Planning Board

Village of Nyack Planning Board December 5, 2022 Minutes Members Present: Also Present: Peter Klose - Chair Walter Sevastian, Village Attorney Laura Rothschild Manny Carmona - Building Department Miguel Ortiz-Crane-absent Bob Galvin—Village Planner ABSENT Jennifer Knarich - absent Peter Voletsky Matthew Croussouloudis- alternate – Karen Roberts alternate-- absent COVID-19 PANDEMIC STATUS~ IN PERSON Conflict Check: The Chairman polled the members of the Board regarding the issue of possible conflicts of interest regarding the application. Peter Voletsky recused from first 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 November 7, 2022 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 November 7, 2022 Minutes as distributed. Motion seconded by Voletsky -- passed 4-0. 1. 15 Tallman Avenue. Giuseppe Pagano. Site plan application to construction of a single family home. Village Planner/Inspector The Applicant, Giuseppe Pagano, is requesting site plan approval for the construction of a single-family residence. The Planning Board approved the underlying subdivision of the 15, 515 sf parcel at 15 Tallman Avenue resulting in two lots in the SFR-1 zoning district. The subdivided property is located on the south side of Tallman Avenue, approximately 135' west of North Broadway. Lot 2 is the closest to North Broadway and has an existing 2-story residence which will remain. Both Lot 1 and Lot 2 are zoning compliant. The Planning Board reviewed the subdivision plat and approved the subdivision by resolution on March 7, 2022. Planning Board - approval of site plan for single-family residence and the demolition of the existing garage with apartment above. ARB – approval of the garage demolition and residential construction – approved on November 4, 2022. SEQRA DETERMINATION – This action is a “Type II” action based on 617.5 (c)(11) “construction or  Page -2-December 5, 2022 expansion of a single family, a two-family or a three-family residence on an approved lot ......” therefore, ending the SEQRA process. LWRP – based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Project Description-- Applicant is seeking site plan approval for the construction of a single-family residence on Lot 1 and the demolition of an existing three car garage with an apartment above at the southwest corner of the Proposed Lot 1. This parcel contains 7,507 sf with approximately 80' frontage along Tallman Avenue. Applicant is also requesting an approval for the demolition of the existing garage which is near the adjacent neighbor's garage close to the property line. The demolition will require a demolition permit to be reviewed and issued by the Building Department. Note on plan states that care should be taken to avoid damage to the neighbor’s adjacent property when demolishing the garage. Issues highlighted during Subdivision Review-- The Village Engineer has reviewed the Grading/Drainage/Utilities Plan including the dry wells and erosion control. During subdivision review, the Planning Board reviewed the Planting Plan (L-701), the existing trees, tree protection and planting schedule for the proposed subdivision, new concrete sidewalks along Tallman Avenue, creation of separation between driveways by macadam removal as shown on Lot 1 (Planting Plan). The Planting Schedule shows new plantings on Lot 1 including I Red Maple (3" caliper) at the northwest front of the property and maintains existing trees in the northeast corner front of the site. Tree protections measures are shown on the plan. The 8 Norway Spruces will be planted in the southwest corner where the existing garage (to be demolished) is located. APPLICANT- confirmed that the application contained all of the subdivision conditions, or that they would be complied with Public comment- none Board- Chairman Klose moves to close the public hearing with respect to the Site Plan application to build a single family home. Motion seconded by Rothschild. Vote- 3-0 to close Public Hearing-- Voletsky recused Chairman Klose finds that this is a Type II action for SEQRA moves to approve the Site application for single family home Planning Board will condition the Site Plan approval on the selected Conditions of the Subdivision Plat: (a) Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the existing structure with a three- car garage/apartment on Proposed Lot 1, Applicant shall provide a demolition plan to the Building Department for review and approval by the Village Engineer and Building Inspector. 2  Page -3-December 5, 2022 (d) Applicant has completed the Subdivison conditions A, B, D, E, G, and shall submit the following to the Building Department: c. Percolation test shall be performed to verify and design assumptions made in sizing the seepage pit systems. The Building Department shall be contacted to witness the same. Written results of the percolation tests shall be submitted from the professional performing the test. f. The Planting Plan proposes a row of evergreen trees to provide a vegetative screen of the proposed driveway to the adjoining property to the south on Lot 1. The placement of the proposed trees in this location will also assist in directing stormwater run-off towards the proposed seepage pit stormwater management system. Motion to accept the Site Plan and Elections to construct a single family home as shown in the drawings approved subject to the Sub-Division Conditions being compled with seconded by Rothschild. Vote: 3-0 to approve the application subject to the conditions already noted as aforesaid. 2. 