Planning Board Meeting

Village of Nyack Planning Board NOVEMBER 4TH 2019 Minutes Members Present: ​ ​Also Present: Peter Klose - Chair Walter Sevastian, Village Attorney Peter Voletsky Don Yacopino - Chief Building Inspector Seth Kestenbaum Bob Galvin—Village Planner Alan Englander Don Wilen Karen Roberts -alternate Absent​: 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. Chairman Klose stated for the record that he had represented the Applicant at 188 Main Street in unrelated real estate matters and requested an opinion from the Village Attorney as to whether he could sit on the application concerning 188 Main Street. Chairman Klose has decided to recuse. Other Business: Chairman stated that the minutes were distributed to the 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 October 2019 Minutes as distributed. Motion seconded by Englander and then Approved by a Vote of 4-0. Motion to approve the October 2019 Minutes Approved vote of 4-0 (Klose abstaining). 1. 84 Piermont Avenue. John Fitzgerald. Application to remove rear yard mulberry tree. Property is in TFR zoning district. Arborist’s report included. 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— Perfect Cut application letter dated 7-10-19-- the issue is whether there are storm water runoff issues if the tree is removed and how it will impact the culvert in the neighborhood PUBLIC-- Patti Ackerman, 86 Piermont Ave (neighbor that shares driveway). Patti presented a letter requesting an engineer's report on the impact of increased storm water due to the tree removal at the top of the driveway at 84 Piermont Avenue before any action is taken by the planning board in regard to the tree. Just last week water was pooling across Piermont Avenue at the culvert. Water was pouring down the driveway of 84 Piermont Ave during the storm. In recent years we have had a sinkhole opened in the street near the culvert due to the presence of storm water. We are worried about what will happen with increased stormwater run-off should the tree be taken down. Ms. Ackerman now wants a report about the impacts of removing the tree, the subsurface condition. Village Attorney expressed the state of affairs for the culvert and the area near by. Doesn’t want to  Village of Nyack- Planning Board​ - (4TH NOVEMBER 2019) exacerbate the situation if the tree is removed. Village Planner Galvin advised that Village Engineer can opine as to the stormwater effects. From last month, Seth Kestenbaum asked applicant’s representative if they would be willing to speak with the arborist to investigate alternatives for replacement and/or maintenance. Applicant Agreed, and the public hearing was continued. ​The Planning Board determined the proposed action to be a Type II action at its meeting on October 7, 2019. It also stated that as a Type II action, it was consistent with the Village LWRP. 2. 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 - ​adjourned application. Public Comment -​ adjourned application BOARD-- Public Hearing remains open for the Applicant to more fully analyze the impacts on the hillside and drainage. Application appears on October 7, 2019 & November 4, 2019 agenda for adjournment purposes only. Public hearing was adjourned - Applicant was requested by the Board to provide an arborist’s letter regarding the condition of the three larger trees proposed for removal and a landscaping plan which shows the location of the trees to be removed and proposed additional plantings or replacement trees. Applicant also needs to provide an engineer to fully analyze the impacts of the proposal on the hillside and drainage and any remediation recommended by the engineer. 3. 15 Orchard Street. Maryann Bartel. Site Plan application for the construction of a 32” high retaining wall and “flagstone” patio. Property is in SFR-1 zoning district. Building Inspector ​S​tone wall has been built over two easements; one sanitary sewer easement running north to south and one easement to the Village of Nyack heading east to west for sewer and water pipes. It is not possible to determine the depth of footings for the wall without having topographical elevation of the ground level on either side of the retaining wall. Applicant will need to provide the plan with the requested topography and elevations around the proposed wall for the Building Inspector. Need arcuate drawing of as built and support. Need elevations and engineer study. ADJOURNED FOR APPLICANT TO PROVIDE SURVEY WITH TOPOGRAPHY, ACCURATE EASEMENT, VERIFICATION THAT SEWER LINE IS NOT USED, AS BUILT. DEPENDING ON RESULT, VILLAGE MAY NEED A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FROM OWNER. The Planning Board determined the proposed action to be a Type II action at its meeting on October 7, 2019. It also stated that as a Type II action, it was consistent with the Village LWRP. Stone wall has been built over two easements; one sanitary sewer easement running north to south and one easement to the Village of Nyack heading east to west for sewer and water pipes heading. It is not possible to determine the depth of footings for the wall without having topographical elevation of the ground level on either side of the retaining wall. 2  Village of Nyack- Planning Board​ - (4TH NOVEMBER 2019) Village Attorney suggests that we are going to