Planning Board Meeting

Village of Nyack Planning Board October 5, 2020 Minutes Members Present: Also Present: Peter Klose - Chair Walter Sevastian, Village Attorney Peter Voletsky Don Yacopino - Chief Building Inspector Don Wilen Bob Galvin—Village Planner Alan Englander Seth Kestenbaum Karen Roberts alternate Jennifer Knarich alternate Absent: 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 November 6 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 October 5, 2020; Time: October 5, 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 September 14, 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 August 6th 2020 Minutes as distributed. Motion seconded by Seth Kestenbaum and then Approved by a Vote of 5-0. 1. 51 Summit Street. Application to remove tree up-lifting sidewalk. Property is in the TFR zoning district. Arborist’s letter included Building Department-arborist 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— O’Sullivan- John Bolton. Upon inspection of the above-mentioned property I found a 20" Mulberry Tree on the right side of the house, between the house and the sidewalk. The root system is uplifting the sidewalk creating a trip hazard. Removal is the best way to mitigate the situation. PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to removal of the 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.  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) 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 September 10, 2020. Seconded by Voletsky. Vote 5-0- application approved. 2. 16 Fourth Avenue. Holbrook. Application to remove 9 trees. Property is in TFR zoning district. Arborists letter included. Building Department-arborist 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— Jeffrey Lambert- from Ira Wickes- I have been contracted by the Holbrooks' to remove 9 trees in their landscape. Below is my reason for removal for each tree in the landscape. These trees are being removed because of the intolerable risk they present to the client's liability, life, and property. 1. Hackberry-12" DBH-Limited root space between house and driveway, high risk to house and cars. 2. Hackberry-18" DBH-Trunk defects, history of failure, high risk to house and cars. 3. (5) Norway Maples-12" DBH-NYSDEC invasive species, limited root space, most in poor condition, high risk to structures on property. 4. Ailanthus-40'' DBH-NYSDEC invasive species, limited root space, high risk to Ackerman properties and utilities. 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. planting non-invasive-- plan to plan oriental plants. PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to removal of the 9 trees, Motion made to close the public hearing application to remove the tree. Seconded by Wilen - 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 September 15, 2020, subject to applicant planting and replacing foliage solely at discretion but including Japanese maples and dogwoods. Seconded by Englander. Vote 5-0- application approved. 3. 3 Waldron Avenue. Daniel Barahona. Application for a recommendation to ZBA for requested area variance. Property is in the CC zoning district. Building Inspector -This was a pre-existing, nonconforming single-family residence in the CC zoning district, which lost its nonconforming status for discontinuance of use following a fire in the home. SEQRA - This is a recommendation to the ZBA for an area variance. The ZBA would be the lead agency on this proposed action. The proposed action is a Type II action under 617.5(c)(17) “granting of an area variance for a single-family, two-family or three-family residence;” Applicants received approval for the change of occupancy to a convenience store. Due to the onset of the 2  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) pandemic, which prevented the owner from moving forward with the conversion and recognizing the less than positive business outlook, the applicant is requesting a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an area variance from Article I, VON§360-1.9D(3) to re-establish the nonconforming single family use. Klose accepted the re-institution of a single-family residence at the location, based upon the difficulty of establishing a deli at the location and the benefit to the neighborhood to have an attractive single-family residence. Seconded by Voletsky. Vote 5-0- application approved. Village Planner comments - The reasons for including these actions in the Type II list are essentially the same as those for construction of single-, two-, or three- family residences. That is, long-term experience has shown that this kind of action rarely results in adverse environmental impacts. This was a former use on the property which underwent an extensive review by the Village Planning Board and Rockland County Department of Planning. Its conversion back to a single-family residence will not have any adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. It is recommended that the Planning Board provide a positive recommendation to the ZBA. Chairman Klose was concerned that the Site Plan submitted with the Deli Application would not be the same for a residential use. In particular, Chair wants the application submitted to the ZBA with the actual configuration showing landscaping in the front yard, (not parking). Applicant agreed to revise and deliver it that way to the ZBA. PUBLIC-- none. BOARD-- Motion by Klose - to close the public meeting with respect to the recommendation ZBA for the return to a single-family residence. Seconded by Kestenbaum - Motion to close the public hearing passed. Vote 5-0 to close. BOARD -- Klose made a motion to make positive recommendation to the ZBA for the re-institution of a single family residence at the location, based upon the difficulty of establishing a deli at the location and the benefit to the neighborhood to have an attractive single family residence, subject to the application submitted to the ZBA with the actual configuration showing landscaping in the front yard (not parking) and subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the ZBA. Seconded by Voletsky. Vote 5-0- application approved. 