at least 4 feet behind the front façade of the principal building Village Planner -- feels like landscaping and screens-- all will feel like it does now Member Rothschild-- making it somewhat more permanent --concerned about future cover-- one of the conditions will be NO Cover-- step toward potential cover. to go window-- outdoor orders-- GML responses are part of the record South Nyack has not responded Information submitted with a 2019 permit application to relocate an existing stone walkway indicates an outdoor dining area of approximately 480 square feet in the vicinity of the previously approved outdoor dining facility. Since that time the patio and outdoor dining area have substantially increased without being permitted or approved. Public -- hearing none BOARD-- Motion by Klose to close public hearing with respect to the proposed Variance-Area variances area variances for the pergola in the front yard Voletsky seconds approved - 5- 0 to close the public hearing BOARD-- Motion by Klose with respect to the variance are required from Article III, VON§360- 3.2E(1)(c) for an accessory structure (pergola) not located in side or rear yard, from 360- 5  Page -6- November 1, 2021 3.2E(1)(f) for an accessory structure closer than 25 feet from a street line and from 360- 3.2E(1)(e) for an accessory structure not located at least 4 feet behind the front façade of the principal building. Motion by Klose to make no recommendation as to the Parking requirements for the Art Cafe- where applicant is seeking a variance for 7 parking spaces for outdoor dining from Article IV, VON§360-4.5, Minimum Parking Requirements Table 4-2. In 2005 the applicant received a C/O for “An outdoor dining area at front garden – 4 – tables.” Second by Kestenbaum. - Vote 5-0. Seconded by Kestenbaum - Motion to accept the positive recommendation above and to make no recommendation as to parking (above). Vote 4-1 with Laura Rothschild voting against the positive. OTHER BUSINESS-- Motion to adjourn by Kestenbaum, seconded by Peter Voletsky- passed by a vote of 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. 6