129 First Avenue. Martin Vitale, Sr. Site Plan application for conversion of two family home to four family home and referral to ZBA for required variances. Village Planner/Inspector -.Village Planner This request is for a change of use from two-family to four-family in the TFR zone. This request would require the ZBA approval of a Use Variance in the TFR zone. The TFR zone only allows for one family and two-family residences in the zone. Applicant has not provided a Narrative providing any justification under the criteria requirements for a use variance including financial hardship. His application only indicates that there will be no changes proposed to the exterior of the building or the building façade as part of the project. The Standard-- “(b) No such use variance shall be granted by a board of appeals without a showing by the applicant that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. In order to prove such unnecessary hardship the applicant shall demonstrate to the board of appeals that for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located, (1) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence; (2) that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; (3) that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and (4) that the alleged hardship has not been self-created.” SEQRA-- The proposed action would be an Unlisted action under SEQRA and would require an 3  Page -4-December 5, 2022 environmental review and determination under the designated Lead Agency which could be under the Planning Board or the ZBA. In this specific case, the ZBA has the most significant approval namely the determination of a Use Variance . If the use variance was denied, there would be no project going forward. Project Description--Applicant has not submitted any economic data, has provided no information to argue any of the other conditions found in the Town Law concerning a USE variance. SEQRA -- to be handled by ZBA-- because, if no use variance granted, then project will need to change. Applicant--Civil Engineer appearing on behalf of the Owner (no appearance by the Owner), argues that nothing is changing on the outside of the building, just applying for the two extra units. PUBLIC-- Various members of the public appeared to complain that there are NO four (4) family homes on the block, that there is not enough parking, that if the USE variance is granted it will set a very bad precedent for future owners, and that the parking in and around marion, first Avenue, and the neighborhood in general will be harmed by the creation of a legal 4 family residence. In addition to the letter emailed below, Michael Burn (PE); Sondra Holt; Ted Sestak; Lotte Pettricone; Emily Neville; and Elizabeth Turk all objected to the change of the neighborhood and the parking issues. From: pmt1110@aol.com <pmt1110@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2022 3:04 PM To: buildingdepartment@nyack-ny.gov Subject: 129 First Avenue, Nyack, NY I am unable to attend the meeting tonight (12/5/2022) due to my work schedule, but would very much like this email read by the Board members tonight. The owner of the property located at 129 First Avenue, Nyack, NY is trying to obtain a variance. The owner wants to change the zoning from a 2-family house to a 4-family house. I totally object to 129 being converted to a 4-family house. The house should remain a 2-famly house. These are a few of my reasons: The property located at 129 First Avenue is and always has been zoned as a 2-family house. There is no good reason to change the Zoning Board to change same. The house was sold June 10, 2022. The owner would not cut the grass or maintain the yard for over 2 months. Numerous calls were made to the Building Inspector at the Nyack Village Hall to force the owner to cut the knee-high grass and clean-up his yard. He finally had someone cut the grass one time since he took ownership. I believe the new owner would like to make 129 First Avenue a 4-family home for rental purposes only 4  Page -5-December 5, 2022 and he will become a slum landlord. He has already shown his neighbors that he does not care to maintain the property at 129 First Avenue. There is not enough parking on First Avenue and adding additional family units will only increase the problem. Adding 1 additional parking space will not fix the parking issue for a 4-family house. Adding an additional parking space very close to the adjoining neighbor's home will be an eye-sore. Please know that additional neighbors also object to this conversion. Yours truly, Pat Village Attorney Explained that the Planning Board could make a recommendation on the Use Variance from a Planning Perspective. BOARD- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing relative to this application for a recommendation to the ZBA application and referral as to the USE variance for a change of use from two-family to four-family in the TFR zone. Seconded by Voltetsky - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 4-0 to close. BOARD - Chairman Klose proposes to make a negative recommendation to the ZBA relative to a request for a change of use from two-family to four-family in the TFR zone in that the legislature (Village Board) has not seen fit to change the uses in this Zoning District and no real information has been provided by the Applicant to support a reason to change (vary) the use regulations in the TFR zone in this case where such zone only allows for one family and two-family residences; where, from a planning perspective, there are no appropriate bulk table requirements for the imposition of a four (4) family home in this already congested neighborhood and such a project would have an adverse effect on the parking, community aesthetic and the neighborhood; the project is not in keeping with the other single family homes in the district, and would lead to a significant change of the legislative purposes for this two family neighborhood and could be a serious detrimental precedence for other owners attempting to convert into multi-family houses. - Seconded by Voletsky -- Vote 4-0 for negative recommendation for the USE variance BOARD- NO Action on the SITE PLAN and NO ACTION on any of the area variances because if there is no Use Variance Granted by the ZBA, there is no need to identify which area variances might be required for setbacks parking, etc. OTHER BUSINESS-- Motion to adjourn by Klose, seconded by Voletsky - passed by a vote of 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. 5