Planning Board

Village of Nyack Planning Board JANUARY 3, 2022 Minutes Members Present: Also Present: Peter Klose - Chair Walter Sevastian, Village Attorney Laura Rothschild Don Yacopino - Chief Building Inspector Miguel Ortiz-Crane Bob Galvin—Village Planner Jennifer Knarich Peter Voletsky Karen Roberts alternate-- Matthew Croussouloudis-alt. Absent: COVID-19 PANDEMIC STATUS~ VIA ZOOM THIS MONTH Topic: topic: Village of Nyack Planning Board Meeting- Time: Jan 3, 2022 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85097058446 Meeting ID: 850 9705 8446 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. Peter Voletsky is going to recuse from the 15 Tallman Application. 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 December 3, 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 December 2021 Minutes as distributed. Motion seconded by Rothschild -- so 2-0 to approve other applications. 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- January 3, 2022 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. Public -- hearing none-- adjournment only 3. 54 Summit Street. Kuras. Application for tree removal. Property is in the TFR zoning district. Arborist’s letter enclosed. Village Planner – The Planning Board should discuss replacement of appropriate trees in their review and approval. SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action. LWRP – based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Applicant— Timberline (11/2021) It is in this arborist's professional opinion that the maple tree south of the main structure at the abovementioned property should be removed. It is in close proximity to 2 structures (54 & 58 Summit St) and its root system has begun to interfere with walkways and will likely cause damage to either foundation. Represents that the neighbor is totally on board with the removal. PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to removal of the requested tree for replacement of others, subject to the applicant's planting the row of shrubs and other trees elsewhere. Seconded by Voletsky- Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5 -0 to close. BOARD -- Klose made a motion to accept and designate this as a Type II action based on 617.5 (c)(10) and consistent with the LWRP policies and to approve Tree Removal and replacement of others, subject to the applicant's planting the shrubs or other trees elsewhere on the Property. Seconded by Voletsky. Vote 5-0- application approved. 2  Page -3- January 3, 2022 4. 5 Duryea Place. Mack. Application for tree removal. Property is in the TFR zoning district. Arborist’s letter included. Village Planner – The Planning Board should discuss replacement of appropriate trees in their review and approval SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action. LWRP – based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Applicant— Sean Mack- Perfect Cut Arborist-1. Remove (1) Maple/Acer ... right comer of property. ln decline; 2. Remove (1) Maple/Acer .. .left comer of property .. .in decline-- hope to put in 1 or two trees in the same location-- PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to removal of the requested trees for replacement of others- Seconded by Ortiz-Crane- Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD -- Klose made a motion to accept and designate this as a Type II action based on 617.5 (c)(10) and consistent with the LWRP policies and to approve Tree Removal as shown on the submitted plans, subject to the applicant replacing the trees with Village approved properly sized trees of applicants choosing-- approved . Seconded by Voletsky. Vote 5-0- application approved. 5. 116 Sickles Avenue. Application to remove two trees. Property is in the TFR zoning district. Arborist’s letter enclosed. Village Planner – The Planning Board should discuss replacement of appropriate trees in their review and approval. SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action. LWRP – based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Applicant— Jeff Lambert Wykes Arborist-- I have been contracted by Mr. Shapiro to remove 2 Siberian Elms in his landscape located on the right side of his home in between his home and his neighbor's home. 1. Siberian Elm-14" DBH-Tree is in poor health and structural condition; tree is located over home and driveway. Removal is the only way to mitigate the risk at this point. 2. Siberian Elm-14" DBH-Tree is in poor health and structural condition; trees are located over the home and driveway. Removal is the only way to mitigate the risk at this point. . All work will be performed to ANSI A300 and 21331.1 standards and local laws/regulations. Planting Plan has been submitted with the application PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to removal of the requested tree and for replacement of others as per plan submitted- dated November 15, 2021 Seconded by Voletsky - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD -- Klose made a motion to accept and designate this as a Type II action based on 617.5 (c)(10) 3  Page -4- January 3, 2022 and consistent with the LWRP policies and to approve Tree Removal and Replacement Application dated November 2021. Seconded by Voletsky. Vote 5-0- application approved. 