need the Village Engineer to weigh in re: escrow. Building Department may require a reasonable escrow for review of the situation. SEQRA – ​The proposed action is a Type II action under SEQRA NYS DEC 617.5 (c ) (10) “construction, expansion or placement of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density;" LWRP – based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. Applicant-- ​contractor is here for the applicant-- sewer goes under the wall- not sure if the sewer line is active if not active-- or abandoned- indemnification-- offered by Applicant, but the Village Attorney doubted that the Village would grant permission even with the indemnification. Need engineer- to ascertain whether active vs. abandoned. Report will go to the Village Engineer perhaps testing the sewer line with dye test. The sewer line belongs to the Town of Orangetown and should be able to ascertain whether or not it is active. Village Attorney -- concerned if it an active line-- wall could hurt the sewer line and be a problem for maintenance purposes by the Town -- would need village authority to maintain active line in its current location. This would not be likely under the circumstances. If active and necessary to maintain the line, it could possibly be relocated on the property with a new easement and costs to be borne by the applicant. The Town would need to be involved if this is the case. Public Comment - NONE. Application adjourned for additional information related to the sewer line being active or not. 4. 218 North Midland Avenue. Esposito. Application to remove rear yard tree. Property is in TFR zoning district. Arborist’s evaluation letter included. 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 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. Applicant— ​Tree removal application. Applicant intends to plant two trees of approximately 2+” caliper. Property is in TFR zoning district. Arborist’s report included. Public Comment - ​Dear Nyack Building Department, Planning Board Chairman and members of the Planning Board, and Mayor Hammond, We are homeowners at 214 N. Midland writing in support of the tree removal request by our next-door neighbor, Andrew Esposito, at 218 N. Midland. His application is on the Nov. 4, 2019 Planning Board meeting agenda. The tree is a constant source of anxiety for us, given its menacing height and large limbs that, if to fall, would cause substantial damage to our home, and really to any home within a 360-degree radius (of which there are many, between N. Midland and Front Street). We’ve only lived in our home for five years, but we have heard the storied history of this tree surviving storms just barely. Several trees in proximity of it have fallen and crushed garages, roofs, and cars. We feel this tree is just as dangerous and an accident waiting to happen. 3  Village of Nyack- Planning Board​ - (4TH NOVEMBER 2019) We understand Mr. Esposito has a recommendation from an arborist for the tree’s removal. Additionally, this tree towers over a beautiful, mature maple in our backyard. Our tree grows at an angle to reach sunlight because this tree shades it so greatly. We are appreciative of the Village’s strong position on trees and green space and that serious consideration is given to removing mature trees. We do feel this tree is an exception and should be permitted to be removed. Separately, we would welcome a conversation with the tree committee to plant some new trees in our own yard, if appropriate, to help make up for the loss of this one. Amy and Dave Anthony 214 N. Midland Ave. From: Amy Anthony <amybanthony@yahoo.com>Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2019 1:25 PM To: buildingdepartment@nyack-ny.gov; ​dhammond@nyack-ny.gov Subject: in support of tree removal application at 218 N. Midland BOARD-- ​Motion by Klose- Approve removal of the one identified one tree and replacement from the list of Village approved street trees Motion made to close the public hearing application to remove tree. Seconded by Kestenbaum- 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 Application dated 10-10-19, subject to applicant planting two trees of approximately 2”+ caliper in the rear yard and replacement trees can be from the Village list of approved trees or other ornamentals. Seconded by Englander; Vote 5-0- application approved. 5. 188 Main Street. Jennifer Casal for Bozorgomid. Site Plan application for a three story addition with ground floor retail and dwelling unit space. Property is in DMU-I zoning district. Building Inspector-​- Except for Main Street doors, applicant received ARB approval on October 16, 2019. Parking has not been indicated on the Site Plan, nor has a parking analysis been provided. The Applicant’s Engineer is developing a parking analysis for the proposed project. There are no parking spaces shown on the site plan. Area Variances are required from Article IV, §360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1, footnotes (f) & (k) for a side yard of 3.3’ where 5’ is required and for required 15’ side and rear yards adjacent to residential district (TFR): (f) None required, but if provided a minimum of five feet is required. (g) A rear yard is not required for the first story or 17 feet, whichever is less, but there shall be a fifteen-foot minimum