4. 160 North Midland Avenue. Nyack Hospital. Continuation of Site Plan application for the construction of a parking garage. Property is in the Hospital (H) zoning district. Proposal is to construct a parking garage, connected by elevated walkway to the main building, in the south east corner of the property, now being used as a surface parking lot. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 MEETING, AS OUTLINED IN VILLAGE PLANNER’S COMMENTS BELOW 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 3  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) 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. 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 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 A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 MEETING, AS OUTLINED IN VILLAGE PLANNER’S COMMENTS BELOW submission. Village Planner-- Village Planner Comments – October 5, 2020 meeting- Village Engineer’s Reviews Eve Mancuso from Brooker Engineering had provided 1) an engineering review dated May 29, 2020, 2) a stormwater review including both the Hospital and Temporary Ballfield Sites dated July 2, 2020 and 3) a final review dated 9/28/20 via email. All of Eve’s comments have been satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant. Traffic/Parking Village Consultant, Mike Galante, has provided a Traffic/Parking Review for the Planning Board meeting (second review, September 4, 2020). This was provided to the Applicant and his consultants. Applicant has provided on 9/28/20 a revised Parking Circulation Diagram for the Day and Night with the revisions requested by Mike Galante. Applicant also provided a response letter from Level G dated 9/30/20 regarding alternate side parking and parking meters. Mr. Galante will be presenting his findings and recommendations to the Planning Board at the 10/5/20 PB meeting. Village Consultant, Mike Galante, has provided a Traffic/Parking Review for the Planning Board meeting (second review, September 14, 2020). Parking Study Comments 4  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) Based on our review of the Revised Traffic Impact Study and Response to Comments prepared by the Applicant, the following comments are provided: 1. 2019 Existing Conditions – Pedestrian counts are now provided and are included in the analysis. 2. Accident History – The Applicant has collected and summarized accident data from the Orangetown Police Department for the latest three full years and is acceptable. 3. 2021 No-Build Traffic Volumes – The rerouted traffic volumes for the infusion center are reasonably acceptable for the purposes of this study. The no-build traffic volumes are also reasonably acceptable. 4. Rerouted Offsite Parking Trips – The assumptions and estimates for rerouting of the off-site parking to the new garage are reasonably acceptable. 5. 2021 Build Traffic Volumes – The build traffic volumes are reasonably acceptable for purposes of this study. 6. Capacity Analysis – The Synchro files provided are reasonably acceptable and the capacity table results match the Synchro analysis. 7. Temporary Parking at Nearby School – Once it is determined that there are sufficient parking alternatives based on a parking analysis during construction, see comment 9 below, we will conduct a detailed review. 8. Existing Parking Surveys – It is noted in the original parking study that parking surveys were conducted in October and November 2019. However, based on the raw count sheet and response to our comments, it appears that all counts were only conducted on Wednesday, October 23, 2019. On the day of the counts Schools were open and appropriate weather conditions were present. As previously noted, there are on-street parking restrictions during the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 11:00 A.M. in the general vicinity of the Hospital. Based on our calculations, there are 75 total on-street parking spaces affected on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays and 106 total on-street parking spaces on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturdays. The parking counts were conducted on a Wednesday, when there are approximately 31 more on-street parking spaces available. This will significantly impact parking demand in the general vicinity of the Hospital. Review of the parking counts indicated that the locations of the Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday restriction had a total of 104 parking spaces occupied at 10:00 A.M., while the Monday, Wednesday and Friday restricted spaces there were a total of 15 parking spaces occupied during the same hour. If no vehicles are parked illegally on a Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday there is a shortage of 44 parking spaces [(104+15)-75]. The Applicant will need to determine where these additional 44 vehicles will park on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturdays. 