6. 23 Route 59. Claudio Iodice. Continuation of Site Plan application for proposed retail/warehousing building Property is in CC zoning district. ARB conditionally approved the application on July 21, 2021 with approval of conditioned issues granted on July 26, 2021. ZBA-Applicant was granted variances from the following code sections on November 9, 2021: a. Article IV, VON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1, for a front yard setback of 60’ where the minimum required setback from street is 15’ and maximum permitted setback is 25’. b. Article IV, VON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1, for a side yard setback to the east of 0’, adjacent to residential zone SFR-2, where 15’ is required. c. Article IV, VON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1, for a minimum setback for both side yards of 0’, where 15’ is required. The Planning Board issued a Negative Declaration on 9/13/21 at its September meeting. This closed out the SEQRA review and allowed the ZBA to decide on the requested area variances. The Negative Declaration has been provided to the Planning Board. Application has been sent for review under GML. To date, only Rockland County Department of Planning, Rockland County Sewer District #1 and the Town of Clarkstown Department of Planning have responded. Remaining site plan issues based on the Negative Declaration include the following: 1. The Planning Board will review the potential for a landscaped bed in the N/E corner for a rain garden or similar BMP to address stormwater runoff. 2. Applicant will be required to revise the landscape plan to show the potential for planting one tree within the parking area per the code. 3. The recycling enclosure is highly visible, and Applicant will be required to use material that is aesthetically pleasing and consistent with the proposed building. APPLICANT-- Ken Moran- Rachel Parese-- Civil Tech-- addressed all of the issues Member Ortiz-Crane wondering about the use, was explained Public-- NONE BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to Site Plan- Seconded by Ortiz-Crane - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD-- issued a separate resolution NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Site Plan 4  Page -5- January 3, 2022 application submitted by Claudio Iodice for the construction of a retail warehouse for three tenant spaces with storefronts and mezzanine areas, containing approximately 6,090 sf of warehouse space and 2,030 sf of office mezzanine space in the Corridor Commercial (CC) zone located at 23 Route 59 as reflected on the set of approved plans listed above is hereby granted, subject to the following conditions: (a) The Applicant shall obtain all required state, county and local permits and approvals. (b) The Applicant shall pay all outstanding consultant review fees in connection with Planning Board review of this application prior to the issuance of a building permit. (c) If the Applicant, during the course of construction, encounters such conditions as flood areas, underground water, soft or silty areas, improper drainage, insufficient sized piping or any other unusual circumstances or conditions that were not foreseen in the original planning, he shall report such conditions immediately to the Village Engineer. The developer may submit, if he so desires, his recommendations as to the special treatment to be given to alternate solutions to secure adequate, permanent, and satisfactory construction. The Village Engineer, without unnecessary delay, shall investigate the condition or conditions, and shall either approve the Applicant's recommendations to correct the conditions, order a modification thereof, or issue her own specifications for the correction of the conditions. (d) The applicant will provide a final set of completed, revised plans for the signing of the approved set of plans by the Chairman of the Planning Board. NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the recommendations of the Rockland County Planning Department set forth in the General Municipal Law Review letter dated March 24, 2021, have been accepted by the Planning Board. The Applicant has provided the Planning Board with a response to the Nyack Village Engineer dated August 20, 2021 addressing the comments from the Village Engineer and the final Village Engineer’s review dated August 31, 2021. Applicant has provided final revised site plans dated December 17, 2021 responsive to these comments. The Planning Board has determined that the revised application, submitted documents and set of approved plans revised December 17, 2021 have satisfied the items specified in the Rockland County Planning Department March 24, 2021 letter. Second by Voletsky Approvals by all Five Members of the Board 5  Page -6- January 3, 2022 7. 