Planning Board Meeting

Village of Nyack Planning Board AUGUST 3RD 2020 Minutes Members Present: Also Present: Peter Klose - Chair Peter Voletsky Don Yacopino - Chief Building Inspector Bob Galvin—Village Planner Alan Englander Seth Kestenbaum Jennifer Knarich alternate Absent:- Walter Sevastian, Village Attorney; Don Wilen Karen Roberts alternate. COVID-19 PANDEMIC STATUS~ another PUBLIC meeting held since the NYS “Pause” to address and contend with the world- wide Coronavirus Pandemic that has ravaged our communities and our nation. This meeting is held subject to the provisions of Gov. Cuomo’s Executive Order 202.1 (the Order), issued on March 13, 2020, which temporarily suspended the requirements to provide public in-person access to meetings and authorizes the meetings to be held remotely “by conference call or similar service.” The Order which was extended through at least August 6th, 2020, requires that the public have the ability to view or listen to the proceedings and requires that all virtual meetings be “recorded and later transcribed.” This meeting is being conducted with public notice by Deputy Village Clerk, Rosa Martinez, at a scheduled Zoom.com meeting [Topic: Village of Nyack Planning Board Meeting 07/06/2020; Time: August 3, 2020 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting ID 83005412532]; and will be recorded and stored by the Village. Conflict Check: The Chairman polled the members of the Board regarding the issue of possible conflicts of interest regarding the application. Member Englander will recuse himself from the application relative to the Hospital. 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 July 6th, 2020 meeting 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 July 6th 2020 Minutes as distributed. Motion seconded by Englander and then Approved by a Vote of 5-0. 1. 12 Central Avenue North. Lesley Waite. Application for tree removal. Arborist’s letter included. Building Inspector -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 letter by Leslie Waite with arborist Jennifer Pfeiffer- June 22, 2020, asks for invasive species to be removed. PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to removal of the invasive species Motion made to close the public hearing application to remove the tree. Seconded by Englander - 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 July 7th, subject to applicant planting and replacing foliage solely at her discretion. Seconded by Voletsky. Vote 5-0- application approved.  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) 2. 77 Sixth Avenue. Ted Beckwith. Application for tree removal. Arborist’s letter included. Building Inspector -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 letter I have been contracted by the Beckwith's to remove 4 trees in their landscape. Below is my reason for removal for each tree in the landscape I have been contacted. These trees are being removed ·because of the intolerable risk they present to the client's life and property. 1. Tulip-40'' DBH 2. Hackberry-20" DBH 3. locust-30" DBH 4. Black Cherry-18" DBH My proposal to remove these trees will not adversely affect other plants in the landscape nor create drainage/flooding issues. We are planting trees in their place. Attached is my planting plan showing where these trees will be removed in the landscape and where new plants will go in. We are planning an extensive orchard garden with many good species to replace these trees. All work will be performed to ANSI A300 and Z1331.1.standards and local laws/regulations. PUBLIC-- Charlotte Jack wanted to be sure that the Village list of approved planting list BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to removal of1. Tulip-40'' DBH 2. Hackberry-20" DBH 3. locust-30" DBH 4. Black Cherry-18" DBH trees Motion made to close the public hearing application to remove the tree. 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 Application to remove 1. Tulip-40'' DBH 2. Hackberry-20" DBH 3. locust-30" DBH 4. Black Cherry-18" DBH , subject to applicant planting and replacing foliage from the approved list of trees Seconded by Englander; Vote 5-0- application approved. 3. 31 Laveta Place. Justine Gerard. Application for tree removal. Arborist’s letter included. Building Inspector -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— I inspected a maple tree at 31 La Veta Pl. at the request of the homeowner. This tree is growing very close to the garage and will impinge on it within a year or so. This tree needs to be removed to avoid damaging the garage. In my opinion, removal of this tree will not affect the trees in the area, or otherwise have negative environmental effects. The homeowner plans to plant a tree lilac at another location on the property. jeff lambert PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to maple tree at 31 La Veta Pl. Motion 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 Application maple tree at 31 La Veta Pl., subject to applicant planting and replacing planting the lilac. Seconded by Voletsky; Vote 5-0- application approved. 2  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) 4. 