5  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) 9. Parking During Construction – Review of the Construction Phase Parking Diagram for during the day indicated that the existing and proposed parking capacity is 594 parking spaces. A review of the parking count from October 23, 2019 indicated that the total peak parking demand at 11:00 A.M. There were 584 parking spaces in the hospital area, lots plus 22 parking spaces were occupied at the Temple Lot for a total of 606 occupied parking spaces. Based on the existing parking count, during construction the peak parking demand will be 12 spaces over the proposed temporary supply provided and; therefore, will not meet the expected demand. As noted in the Parking Study, 85 percent peak parking demand is ideal, and 90 percent is acceptable in the parking planning industry. Based on our findings above, the peak parking demand will be 102 percent during construction in Hospital parking lots. To meet the minimum 90 percent peak parking demand threshold, the Applicant will need to provide 673 parking spaces to account for daily fluctuation and for vehicles circling to find parking. The table should also provide the breakdown of the parking demand for each lot for the existing and proposed conditions. A review of the Construction Phase Parking Diagram for during the night indicated that the existing parking capacity is 383 parking spaces without using the Midland Temporary Lot and Temple Lot. The note states that this total is from the Parking Study at a 7:00 A.M. condition. The purpose of this graphic is supposed to illustrate a night condition and we question why a 7:00 A.M. parking count was used. This should be revised to illustrate the appropriate condition. The table should also provide the breakdown of the parking demand for each lot for the existing and proposed condition. In addition, the Applicant should provide how many parking spaces will be needed for construction workers and where they will be parking. 10. Parking Demand – It was previously requested that the parking demand be compared to ITE parking generation. Based on our calculations, the ITE rate based on the number of employees has an 85th percentile peak parking demand of 789 spaces. The Applicant is providing 723 parking spaces on-campus and 172 parking spaces in off-site parking lots for a total of 895 parking spaces. The peak parking demand based on ITE parking rates indicate a peak parking demand of 88 percent. Traffic Findings The results of the capacity analysis indicated that with the proposed garage the Study Area intersections will generally continue to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during all peak hours. During both the weekday morning generator and network peak hours there will be an improvement in Level Service and delays on the Fifth Avenue westbound lane approach. There will be a deterioration in Level of Service from “E” to “F” with an increase in vehicle delay of 56.2 seconds for the Hospital South Driveway westbound lane to North Highland Avenue during the weekday afternoon peak hour. A review of the storage/queue analysis indicated that there will be sufficient on-site storage for this 95th percentile queue for the weekday afternoon peak hour. As noted above, once it is determined that there are sufficient parking alternatives based on a parking analysis during construction, we will conduct a detailed review of the construction sensitivity traffic analysis. 6  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) Parking Findings As noted above, we are still concerned with the parking program provided during the construction of the parking garage. All requested information is needed before we can provide our findings. Based on our review of the parking study, the Applicant is providing a total of 723 parking spaces on-campus and 172 parking spaces in the North Highland Lot for a total of 895 parking spaces in Hospital operated parking lots. It was determined that the peak parking demand was 906 parking spaces during a typical weekday at 11:00 A.M. The Applicant has estimated that to reach a parking demand in the 85 to 90 percent range, which is the standard acceptable range in the parking industry, the parking supply would need to be between 1,005 and 1,065 parking spaces. It was estimated that in addition to the 895 parking spaces in Hospital operated parking lots, a total of 145 on-street parking spaces would still be used by employees/visitors to the Hospital for a total of 1,040 parking spaces supplied, or an 87.1 percent peak parking demand. A breakdown of the on-street parking needed to meet the required supply is 39 existing on- street meter spaces on North Midland Avenue and 106 proposed metered spaces, which are proposed on Sickle Avenue and Fifth Avenue along the Hospital Frontage, North Highland Avenue, Fifth Avenue along the School frontage and on Haven Court. Based on the Parking Study, it was determined that on the day of the counts 300 on-street parking spaces were occupied by Hospital related activities during the peak parking demand. With the construction of the parking garage, it was determined that of those 300 spaces currently occupied by Hospital activity, 155 parking spaces will now be available for the residents and community in the future. In addition, the off-site Temple Lot will no longer be needed in the future. APPLICANT From Prior Submissions- Community Development Properties Nyack Inc.