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. 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- ZBA approved during November Meeting 11/29/2021 Applicant-- to return for Site Plan Approval. This continued application was reviewed by this board on November 1, 2021. At that meeting we were directed to seek the zoning area variance for the garage door setback. On November 29, 2021 that variance was granted by the zoning board of appeals. The application is back to this board for site plan approval. In the time since we last appeared we have obtained an updated survey from Atzl Nasher & Zigler surveyors, who have addressed various items noted on the GML review by the county planning department. Referencing the county letter dated November 1, 2021 the following items have been addressed as follows: 1. Letter dated October 28, 2021 from RCDH was received and all conditions will be addressed and or met. 2. The zoning board on 11/29/21 noted that no correspondence was received from the Town of Orangetown or the Village of South Nyack. 3. The new survey addresses the 100-year flood plan with a notation. 4. The 100-year floodplain is shown on the survey and site maps. 5. This condition will be met. A soil and erosion control plan will be submitted to the VON building department. 6. The village engineer has reviewed the project and has indicated that there will no net increase in the peak rate of storm water discharge from the site. No mitigation will be required. 7. There is an existing water meter pit and water line located on the property from the previous dwelling. 8. There is an existing sewer spur that served the previous dwelling. It was capped and is located on the property. 9. 9. This item was addressed at the zoning board and a letter overriding it was sent to the RCDP dated 11/30/2021. It is attached for reference. 12. & 12.1 District information is shown on the site plan and survey. 6  Page -7- January 3, 2022 In addition to the driveway relocation to the north side in front of the garage door we have removed the swimming pool and patio and replaced it with a smaller patio and hot tub/spa. Barrier fencing will be installed to meet the 2020RCNYS Code for swimming pools and spas. The AN&Z updated survey shows the corrected location of the existing stairs to the lower level of the property. We propose to relocate the upper half of the stair to the south property line to maintain access to the east side of the property. To date, this application has been approved by the Architectural Review Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are requesting site plan approval at this time in order to obtain a construction permit. NOTEs by Peter Voletsky-- With the granted variance, the proposed application complies with zoning regulations. As South Nyack's time to respond has expired as confirmed by Village counsel the Board may move forward with this application. Building Inspector Don Yacopino confirmed that any “title” related issues had been settled as property constitutes a single parcel so no title report will be needed. Curb and entry and any GML or other questions have been resolved as confirmed by Kier Leveque’s 12/13 2021 responsive narrative. Public -- NONE Board Discussion – no further questions or comments. BOARD-- KLOSE IS RECUSED FROM THIS APPLICATION Application was sent out for GML review on 10/8/2021. ARB approved the application as presented on September 22, 2021. An area variance was granted 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. Area variance was granted on 11/29/2021. With the granted variance, the proposed application complies with zoning regulations. BOARD-- Motion by Voletsky - to close the public meeting with respect to requested Site Plan approval original plan dated 8/27/21 as revised 12/21/21 and containing the responsive narrative dated 12/13/2021. Seconded by Ortiz-Crane - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 4 -0 to close. BOARD -- VOLETSKY made a motion to accept the Site Plan Application (original plan date 8/27/21 as revised 12/21/21) and containing the responsive narrative dated 12/13/2021 as shown on the submitted plans. Seconded by Ortiz Crane. Vote 4-0- application approved. 7  Page -8- January 3, 2022 8. 15 Tallman Avenue. Application for minor subdivision approval and approval to demolish garage. Property is in SFR-1 zoning district. Article V, VON§360-5.8C provides a list of 18 documents (copy enclosed) to be submitted as part of the preliminary plat. The following issues, corresponding to the numbered list, need to be addressed: 1. Name and address of property owner not included. 2. Name of owners of record of all adjacent property owners not provided. 