Planning Board Meeting

Village of Nyack Planning Board DECEMBER 2ND 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 - absent 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 himself. 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 November 2019 Minutes as distributed. Motion seconded by Englander and then Approved by a Vote of 5/4-0. Motion to approve the November 2019 Minutes Approved vote of 4-0 (Klose abstaining from the vote on 188 Main Street). 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. Application appears on December 2, 2019 agenda for adjournment purposes only. 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. Applicant— NO Appearance PUBLIC-- 2. 140 North Highland Avenue. Oakhill Cemetery. Application tree removal. Property is in SFR-1 zoning  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (2ND DECEMBER 2019) 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 - Application appears on December 2, 2019 agenda for adjournment purposes only. The Planning Board is waiting for requested materials from the applicant. At the Planning Board’s October meeting, The Board requested the applicant to provide: 1) arborist’s letter regarding the condition of the three larger trees proposed for removal; 2) landscaping plan which shows the location of the trees to be removed and proposed additional plantings or replacement trees; and 3) an engineer’s analysis of the impacts of the proposal on the hillside and drainage and any remediation recommended by the engineer. Public Comment - adjourned application- NO Appearance. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. Received comments from Village Engineer in a memorandum dated November 25, 2019. Dear Members of the Board, I reviewed the information sent over by the building department and discussed the same with the building department. As you are aware – if the proper path to a building permit was taken for this work, a permit would not have been issued for any substantive improvement such as this in the easement. In general, no construction is allowed over an easement but in reality I have seen drives, walks and fences allowed. With that said, if the Village is considering the improvements to remain I would suggest the owner enter into a License Agreement with the Village, in perpetuity, stating they are fully responsible for removal 2  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (2ND DECEMBER 2019) and re-construction of the said improvement if and when the sewer needs to be accessed. This may be for general maintenance , complete re-construction – any reason. As Don pointed out, the removal must be done ASAP, especially in the event of an emergency (i.e blockage or break in the sewer). Thus the contractor would most likely perform the work but the cost of such work should be the responsibility of the owner. Thus the differential in costs for the entire project including access to the easement, demolition of the improvement and rebuilding of the improvement vs simple excavation and topsoil seed restoration (if the easement was un-encumbered) would fall solely on the owner. Second question- the plan identifies a sewer easement. It does not state the beneficiary. As Don noted when this easement was initially put into place, the sewer was most likely under the jurisdiction of the Village. When Orangetown Sewer took over the sewer system, the Village most likely would have transferred rights to the easement but not necessarily deeded over the lands of the easement itself. This probably should be looked into to be sure the Village has the ability to grant any relief for encroachment. The Village Board would need to weigh in on this as it is my understanding any easement would be under their jurisdiction. The PB does not have the ability to grant relief over the Village property. 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-- NO Appearance but the matter must be referred to the Village Board Village Attorney -- concerned if it is 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. 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. 3  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (2ND DECEMBER 2019) 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 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 (county planning) 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- Applicant approached and summarized application. Francesca Borzogomid-- Applicant will work 4  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (2ND DECEMBER 2019) with the Village to be sure to protect the brook even with hard cover plywood roofing-- Opened for public questions/comments: None-- No public at the meeting Opened for board questions/comments: Board and Village Planner requested clarification on the parking (which may be on both tax lots 73 and 74). DONE 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. VILLAGE EASEMENT WILL BE REVIEWED 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 control plan as it relates to Nyack Brook during construction. ALL MOTIONS SHALL BE CONTINGENT UPON THE SUBMISSION OF THE EASEMENT BEING RECORDED. 