-- Level G Associates, parking consultants, for the purpose of preparing a feasibility study for a parking deck to be situated on the campus of Montefiore Nyack Hospital in the Village of Nyack, NY. Level G submitted a “phase one” feasibility analysis of the project in January of 2019. Since then, we have been kept informed of project activities and submitted a “Preliminary Parking Deck Sizing” memorandum in September of 2019. The goals and objectives of the proposed project are to: 1) increase the overall parking supply available to hospital-related vehicles; 2) increase the on-site parking supply; 3) eliminate the need for valet parking; 4) eliminate the need to lease off-site parking; and 5) reduce the intrusion of hospital-related parking activity into local residential neighborhoods. It is recommended that on-street metered parking be implemented along curbs that are not directly in front of local residences in the vicinity of MNH. This includes areas along No. Highland, Sickles, Fifth and Haven (see Appendix A). In addition, it is assumed that currently unrestricted on- street spaces located outside / adjacent to the existing and proposed on-street meter zones will become restricted parking for local residents only upon opening of the subject parking garage (see Appendix B). 7  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) 482 spaces in the parking deck plus 65 in the surrounding surface lot. As indicated, the hospital parking supply is proposed to be increased by 89 spaces while eliminating the intrusion of hospital cars into surrounding residential neighborhoods. (FP CLARK-Parking Pricing Program Review- Based on our review of the Parking Deck Program Study (see Parking Rates/Regulations Comparison memo submitted on August 3, 2020), coupled with the goal of maximizing the use of the proposed parking garage and other off- site parking facilities while reducing the intrusion of Hospital-related parking activity into local residential neighborhoods, we offer the following recommendations and comments regarding the proposed pricing program. 1. The time limit on the 39 on-street existing metered spaces (located along North Midland Avenue) should be reduced from 3-hours to 1-hour to compel longer term parkers to park in the proposed garage. 2. The current $2.00 flat fee between 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in the Main Lot, which will become the site of the proposed garage, should be increased to $5.00. This fee is what St. John’s Riverside Hospital in Yonkers, New York charges for parking but is still low compared to other Hospitals in the region that charge for parking. Alternatively, a new parking rate structure could be established with rates increasing (from $3.00 or $4.00 for the first hour) to longer you park. AS shown in our previous letter, a number of other Hospital that charge for parking use this approach. 3. The proposed rate of $2.00 = 12-hours for the 106 on-street long-term metered spaces (located along North Highland Avenue, Sickles Avenue, Haven Court and 5th Avenue), should be increased to $5.00 = 12-hours. These spaces are currently free with either no regulations or alternate side regulations. 8  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) 4. Coupled with the above two recommendations, a discounted employee/staff monthly parking pass should be offered to those who wish to park in the proposed garage and surrounding surface lot. The monthly fee for this pass should be $42.00, which is comparable to the $2.00 flat daily fee which is currently being charged at that location. 5. With respect to the proposed residential parking zone, additional detail needs to be provided (e.g. will residents need to apply for and then be issued a residential parking sticker for their vehicle?). Also, this will require continuous enforcement by the Orangetown Police Department to ensure that non-residents are not parking on designated residential streets. 6. The proposed rates and regulation for the 5th Avenue and North Highland Avenue lot should be provided to determine their effect on the pricing program and above recommendation. Alternative Analysis – Closing Sickles Avenue to Through Traffic - Based on discussions with the Village it is requested that the Applicant conduct a separate analysis to determine the potential benefits and/or negative impacts if Sickles Avenue was to be closed to through traffic, between North Highland Avenue and North Midland Avenue. This is currently a one-way roadway limited to eastbound traffic flow from North Highland Avenue to North Midland Avenue along the Hospital frontage. It provides one wide travel lane for eastbound movements and on-street parking on both the north and south sides of this roadway for its entire length. It includes approximately 30 parking spaces, with a greater number of parking spaces located along the northerly side, which is the side of the Hospital frontage. It is recommended that the Applicant complete a limited analysis to determine if Sickles Avenue was to be closed at North Highland