3. Trees identified on Lot 2. Trees to be removed indicated on lot 1. 4. Tallman Avenue is listed as a View Corridor but not identified on plat. 5. Sewer and gas lines identified in street but not on property 6. Contour lines provided at greater than 2 feet intervals. 7. Proposed water gas and sewer lines shown but sizes not provided. 8. Storm water drainage plan not provided. 9. Note #9 indicates any easements will be irrevocably offered for dedication to the village. 10. Title abstracts not provided and municipal violations report not provided. Application submitted for GML review on 12/21/2021. Village Planner Comments- he total property to be subdivided into two lots consists of 15,215 sf. with 154.57’ of frontage on Tallman Avenue. The subject property SFR-1 zone. It is located one lot to the west of Broadway on the south side of Tallman Avenue. The Bulk zoning table indicates that the two resulting lots would be zoning compliant. Lot 2 which is the closest lot to Broadway has an existing 2 ½ story residence which will remain. Lot 2 is 7,708 sf where 7,500 sf is the minimum required. Lot 2 will have 80’ of frontage where 50’ is the minimum requirement. Lot 1 is 7,507 sf with 77 ‘ frontage. Lot 2 is proposed for a two-story residence. SEQRA – the proposed minor subdivision is an Unlisted action under SEQRA. As the only involved agency, the Planning Board can assume Lead Agency status at this meeting. DEC’s experience has shown that these kinds of actions do not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and the preparation of an EIS will not provide better explanation or understanding of impacts nor provide the reviewing agency with significant additional authority. Most of the typical impacts can easily be managed during subdivision or site plan review. LWRP – The Applicant will need to fill out a Coastal Assessment Form which can be reviewed by staff. As part of their review the Planning Board will need to make a consistency review of the proposed action. Staff can assist in that review for the Planning Board. APPLICANT-- As they move forward, will provide landscaping-- very little site disturbance. 8  Page -9- January 3, 2022 PUBLIC COMMENT-- Voletsky-- commented looking for Storm Water runoff-- shading for the driveway at night- Dru Manaker- concerned about trees on the block-- Possibly a Maple- To the Planning Board and the Building Department: As noted with regard to the application for subdivision and new construction at 15 Tallman Ave, we as neighbors at 20 Tallman Ave. are concerned about the proposed addition of another structure to our street. There has been a subdivision and new construction of one property and massive renovation of another on the north side of the street recently. Of particular concern is the fate of the beautiful maple tree nearest to the front of the property on Tallman Avenue. This tree provides shade, beauty, and animal and bird habitat and gives our street its character. New plantings would not be a substitute and the ongoing removal of mature trees is of significant concern for the village as a whole. At the January 3 planning board meeting, it was stated by the owners' representative that there would be minimal tree removal. This is deceptive, as there will potentially be several significant trees removed. We very much hope that attention will be paid to the impact of this, and in particular preserving at least the magnificent maple closest to the street. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Dru Menaker John Daniszewski 20 Tallman Ave. Jay Snyder-- sub-division-- would like to see the specifics of the project-- the final specific plans for the house go in the Site Plan approval process, this is sub-division -- level. (Explained by Walter Sevastian)- Owner looking to build another home on this street-- Approval for adjoining home. Will build a similar house. James Dawson-Hollis-- looking to have a tree on the southeast corner of his property-- Angela Davenport Conway-- shared driveway and concerned about the entrance-- to the property.-- Type and manner of destruction -- slower method-- they will review that issue. the shared portion of the driveway-- Amos Friedland/Pheobe-- concerned about the trees -- concerned about constant house building. Constant Noise-- Complain to the Building Department From-- Lynne Kenney 20 6th Ave. Nyack, NY: Subject: 15 Tallman Ave. To: Village of Nyack, Building Department / Planning Board cc: Pagano RE: 15 Tallman Avenue; Application for Sub Division, Etc. I live directly behind Lot #2, (with existing residence at 15 Tallman Avenue in Nyack). We have resided at 20 6 th avenue in Nyack for over 35 years. I attended the Planning Board’s Zoom meeting on January 3rd, 2022, but did not participate. I felt that I needed to gather my concerns before I could present them. 9  Page -10- January 3, 2022 Over the 35 years that we have lived here, there have been many structural additions and changes on the