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 Except for Main Street doors, applicant received ARB approval on October 16, 2019. A parking analysis has been provided and the 4 required parking spaces have been indicated on the Site Plan, however, an easement over the adjacent property (66.29-2-73) is required to be provided and filed before a building permit can be issued. The Application did not require GML review. The Planning Board indicated its intent to be Lead Agency for this unlisted action at its November meeting. The Planning Board can now assume lead agency status and make a SEQRA determination for the project. The Village Planner reviewed the Part 2 Impact Assessment and indicated that there were no moderate or large impacts identified. The project’s 4 parking spaces are located on the applicant’s adjacent Lot 74 to the east of the site. It was recommended at the Board’s November meeting, that the applicant file a parking easement for these parking spaces for Lot 74 for the benefit of Lot 73 with Rockland County Land Records. (The Applicant has noted this agreement on the revised site plan map.) The agreement should be filed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, the Board requested that an erosion & sediment control plan be submitted to the Building Inspector prior to issuance of a building permit to provide protection to the Nyack Brook during the project’s construction activity. At the direction of the Planning Board, the Village Planner has drafted a Negative Declaration which has been provided for the Board’s review. If approved by the Board, this would end the SEQRA review of the project. The Village Planner has reviewed the LWRP’s Coastal Assessment Form and recommends that the project is consistent with the Village’s LWRP policies. The Planning Board can confirm this for the record. The next step for the Board is to recommend the area variances noted above to the ZBA. If approved by the ZBA, the applicant would come back to the Planning Board for final site plan approval. Negative Declaration-- The proposed action is a 12' x 40' expansion to the footprint of the existing building to 5  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (2ND DECEMBER 2019) the east. The addition accommodates a live/work space consisting of 705 sf of retail and 720 sf of residential space (studio apartment) on the ground floor. The existing duplex on the second and third floors consists of two bedrooms. The addition provides an additional new bedroom on each floor. The Project is located at 188 Main Street which 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). Nyack Brook essentially divides the property between the TFR and DMU-1 zones. Mitigation Measures - At the Board's request, the applicant's engineer will provide an erosion & sediment control plan to provide protection to the Nyack Brook during the Project's construction activity. The addition will be constructed on the applicant's existing Lot 73 (66.29-2-73). The applicant owns the adjacent Lot 74 immediately east of the subject property. Lot 74 contains 4 parking spaces. The applicant has agreed to file a parking easement for these parking spaces for the benefit of Lot 73 with Rockland County Land Records. Zoning - Total FAR including the addition is 1.91 which is below the 2.0 maximum FAR for the DMU-1 district. Based on the §360-4.5 B (3), it was determined by the Building Inspector that the parking requirement for the Project was a total of three spaces. Since a total of 4 parking spaces are being provided, there is no parking variance required. The Live/Work space includes 705 sf of retail space and extends back 25’ deep in conformity with the ground floor standards of DMU-1 in the Code. Several area variances are required from the ZBA. Environmental Constraints/Historic Resources - The subject property is not located within a floodplain nor are there any wetlands on or adjoining the site. There are no identified historic or cultural resources on or adjacent to the site. Based on the Planning Board's review of Part 2 of the SEAF, the proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse environmental impact that would rise to the level of significance required for a Positive Declaration. Seconded by Englander. Vote to approve 4-0 Klose recused. Members voletsky, englander, kestenbaum and roberts voted to issue the Neg. Dec. BOARD- Member Kestenbaum moved to Close the public hearing with respect to the Area Variances; Seconded by and Vote to close the public hearing Member Kestenbaum made a motion to make a positive recommendation to the ZBA concerning the requested Area Variances 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; (k) Side and rear yards that are adjacent to residential zones must have a minimum setback of 15 feet including a landscaped buffer.Seconded by Englander. Vote to approve 4-0 Klose recused. Members voletsky, englander, kestenbaum and roberts voted. Member Kestenbaum made a motion to close the public hearing with respect to the Site Plan Application and it was Seconded by Seconded by Englander. Vote to approve 4-0 Klose recused. Members Voletsky, Englander, Kestenbaum and Roberts voted. BOARD-- Motion by Kestenbaum to made a motion to accept and designate an unlisted action and the passage 6  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (2ND DECEMBER 2019) of the Neg. Dec. and to accept the LWRP above Approve site plan subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the ARB and ZBA and not modified by the ZBA. Seconded by Englander. Vote to approve 4-0 Klose recused. members voletsky, englander, kestenbaum and roberts voted. Subject to filing of easement and grant of variances by ZBA. 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 7:18 PM. 7