13 Central Avenue North. Hopkins. Site plan application for installation of inground pool. Building Inspector- Article III, VON§360-3.2E(8) swimming pool requirements. Swimming pool. Any outdoor swimming pool with an area of 100 square feet or more and a depth in excess of two feet accessory to a residential use shall meet the following requirements: (a) The pool shall not be operated for gain. (b) The edge of the pool shall be kept a distance of not less than 20 feet from all property lines. (c) If located within 50 feet of any property line, such pool shall be screened from the view of abutting properties. (d) All requirements of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code pertaining to swimming pools shall be met. Since the proposed pool is located within 50’ from abutting property owners, required screening should be indicated on the plans. Pool has been located more than 20 from all property lines. The Special Construction Section, Chapter 31, of the NYS Building Code requires, among other things, a residential pool to be completely enclosed by a minimum height 48-inch barrier with a self-closing, self-latching gate which should be indicated on the plans. Village Planner SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(12) “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. The proposed inground pool is approximately 16’ x 36’ or 576 sf. The pool is located in the rear yard of the .67-acre property with its primary access from Central Avenue North. The property also borders Tillou Lane to the rear, a 20’ wide private road. A 5’ wide temporary easement from Tillou Lane will be used as construction access for the pool. The exterior of the property line is enclosed with fencing at least 4’ in height. Please note that 4’ high interior fencing and gate should be installed to separate the pool from the residence and all required fence and gates should comply with the Building Inspector’s reference to Chapter 31 of the NYS Building Code noted above. There will be 5’ wide pervious paver deck will be installed around the pool. The drawings show proposed landscaping on the north, east and south sides of the pool. The pad for the pump is also shown on the drawing surrounded by proposed landscaping. The Applicant has provided decibel ratings at several distances from the pump ( 3ft, 6 ft, 9 ft, and 12 ft.). The pool will use a cartridge filter and no backwashing. The pool will be filled with home chlorinated water; if needed, water will be directed into a storage drain. Applicant indicates the use of an electronic monitoring system that automatically sounds an alarm when children or pets fall into an unsupervised pool. Applicant— Dylan Hopkins-- PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose- to close the public meeting with respect to inground pool is approximately 16’ x 36’ or 576 sf. The pool is located in the rear yard of the .67 -acre property Motion made to close the public hearing. Seconded by Englander - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. 3  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) BOARD -- Klose made a motion to accept and designate this as a Type II action based on 617.5 (c)(12) and consistent with the LWRP policies and to approve inground pool is approximately 16’ x 36’ or 576 sf. The pool is located in the rear yard of the .67-acre property. Seconded by Voletsky; Vote 5-0- application approved. 5. 32 Tallman Avenue. Walker/Snyder. Site plan application for construction of carport. Referral to ZBA for variance required. Property is in SFR 1 zoning district. Two area variances are required from Article IV, VON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1 for: A. One side yard of 5 feet where 7.8 feet is required; B. Both side yards of 21.1 feet where 23.4 feet are required. ARB approved July 15, 2020. Village Planner SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(12) “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 -Jay Snyder- Please accept and review our application for permission to add a Porte-Corchere or Carport to our home at 32 Tallman Avenue here in the village of Nyack. Our home is a c1874 second empire that has been lovingly restored and modernized inside and out over the last 3-4 years - with, where possible, great attention to detail befitting the era in which the home was first constructed (i.e. copper gas lamps, copper gutters/leads, restoration of the original iron fence and gates, restoration of original fireplaces with soapstone mantels, reclamation and restoration of an outbuilding that was a pigeon coop, etc. ... ). We were pleased in fact to be awarded recognition by the Rockland County Historical Society for the preservation and rehabilitation work that was done. The developer from whom we purchased the property (Bernard Weintraub) was mid-project when we acquired the house and had already removed an existing free-standing garage and replaced it with a new one at the rear of the property. In order to make use of the new garage in its current location, we would need to pave a large part of our rear yard -which we instead have landscaped into a lovely yard and garden. Further, the existing garage is far removed from the dwelling and would not be ideal for parking a car and then trekking to the house in inclement weather. Therefore, we would like to add a Port-Corchere flanking our side porch and contiguous with the house. This would provide covered parking with direct access to the house. Both the design (by Meg Fowler, Architect) and choice of materials are consistent with the other work that was done (zinc coated copper roofing, copper gutters and leaders, bead board ceiling, brick column supports with bluestone caps, copper chandeliers for lighting, etc ... ) and would be historically appropriate. We ask for permission to proceed with this project and are happy to answer any and all questions from the planning board, zoning board and architectural review board. Thanks for your consideration and best regards, Jay Snyder and Paul Walker Public- NONE BOARD- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing relative to the ZBA application for a Car Port Article IV, VON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1 for: A. One side yard of 5 feet where 7.8 feet is required; B. Both side yards of 21.1 feet where 23.4 feet are required. Seconded by Englander - Motion to close the public hearing as to ZBA passed. Vote 5-0 to close. 4  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) BOARD - Chairman made a positive recommendation to accept the requested variances for a Car Port Article IV, VON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1 for: A. One side yard of 5 feet where 7.8 feet is required; B. Both side yards of 21.1 feet where 23.4 feet are required. to the ZBA on grounds it will improve the property and the neighborhood and have no detriment to the surrounding properties and is a tiny variance -- Seconded by Voletsky--Vote 5-0 for positive recommendation to the ZBA. BOARD- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing relative to the Site Plan application a Car Port Seconded by Alan Englander - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD -- Chairman Peter Klose - made a motion to accept and designate this as a Type II action based on: 617.5 (c)(10), determine that the action is consistent with the LWRP and to approve the Site Plan Application for a Carport upon proposed variances Article IV, VON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1 for: A. One side yard of 5 feet where 7.8 feet is required; B. Both side yards of 21.1 feet where 23.4 feet are required.), subject to reasonable conditions of the ZBA approved by Planning Board, seconded by Kestenbaum; Vote 5-0- application approved. 6. 48 Summit Street. Thomas Lawton. Application to remove existing garage patio and build new garage. Add new rear deck. Referral to ZBA for variance required. Property is in TFR zoning district Building Inspector- Calculation of required setbacks indicate a rear yard of 30’ is being proposed where 44.2’ is required. An area variance is required from ArticleVON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1 for a rear yard of 30’ where 44.2’ is required. ARB Approved the application on July 15, 2020 Village Planner SEQRA – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(12) “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-- Proposed porch has been designed to conceal existing unfinished basement access stairs, while allowing comfortable access. These currently lead under the existing porch deck with extremely low 40” headroom and are accessed via an unattractive wooden hatch attached to the porch. The current porch’s structural integrity is compromised by a large pine tree that is growing under the front corner support column. Extending the porch out by several feet, in addition to concealing the basement stairs, will allow us to construct a solid footing without damaging the tree. We have not shown the tree on the conceptual drawings, for clarity in viewing the porch design. However, we have no intention to remove it and the porch stairs have been designed to curve around the base of the tree. We are requesting to remove both the existing garage, which is in extremely poor condition, and the existing patio shown on the property survey. Two of the photos of the existing garage provided in our application are not current. We provided these photos to give a better view of the structure, as currently there is a temporary shelter erected above the patio that conceals the side of the garage. We have attached an additional overhead photo to show the current condition of the garage and adjacent building locations. The proposed garage has been designed with roof pitch and overhangs to match the house for aesthetic purposes. Deck set back 5  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) is not a substantial change. Public- NONE. BOARD- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing relative to the ZBA application An area variance is required from ArticleVON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1 for a rear yard of 30’ where 44.2’ is required. Seconded by Englander - Motion to close the public hearing as to zba passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD - Chairman made a positive recommendation to accept the requested variances for ZBA area variance is required from ArticleVON§360-4.3, Dimensional Standards Table 4-1 for a rear yard of 30’ where 44.2’ is required to the ZBA on grounds it will improve the property and the neighborhood and have no detriment to the surrounding properties and is a consistent variance for a rear deck intrusion-- Seconded by Voletsky-- Vote 5-0 for positive recommendation to the ZBA. BOARD- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing relative to the Site Plan application a remove existing garage patio and build new garage. Add new rear deck Seconded by Peter Voletsky - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD -- Chairman Peter Klose - made a motion to accept and designate this as a Type II action based on: 617.5 (c)(12), determine that the action is consistent with the LWRP and to approve the Site Plan Application for a remove existing garage patio and build new garage. Add new rear deck, subject to reasonable conditions of the ZBA approved by Planning Board, seconded by Voletsky; Vote 5-0- application approved. 7. 7 Orchard Street. Licker/Seidelman. Application for referral to ZBA for variance required. Building Inspector Property is in SFR-1 zoning district. Exterior alterations comply with zoning requirements. The proposed addition on top of the existing garage is indicated as a professional office for the homeowners, permitted by 360-3.2E(4)(b) if located in a “legal attached accessory building”. Area variances will be required from Article III, VON§360-3.2E(1)(g) for a two- story building, where one story is permitted and an accessory structure greater than 12 feet in height. The existing garage in the front yard of this property is a pre-existing nonconforming structure with respect to current dimensional and developmental standards. A further area variance will be required from Article I, VON§360-1.9E for an increase in the degree of nonconformity of a nonconforming structure by creating a two- story structure where one story is permitted and by increasing the height of the accessory structure to greater than 12 feet, where 12 feet is permitted. Village Planner- SEQRA – The ZBA is the lead agency for this application. The requested variances are all area variances and are Type II actions not subject to SEQRA review. LWRP – based on the Village Code, as a Type II action, this is consistent with LWRP policies. The application is for a second story loft/ office over an existing garage. The existing garage is located in the front yard due to the site's topography and thus is a non-conforming structure under VON 360-1.9 E Non-conforming buildings. Only the front side is fully above grade where the garage door is. 6  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) Please note the color photographs of the garage which accompany this application. They are helpful in explaining the location of the existing garage and the proposed garage addition. The garage is essentially buried into the hillside with only the front elevation with garage door being fully visible on Orchard Street. The deck will be located on the front street portion. Applicant is proposing a second-floor loft law office at the rear portion of the garage and a deck on the front street face portion. The deck will front on the street and reduce the overall impact of the garage on the streetscape. This project was reviewed by the ARB on July 15, 2020 and the design was approved as presented. The proposed use is a legal home occupation with minimal impacts on the neighboring properties. The topography of the site minimizes the visible impact of the proposed garage loft on adjacent properties. The design of the deck in the front above the garage door improves the streetscape along Orchard Street. I believe that the Planning Board can make a positive recommendation to the ZBA. Applicant --This application is for a second story loft/ office over an existing garage. The existing garage is located in the front yard due to the site's topography and thus is a non-conforming structure under VON 360-1.9 E Non-conforming buildings. Only the front side is fully above grade where the garage door is. We are proposing a second-floor loft law office at the rear portion of the garage and a deck on the front street face portion. The deck will front on the street and reduce the overall impact of the garage on the streetscape. The loft law office is considered a second story under VON 360-3.3 E (1) (z) and exceeds the allowable height. The use as a law office is allowed under VON 360-3.2 E (4),(a)&(b), and meets all the required criteria as an accessory use. The plans show the non-conforming conditions for story and height which will require a variance from the zoning board of appeals. We are requesting a positive recommendation to the zoning board for the following variances; expansion of a non-conforming structure VON 360-1.9 E, a second story addition and height greater than 12' to