hill. Cumulatively those changes have created a great deal of unabsorbed runoff water and soil. Unfortunately, much of that runoff enters our property at the bottom of the hill, mainly from the north and west side. This has caused difficult water and erosion problems. The present proposal for Lot #2 is to extend the existing driveway south and then turn the driveway at a right angle to the east behind the present residence. After the turn the macadam parking area will be 5 to 10 feet from our rear property line. The addition of a residence on Lot #1 is a major concern for us. Even with the proposed removal of the existing garage, there will be more un-absorbable ground covering that may add to an already existing erosion problem. The driveway on Lot #2, entering from Tallman Ave. is higher at the entrance and lower at the back, which will be 5 feet from our rear yard. This downward pitch will create more runoff water into our yard. In addition, the removal of the drain in Lot #1 (next to the proposed western property line of Lot #2) will only add to the problem. Together these problems should be considered and addressed. Thank you for your attention. BOARD ACTION-- Voletsky is going to recuse-- Storm Water Drainage Plan-- Application remains open for further subdivision and site plan developments to further develop the final plans. 9. 2-4 S. Franklin Street (AKA 143 Main Street) and 145 Main Street. Application for a minor subdivision approval and Special Permit for the merger of two lots. Property is in DMU-1 zoning district. Surveys, subdivision plats and permit application documents should contain the address for SBL66.37-2-15 as listed on the tax rolls as 2-4 S. Franklin Street. Article V, VON§360-5.8C provides a list of 18 documents (copy enclosed) to be submitted as part of the preliminary plat. The following issues, corresponding to the numbered list, need to be addressed: 7. View Corridor at Main Street must be identified. 8. Indicate sewer and water mains on property. 9. Provide width of Main Street in vicinity of subject properties. Eliminate reference to NYS Route 59. 16. Separate property surveys from a licensed land surveyor have been provided. Final plat is required to be signed and sealed by a NYS licensed land surveyor. 18. Title abstracts and municipal violations report indicating premises are free from violations to be provided. ATTACHMENT 360-5.8C:Required information. The following documents shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat:(a) Eight copies of the preliminary plat prepared at a scale of not more than 100 nor less than 50 feet to the inch, showing the following items: [1] Proposed subdivision name, name of Village and county in which it is located, date, true North point, scale, name and address of record owner, subdivider and engineer or surveyor, including license number and seal. [2] The name of all subdivisions immediately adjacent and the name of the owners of record of all adjacent property. [3] Zoning district, including exact boundary lines of district, if more than one district, and any proposed changes in the zoning district lines and/or the Zoning Chapter 10  Page -11- January 3, 2022 text applicable to the area to be subdivided. [4] All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated to public use and the conditions of such dedication. [5] Location of existing property lines, easements, buildings, watercourses, marshes, rock outcrops, wooded areas, significant trees, historically significant features, view corridors to the Hudson River along public rights-of-way and other significant existing features for the proposed subdivision and adjacent property. [6] Location of existing sewers, water mains, culverts and drains on the property, with pipe sizes, grades and direction of flow. [7] Contours with intervals of two feet or as required by the Board, including elevations on existing roads. The grading plan shall show natural and proposed contours if such exceed a two-foot change. [8] The width and location of any streets or public ways or places shown on the Official Map or the Master Plan within the area to be subdivided and the width, location, grades and street profiles of all streets or public ways proposed by the developer. [9] The approximate location and size of all proposed water lines, valves and hydrants and sewer lines and fire-alarm boxes; connection to existing lines or alternate means of water supply. [10] Storm drainage plan indicating the approximate location, size and type of storm drains and their proposed lines and profiles. Connection to existing lines or alternate means of disposal. [11] Plans and cross sections showing the proposed location and type of sidewalks, street lighting standards, trees, curbs, water mains, the character, width and depth of pavements and subbase, the location of manholes, basins and underground conduits, and any retaining walls proposed to be over four