under other conditions. (k) Side and rear yards that are adjacent to residential zones must have a minimum setback of 15 feet including a landscaped buffer. Building Inspector will need to make a determination of variances after reviewing the site plan drawing. SEQRA – ​This is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. It is not a Type II action since it proposes a 12’ x 40’ expansion to the footprint of the existing building to the east. The addition to the east accommodates a live/work space consisting of 705 sf of retail and 720 sf of residential space (studio apartment) on the ground floor. LWRP – Coastal Assessment Form has been filled out and appears to be consistent with the Village LWRP policies. The Applicant provided a SEAF for review dated 11/1/19. The Village Planner reviewed the Part 2 Impact Assessment and indicated that there were no moderate or large impacts identified. The Board 4  Village of Nyack- Planning Board​ - (4TH NOVEMBER 2019) should declare itself the Lead Agency under SEQRA and direct staff to prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Planning Board to assume lead agency for SEQRA review of the project. The NOI should be sent to all involved agencies (primarily the ZBA) to undertake a coordinated SEQRA review. Otherwise, the ZBA would need to make its own SEQRA determination separate from the Planning Board. The Planning Board would need to wait until their December meeting before making a SEQRA determination for this project. There is no GML requirement for the proposed action. The Board should review the application, receive public comment and clarify any outstanding questions such as the protection of the Nyack Brook from erosion or construction debris during construction. A small portion of the proposed addition at the rear will overhang the Nyack Brook. The Planning Board may consider requiring an erosion & sediment control plan from Applicant’s engineer to provide protection to the Nyack Brook from construction activity. The subject property is split between the TRF zone at the rear with a slope increasing 32’ up to Catherine Street (4,450 sf) and the DMU-1 district fronting on Main Street (2,028 sf). The Nyack Brook essentially divides the property between the TFR and DMU-1 zones. The total FAR including the addition is 1.91 which is below the 2.0 maximum FAR for the DMU-1 district. The Building Inspector has determined preliminarily the variances required for this proposed action. The property’s footprint is being expanded to the east with a 12’ x 40’ addition. A new live/work unit is being included fronting on Main Street. Live/Work Space is defined in the Village Code as a building or spaces within a building used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work. These types of units have been included in the Pavion project fronting along Hudson Street. The Live/Work space satisfies the ground floor use standard in the DMU-1 district (§360-2.4 B (2) (a) “Ground floor uses in the DMU-1 District. In order to maintain an active streetscape for pedestrians and pedestrian-oriented businesses and activities in the downtown's core retail area, residential uses are prohibited along the entire length of the ground floor of the principal building adjacent to a public street in the DMU-1 District. That nonresidential space shall be no less than 25 feet deep. A residential use may be located on the ground floor only when it shares that floor with another permitted use that occupies the portion of the floor adjacent to the street.” The retail portion of the Live/Work space consists of 705 sf and has a studio residential space. The retail portion extends back 25’ deep in conformity with the Code. Applicant- Anthony Celetano for Applicant approached and summarized application. Opened for public questions/comments: None Opened for board questions/comments: Board and Village Planner requested clarification on the parking (which may be on both tax lots 73 and 74). Expressed need for easement related to parking as it relates to the shared lots (188 Main Street is on tax lot 73 with the parking on tax lot 74. The Village Attorney also agreed with the need for the easement since in the future the property in question may not continue to be owned by the applicant. The Applicant’s engineer agreed with the need for an easement related to the parking spaces. Requested parking spaces to be shown on the site plan. Requested erosion & sediment 5  Village of Nyack- Planning Board​ - (4TH NOVEMBER 2019) control plan as it relates to Nyack Brook during construction. BOARD-- Kestenbaum made motion for Planning Board to be lead agency and NOI to be distributed to all involved agencies for coordinated SEQRA review. Seconded by Englander. 5-0 vote The Board should review the application, receive public comment and clarifying any outstanding questions such as the protection of the Nyack Brook from erosion or construction debris during construction. The Planning Board, if satisfied, can then make a negative determination and direct staff to prepare the Part 3 Determination of Significance for the Planning Board at its December meeting. 6. 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 Kestenbaum, seconded by Englander- passed by a vote of 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM. 6