an accessory structure VON 360-3.3 E (1) (g). This project has been reviewed by the ARB and they approved the design as presented. Public Comment--NONE BOARD- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing relative to the ZBA application dated 7-20- 2020 consisting of one pages-- site plan and A-6 and asking for variances expansion of a non- conforming structure VON 360-1.9 E, a second story addition and height greater than 12' to an accessory structure VON 360-3.3 E (1) (g) . Seconded by Englander - Motion to close the public hearing as to zba passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD - Chairman made a positive recommendation to accept the requested variances for an expansion of a non-conforming structure VON 360-1.9 E, a second story addition and height greater than 12' to an accessory structure VON 360-3.3 E (1) (g) to the ZBA on grounds it will improve the property and the neighborhood and have no detriment to the surrounding properties and is a variance for a rear deck intrusion-- Seconded by Englander-- Vote 5-0 for positive recommendation to the ZBA. 7  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) BOARD- Motion by Peter Klose to close the public hearing relative to the ZBA application dated 7- 20-2020 consisting of one pages-- site plan and A-6 . Seconded by Englander - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD -- Chairman Peter Klose - made a motion to accept and designate this as a Type II action based on: 617.5 (c)(12), determine that the action is consistent with the LWRP and to approve the Site Plan Application dated (7-20-2020) plans and application expansion of a non- conforming structure VON 360-1.9 E, a second story addition and height greater than 12' to an accessory structure VON 360-3.3 E (1) (g), subject to reasonable conditions of the ZBA approved by Planning Board, seconded by Englander; Vote 5-0- application approved. 6. 160 N. Midland Avenue. Mike Pomarico for Nyack Hospital. Preliminary presentation of a Site Plan application to construct a parking garage. Property is in the Hospital (H) zoning district. Building Inspector Review-- At a permitted height of 40 feet and 3&1/2 stories, buildings facing residential streets in the H zoning district must be set back at least 25 feet from the property line pursuant to footnote (n) of Dimensional Standards Table. Footnote (o) of the same Table permits an increase in height of 2 feet for each additional 1 foot of setback from property line. Plans indicate the building is to be 5 stories at 55.97 feet high Calculating permitted building height using information contained in footnotes (n) & (o) the building would be allowed to be 82 feet high except as limited to a height of 6 stories and 72 feet by footnote (o): (n) The minimum setback from the street line must be a minimum of 15 feet except where a structure in an H district faces a street occupied by one- or two-family residences on the opposite side, the structure must be set back a minimum of 25 feet. (o) Building height may be increased two feet for each additional foot of setback from surrounding streets, provided that in no case shall a structure exceed six stories or 72 feet Building is proposed to be setback 46 feet 11 inches from property line at Sickles Avenue and 62 feet from property line at North Midland Avenue. Escrow funds have been established for traffic, site engineering consulting fees and Village Planner professional planning services. Applicant appeared before the ARB on February 19, 2020. Various design changes were requested. Applicant returned to the ARB on May 20, 2020 and received conditional approval. Applicants should be prepared to provide an aerial showing the placement of the garage and distance to residences on Sickles Avenue. Various approaches should be discussed with the Planning Board to visually screen the garage exterior (similar to what had been initially proposed). Provided in current JULY 2020 submission. Letter from Nyack Fire Inspector enclosed. (5/19/20) The Fire Inspector met with the Nyack Fire Chief to review the visual barriers being proposed on the garage structure. The fire department indicated that access to potential car fires or any other type of firefighting ability would be particularly challenging and limiting if the parking structure were enclosed on all sides. It was determined that the vision barrier enclosure shall include the residential view to the Hospital 8  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) from Sickles Ave and Midland Ave elevations only. The elevations facing the Hospital and the Cancer Center will be left unscreened to facilitate fire apparatus access. This has been communicated to the Applicant. . Village Planner SEQRA --This is an Unlisted action under SEQRA. It is not a Type I action under NYSCCR §617.4 nor a Type II action under §617.5. The Planning Board should declare its intent to be lead agency for the proposed action and have staff prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be Lead Agency for the purposes of SEQRA review. The NOI shall be sent to all involved and interested