feet in height. [12] Plans for sanitary sewers, connections to existing lines or alternate means of treatment and disposal. [13] Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. [14] The proposed lot lines, with approximate dimensions and area of each lot. [15] Where the topography is such as to make difficult the inclusion of any of the required facilities within the public areas as laid out, the boundaries of proposed permanent easements or under private property. The permanent easements shall be of adequate width and shall provide satisfactory access to an existing public highway or other public highway or public open shown on the subdivision plat or the Official Village Zoning Map. [16] An actual field survey of the boundary lines of the tract, giving complete descriptive data by bearings and distances, made and certified to by a licensed land surveyor. The corners of the tract shall also be located on the ground and marked by substantial monuments of such size and type as approved by the Village Engineer and shall be referenced and shown on the plat. [17] A bulk table. [18] A title abstract, and a municipal violation report indicating that the premises are 11  Page -12- January 3, 2022 free from violations. Village Planner Comments The Project consists of the merger of two adjacent lots at the corner of Main Street and South Franklin. The Project developer is DR Pilla which currently occupies the corner building at 143 Main Street. The Project is in the DMU-1 zoning district. The two buildings on each lot at 143 and 145 Main Street will be re-developed to create one building. The merger will result in a total of 6,584 sf. in a three-story building. Project will consist of 2,556 sf of restaurant space. This is an existing first floor space in the 145 Main Street building. Existing office space will remain on the 3 floors of 143 Main Street. A new residential entrance to the elevator lobby will be developed on Main Street in a portion of 145 Main Street. There will be 8 units on three floors. Project will include a first-floor roof terrace at the rear of the one-story portion of 145 Main Street. Additionally, two balconies for the second and third floor residential units will be provided at the rear of the building. There will be a green roof and outdoor space on the roof of 145 Main Street. Proposed size of the apartments 450 for efficiency apartments. The Project will use the 1,646-sf green roof as a sustainability bonus that will add 0.25 FAR to the total 2.25 FAR Project. The Developer is also using a 10 percent affordability bonus for one affordable workforce housing unit. ZBA Variance – Applicants will require an area variance from the ZBA for three parking spaces. Eight spaces are required for the 8 residential units. There are 33 spaces required for the office/retail and restaurant uses. The existing parking requirement is 38 spaces. There are 41 spaces required for the new project. The difference is the three spaces which need a parking variance from the ZBA. SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(18)-- “reuse of a residential or commercial structure, or of a structure containing mixed residential and commercial uses, where the residential or commercial use is a permitted use under the applicable zoning law or ordinance, including permitted by special-use permit, and the action does not meet or exceeds any of the thresholds in section 617.4 of this Part;” LWRP - Based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Applicant-- DR Pilla--Darua Tutko-- explained the project Member Klose requested that the narratives be expanded to describe the green roof, affordable housing and other aspects of the project Member Klose explained the grandfathered parking situation to other newer board members and expressed the view that grandfathered parking allocations bear no rational relationship to the actual availability of parking for occupants of this particular building. Public- NONE 12  Page -13- January 3, 2022 BOARD-- Motion by Klose to close public hearing with respect to the recommendation to the ZBA re: parking Variances by the ZBA- Seconded by Voletsky -- 5-0 relative to the ZBA approval or referral The Planning Board makes NO recommendation as to the request for three space parking variances on the grounds that the grand-fathered aspect of parking in the commercial zone bears no reasonable relationship to the actual need for parking for each particular building and until there is legislative action by the Village Board the planning guidance is irrelevant for this type of application. Jennifer Knarick seconded. Approved 5- 0-- NO recommendation as to whether the ZBA should approve or disapprove of the parking variance for this particular . BOARD-- Site Plan remains open. . OTHER BUSINESS-- Motion to adjourn by Voletsky, seconded by Rothschild - passed by a vote of 5- 0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 PM. 13