Planning Board Meeting

Village of Nyack Planning Board SEPTEMBER 9TH 2019 Minutes Members Present: Also Present: Peter Klose - Chair Peter Voletsky Don Yacopino - Chief Building Inspector Seth Kestenbaum Bob Galvin—Village Planner Alan Englander Karen Roberts-alternate Absent: Walter Sevastian, Village Attorney; Don Wilen Call to Order: on 7:02 PM. Conflict Check: The Chairman polled the members of the Board regarding the issue of possible conflicts of interest regarding the application. All affirmed there were no conflicts of interest or reasons for recusal, unless otherwise noted. Other Business: Motion to approve the August 5th 2019 Minutes-- second made by Kestenbaum. Approved by a Vote of 5-0. 1. 23 Orchard Street. Uriarte. Application to remove two trees. Property is in SFR-1 zoning district. Arborist’s letter submitted. 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. The Building Inspector has provided the applicant with the list of Village approved street trees. He has also provided the original landscape plan approved by the Planning Board in 2009. Applicant— trees in the way of a fence- they are willing to plant shrubs and bushes that are reasonable at the time-- (dean dykman) Public Comment - NONE BOARD-- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing application to remove trees. Seconded by Englander - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD -- Chairman 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 Application dated 8-15-19, subject to applicant planting appropriate replacement foliage. Seconded by Kestenbaum ; Vote 4-0- application approved.  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (9TH September 2019) 2. 7 Orchard Street. Application to remove five trees Property is in SFR-1 zoning district. Arborist’s letter submitted. 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. The Building Inspector has provided the applicant with the list of Village approved street trees. He has also provided the original landscape plan approved by the Planning Board in 2009. Applicant— drew a map of the removal of trees -- Hemlocks need to come down-- fir tree-- landscaping plan to replant along the border-- replacement as per the plan 8-15-19-- Kestenbaum clarified the replacement foliage. Public Comment - NONE BOARD-- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing application to remove trees and install new sidewalk. Seconded by Kestenbaum - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD -- Chairman 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 Application dated 8-15-19, subject to applicant planting replacement foliage as proposed. Seconded by Englander ; Vote 5-0- application approved. 3. 140 North Highland Avenue. Oakhill Cemetery. Application tree removal. Property is in SFR-1 zoning district. No arborist’s letter submitted. 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— Roy Wanamaker, Louis Delouise-- no reason for removal of three large trees and no arborist letter presented, no landscaping plan provided -- no landscaping plan setting forth the trees to be removed, the disturbance or grading of earth or the mitigating items for stormwater that they would propose. Village Building Inspector advises that this is simply a tree removal permit application, however, it appears to be much more than that. Entire area to be disturbed and three full growth trees to be removed. Entire Board concerned that directives will not be followed because the last trees were removed without approval, causing many downstream drainage issues. July 2008 Planning Board resolutions and drainage calculations were not followed by the Cemetery, various full growth trees were removed without any approvals. Public Comment - NONE BOARD-- Public Hearing remains open for the Applicant to more fully analyze the impacts on the hillside and drainage. 2  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (9TH September 2019) 4. 45 Front Street. Kemmlein. Site Plan application to construct a rear yard retaining wall and re-grade rear yard. Property is in TFR zoning district. SEQRA – This is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(11) "construction or expansion of a single-family, two- family or three-family residence on an approved lot”. LWRP – based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Applicant-- Mike Kemmlein-- work was apparently stopped because the application required both Planning Board approval and a variance for a fence in the rear yard of greater than six (6’) feet. Applicant amends the application- to request a variance for a fence greater than six (6’) feet in the rear yard given the increase in height-- must go to the ZBA, however, at the Planning Board stage there was no evidence presented of other fenced yards in the neighborhood, actual fence height calculations (the scope of the variance needed); the materials being proposed, and the impact on the neighbors. Public Comment - NONE. Board-- Klose moves to close the public hearing as to the variance and the site plan -- seconded by Roberts- - 5-0 passed. Klose, Voletsky, Roberts were concerned about “stockade”- type fencing surrounding the entire yard with a six (6’) foot semi-private fence, as the Planning Board would like to limit enclosing entire yards with monolithic types of fences because entire neighborhoods might get overly “enclosed” by privacy fences in every yard. Here, there is insufficient data as to this particular yard and neighborhood to make any recommendation as to whether a variance for fence height (after enclosing the yard) should be granted. Applicant was advised to make the case for a variance based upon the factors to be considered for such variance. Upon Motion by Klose, seconded by Roberts, the Planning Board was inclined to issue no recommendation as to the proposed variance for the fence as insufficient data was presented and it would be difficult to visualize whether such fence in the area above grade caused by the leveling of the property near the retaining wall should be granted such variance. Second by Roberts-- Vote 5-0 in favor of NO recommendation. Subject to ZBA approval of a final variance as to height, type, and selection of the fence, together with reasonable conditions, Klose moves to conditionally approve the application for site plan dated 8-8- 19 for the construction of a rear yard retaining wall, re-grade of rear yard, and fence finding that this is a Type II action consistent with the LWRP policies, subject to reasonable requirements of the Building Department. Second by Englander --- vote 5-0 to approve the resolution and the plan. 3  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (9TH September 2019) 5. 249-259 Main Street. Bob Silarski for Jed Realty. Continuation of Site Plan application to demolish existing buildings and construct a 26 DU multifamily building, subdivision and special permit for the merger of two lots. Request for recommendation to ZBA for required Area Variances. Property is in DMU-2 zoning district. Building Inspector-- APPLICATION ON AUGUST 5, 2019 PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR ADJOURNMENT PURPOSES ONLY. ZBA GRANTED REQUESTED VARIANCES ON JULY 29, 2019. FIRST: That the proposed variances do not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood nor will they be a detriment to nearby properties. This conclusion was reached based upon deliberation of the Zoning Board at the public hearing, and based upon the factual findings set forth above in paragraphs SECOND through SIXTH. (5-0) SECOND: That the Applicant has demonstrated that there are no other means by which it could achieve its purpose without the requested variances. This conclusion was reached based upon deliberation of the Zoning Board at the public hearing, and based upon the factual findings set forth above in paragraphs SECOND through SIXTH. (5-0) THIRD: That the variances are not substantial in light of the current conditions on the site. This conclusion was reached based upon deliberation of the Zoning Board at the public hearing, and based upon the factual findings set forth above in paragraphs SECOND through SIXTH. (5-0) FOURTH: That the proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. This conclusion was reached based upon deliberation of the Zoning Board at the public hearing, and based upon the factual findings set forth above in paragraphs SECOND through SIXTH. (5-0) FIFTH: That the hardship is not self-created. This conclusion was reached based upon deliberation of the Zoning Board at the public hearing, and based upon the factual findings set forth above in paragraphs SECOND and FIFTH. (4-1) OTHER BUSINESS-- Motion to adjourn by Peter Klose, seconded by Kestenbaum - passed by a vote of 5- 0. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM. 4