agencies. Project is subject to GML review. Request was sent on 5/20/2020. Received Rockland County Planning GML response dated 6/23/20. Plans indicate the building is to be 5 stories at 55.97 feet high--Calculating permitted building height using information contained in footnotes (n) & (o) the building would be allowed to be 82 feet high except as limited to a height of 6 stories and 72 feet by footnote (o): (n) The minimum setback from the street line must be a minimum of 15 feet except where a structure in an H district faces a street occupied by one- or two-family residences on the opposite side, the structure must be set back a minimum of 25 feet. (o) Building height may be increased two feet for each additional foot of setback from surrounding streets, provided that in no case shall a structure exceed six stories or 72 feet. Building is proposed to be setback 46 feet 11 inches from property line at Sickles Avenue and 62 feet from property line at North Midland Avenue. For July 6, 2020--Escrow funds have been established for traffic, site engineering consultant fees and for Village Planner professional planning services. Applicant received conditional approval from ARB on May 20, 2020. Various design changes were requested. Applicant- Does not want piecemeal responses Dennis Lynch reviewed the items that they have been working on. Sound engineer is going to provide noise analysis. Public-- Letters received from-- many of the letter writers were also speakers From: Charles Udry <udXXXc@XXXil.com> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2020 10:25 AM To: buildingdepartment@nyack-ny.gov Subject: Nyack Hospital Assessment Form Part 1 Errors Dear Planning Board members, Please accept my thanks for addressing my concerns with the Montefiore Nyack Hospital Garage team. The 41/2 feet more that they are willing to cede as a buffer between the sidewalk and the garage as green space and the shrubs that they should have replaced years ago and are willing to do now is a start. The answer of Mr. Pomarico that the plan "is still developing" can either be that he was trying to shut me up, or that there was still more wiggle room. The recent days of heavy, humid air (which is not limited to 9  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) summer), has reminded me of the urgent necessity of planting of trees in this buffer to remove some of the toxins generated by the 300+ car increase. Though improved aesthetics would certainly be a result, it is not the overriding factor. With the prevalence of respiratory illnesses including asthma and COPD in our society, my household cannot be the only one in the immediate vicinity that would be negatively impacted by this added pollution. One would think that the Hospital would want to further good health, not add to their patient roster. I beseech you to continue to press on toward the total removal of the Sickles Ave. and Midland Ave. lanes of parking, which with a 482 car garage are superfluous, and replaced with more trees (not shrubs) planted in a wider green buffer. Lungs at work here! Again, thank you. Ellyse Okin Berg Board Action-- no board action however the Village Planner went over the salient identified environmental issues that must be mitigated and addressed Public Hearing remains open while the various experts and design opinions are gathered. Escrows established for Galvin, Landscaping, Traffic consultants. FOR AUGUST 3, 2020 MEETING. Project sent for GML review on 5/20/2020 – Responses received from Rockland County Department of Planning, dated 6/23/2020 and Rockland County Department of Health, dated July 3, 2020. Village Planner-- Preliminary traffic/parking consultant’s report received from Michael Galante, Director of Traffic, Hardesty Hanover, dated 7/20/2020. His initial comments have dealt with traffic as well as preliminary parking study comments. Regarding the Parking Study, he has requested 1) additional information regarding the raw parking survey sheets for review; 2) address the parking during construction related to the adequacy of the temporary parking on the Ballfields site and explain mitigation measures to address any deficiency; 3) explain how estimated parking demand by employees, visitors, outpatients, etc. was determined and provide average breakdown by category; 4) explain how parking demand was determined and if it is evenly distributed throughout the day and compare to Village Code requirements and ITE hourly parking generation. Mr. Galante has also started reviewing the proposed parking operations. SEQRA - The Notice of Intent was circulated by staff on 6/4/20. The Planning Board has assumed lead agency status for the environmental review of this proposed action. As part of the Planning Board’s SEQRA review, I have reviewed and provided the Planning Board with the Part 2 of the EAF. This identifies the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity. Based on public comments at the Board’s July 2020 meeting, July 6, 2020, the Part 2 has been slightly modified to include a review by the Applicant of possible water issues at the Ballfields site. I also reviewed the Applicant’s Part 1 of the long form EAF based on public comments at the Planning Board’s July meeting. I have listed the specific questions in the EAF Part 2 that were commented on by one or more members of the public: Brief Description of the Proposed Action - Comment: Describes a 4 ½ story parking garage. The parking garage as indicated on the plans is 10  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) proposed to be six levels including the ground level and the roof. Response: The description has been verified by the Building Inspector – the apparent discrepancy is related to how the Village Code defines stories and the establishment of the grade plane from which the calculation of stories is made by the Building Inspector. D.1.g - Height Comment: The applicant listed a height of 55.05 ft. The height on the plan is 65.0 ft. Response: Based on the Building Inspector’s review of the plans and based on the Code, the Building Inspector has calculated that the building is 5 stories at 55.97 feet high. The comment on a height of 65’ on the plans may have been measured to the top of the stair bulkhead which is not counted in height calculation according to the Code. Building is proposed to be setback 46 feet 11 inches from property line at Sickles Avenue and 62 feet from property line at North Midland Avenue. D.2.e – Stormwater runoff Comment: The applicant has stated “No” that there will be no stormwater runoff on the 2+ acre site during construction of post construction. How do we know this? Response: This should be marked as “Yes”. The question is dealt with in EAF Pt 2 - Category # 5 – Impact on Flooding which has been marked as having a potential impact on flooding. Other impacts are marked under this category – noting that public comments discussed current conditions regarding underground water under the proposed structure and Ballfields site & potential water damage. The Applicant has developed a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Hospital site together with stormwater management plans and Erosion and Control (E&C) plans and is in the process of developing a separate SWPPP with stormwater management and E&C practices appropriate for the Ballfields site. These will be reviewed and evaluated by Eve Mancuso of Brooker Engineering, the Village Engineer. A Stormwater Maintenance and Inspection Agreement will be submitted for each site and filed with Rockland County filed for each site before any building permit can be issued. Question D.2.e is not listed under the EAF Pt 2 categories related to impacts on surface water (#3) or impacts on groundwater (#4). D.2.m – Noise Levels Comment: Regarding the applicant stating that ambient noise levels will not be exceeded during construction, operation, or both. How do we know that? Response: This section on the EAF Pt 2 Impacts on Noise, Odor and Lights has been marked “Yes”. Other impacts have been noted as follows- “New lighting proposed on Hospital site and lighting at temporary parking lot at ballfields site” . Also noted that construction hours are proposed to extend from 8 am - 4 pm on Mondays through Fridays with no weekend construction. D.2.o – Odors Comment: The applicant stated “No” on the potential to produce odors for more than one hour a day. Again, how do we know this? How do we know that there will not be an increase in pollution from carcinogens, VOCs and CO2 emissions? Response: The questions in #16 – Impacts on Human Health have been reviewed . These deal with use of pesticides during construction or operation, use as a solid waste disposal site, 11  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) hazardous waste management or past history of contamination. None of the questions in this category reach the threshold for further review. E.1: Land Uses on and surrounding the project site Comment: All uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project are not checked off. Response: This comment is correct. The applicant should check off Residential (suburban) and in Other add BOCES school. E.1.c – Property used by the members of the community for public recreation Comment: The project sites include the ball field at McCallum Field. Response: The Planning Board is well aware of this issue since it is an integral part of the project. This is governed by the Nyack School District and is recognized as a temporary use. E.1.d. – Facilities serving children, the elderly and people with disabilities within 1,500 feet of the project site. Comment: The applicant does not list all of the facilities within the neighborhood. There are two licensed daycares and a group home. Response: Applicant can add Children of America Nyack, Nursery School of the Nyacks and Camp Venture Engle House. A list does not need to be fully comprehensive. This question relates to the issue of blasting on the site or impacts on human health. The Project will not use blasting but use standard excavation methods. The review of the impacts on human health such as use as a solid waste disposal site, hazardous waste management or past history of contamination. None of the questions in this category reach the threshold for further review. E.2.h – Surface water features. Comment: This section is incompletely filled out. Response: Commentator has not read the question correctly. It is filled out according to the instructions in the form. The instructions state that if Yes to either i or ii continue; If No, skip to E.2.i. This is what the applicant did in filling out the question properly. School District Agreement - The Planning Board has received the School District Agreement with the Applicant for temporary use of the Ballfields site for parking. GML - We have received the GML response from Rockland County Planning dated 6/23/20. While the County’s comments will need to be addressed by the applicant, it does not appear to provide significant issues requiring extensive review. The same comment is made regarding the Rockland County Department of Health GML response. SHPO - We reviewed the Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) to identify any historic sites in the Project area. We identified two SHPO consultation projects on the Nyack Hospital site (garage site) and the Ballfields (temporary parking). Both SHPO Consultation Projects (16PR03537 and 16PR03847) have been reviewed for the Hospital site and adjacent Nyack SD Ballfields and been closed by SHPO. We have received back up confirmation from SHPO with a report of no impact. Stormwater Management - The Applicant is developing a separate SWPPP to address stormwater management on the Ballfields site as well as providing stormwater and erosion control plans for the Ballfields site. 12  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (3RD AUGUST 2020) Landscaping-- they are working on the Landscaping Plans-- add some additional vegetation From: McCullough, Mary (DOT) <Mary.McCullough@dot.ny.gov> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 1:54 PM To: buildingdepartment@nyack-ny.gov Subject: Nyack Hospital Parking Structure - NYSDOT SEQR 20-103 Good Afternoon Ms. Hetling, We have limited access to the office and unfortunately did not receive this until well after the due date. The NYSDOT SEQR # we gave this project is 20-103. Please refer to this number when communicating to NYSDOT regarding this project. The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is in receipt of a Lead Agency Designation Request from the Village of Nyack Planning Board,. The NYSDOT consents to the Village of Nyack Planning Board assuming the role of Lead Agency for review of the referenced proposal. This project will increase traffic. Please provide a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) or analysis. The TIS needs to address the traffic and other impacts to the NYS highway system as well as the applicant’s proposed mitigation. Please provide a site plan and include a site distance matrix. Mary McCullough SEQRA – HW Permit Unit New York State Department of Transportation, Hudson Valley Region 4 Burnett Blvd., Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 (845) 437-3398 mary.mccullough@dot.ny.gov PUBLIC-- comment by the neighbors -- concerned about the safety the public was requesting the removal from the exterior parking Emergency Room -- concerned about the agreement that shades would be used for the lighting -- Phase II of the ER renovations From: Charles Udry <udrync@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2020 11:02 AM To: buildingdepartment@nyack-ny.gov Subject: Questions about the continuation of the Parking Garage Site Plan Dear Mr. Yacopino, I have a few questions regarding the Montefiore/Nyack Hospital proposed parking garage that is on the planning board agenda for tonight. I tried calling the Building Department and no one was in the office to talk to. During the last meeting on July 6, 2020, it was acknowledged by Dennis Lynch that the FEAF Part 1 was incomplete/incorrectly filled out. I do not see the corrected form as an attachment on the agenda tonight. Has a corrected Part 1 and Part 2 been submitted? The site plan review for the proposed parking garage is the second phase the hospital has applied for approval for, the first being the Emergency Department and Medical Village areas. My understanding of the SEQRA review is that the segmentation of these approvals should not have happened and that the whole project should have been applied for at the same time, i.e. the approval for the increase in square footage of the ER and addition of the Medical Village and the parking garage and parking lot. When approval was granted in 2016/2017 was the parking garage included? If so, can you please direct me to where I can find that documentation? In reading the minutes of the July 6 meeting, I do not see the verbal comments I made and the responses by Peter Klose and Walter Sevastian included. Are these typically included or does the recording of the Zoom meeting fulfill that? Thank you. Nina Petricone Charlotte Jack-- went through each the comments by Ms. Jack OTHER BUSINESS-- Motion to adjourn by Klose, seconded by Kestenbaum- passed by a vote of 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM. 13