Avenue, with a dead-end condition and two-way traffic flow permitted from North Midland Avenue, parking could be maintained for residents only along the north side of the street, which would provide the most parking spaces for residents. The evaluation should consider the impact to parking demand and need to provide this parking elsewhere either on the Hospital Campus or other parking areas controlled by the Hospital. Further, a limited traffic analysis is needed and only for the North Midland Avenue/Sickles Avenue STOP sign controlled intersection. A discussion of the diverted traffic should be provided to provide a general description of traffic shifted to other adjacent and nearby roadways, including High Avenue to the south and Fifth Avenue to the north. As part of this review the Applicant should provide a general concept of modifications to Sickles Avenue to provide a more pedestrian friendly condition, enhance and minimize the impact residents will have with the parking garage located to the north of their homes. This concept should consider a turnaround for emergency vehicles at the most westerly terminus of Sickles Avenue at North Highland Avenue to accommodate residents, delivery trucks, emergency vehicles and snowplows. 9  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) APPLICANT- Letter of Dennis EA Lynch dated October 5, 2020-- In response to the Village Traffic Engineer's Letter, I wish to note that the Hospital will be happy as a neighbor to help work with the greater Hospital community appropriately on non-site plan issues after all final Parking Garage Approvals. Assuming arguendo that the Planning Board has jurisdiction in the current Hospital Application ( which the Hospital does not concede as set forth hereinafter) to lawfully mandate by Village fiat any of the aforementioned two issues raised by the Village Traffic Engineer, the Hospital with all rights reserved can only appreciate all suggestions of the Village Traffic Engineer. Yet, while we appreciate the suggestions of the Village’s Consultant, the Hospital cannot lawfully commit to this Village Consultant suggested rates in advance of all Final Village Approval or the actual Parking Garage build-out. While conceptually the Hospital agrees with the idea that increasing off-garage parking rates will create positive inflow to the Parking Garage, there is a need to set the rates ( even potentially as now suggested by the Village Traffic Engineer) by using a sliding scale that creates the best rates for all concerned. Still, there are the legal issues that I know preclude the consideration of both suggestions by the Village Traffic Engineer before Final Approval of the Parking Garage as aforesaid. These legal issues are two-fold. Response to the Parking Pricing Program Review- We assume that since you were not at the most recent Planning Board Meeting of September 14, 2020, you have not had time to discuss all these legal issues with the Planning Board and advise them of the applicable New York State and Federal Law requirements. More specifically, beginning with a case regarding a Land Use Board's limited powers only several feet away from the Hospital, our Second Department has made it clear that despite the best intentions of the Village and its Traffic Engineer, the Village cannot lawfully regulate the internal operations of the Hospital Parking Garage with regard to pricing, rates or other internal Hospital Parking Garage Operations. More specifically, our Second Department in Summit School v. Village a/Upper Nyack, et al, 82 A.D.2d 463 (2nd Dept. 1981 noted, Land Use Board cannot as a matter of law regulate such internal operations: "The power of a board of appeals to impose conditions in granting a special permit is not unlimited. The conditions so established must relate directly to, and be incidental to, the proposed use of the real property and not to the manner of the operation of the particular enterprise conducted on the premises which are the subject of the special permit (Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates, I N.Y.2d 445, 154 N.Y.S.2d 15, 136 N.E.2d 488: Matter of Schlosser v. Michaelis, 18 A.D.2d 940,238 N.Y.S.2d 433: Matter a/Oakwood Is. Yacht Club v. Board of Appeals, 32 Misc.2d 677,223 N.Y.S.2d 907; Matter a/Long Is. Light. Co. v. Voell, 27 Misc.2d 943,211 N.Y.S.2d 576, aft. 15 A.D.2d 512,222 N.Y.S.2d 589; Matter of De Ville Homes v. Michaelis, Sup., 201 N.Y.S.2d 129; Bernstein v. Board of Appeals, Vil. of Matinecock, 60 Misc.2d 470,302 N.Y.S.2d 141, app. dsmd. 31 A.D.2d 650,297 N.Y.S.2d 702, mot. for Iv. to app. den. 23 N.Y.2d 646,299 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 247 N.E.2d 498)." (Id. at p. 467) (Emphasis supplied). This Second Department precedent has clearly been followed up to today. For example, our Second Department in Long Island University v. Board of Appeals, 122 A.D.2d 53 (2nd Dept. 1986) remarked that a Land Use Board in considering any land use application such as the Hospital has no jurisdiction to regulate "the manner of the operation of the particular enterprise conducted on the premises ..... " (Id.). Likewise, as our Appellate Division has also noted in the same precedent that prohibited Land Use Boards from regulating internal operations such as any pricing structure in the Hospital's Parking Garage, "We find the imposition of this condition was no more 10  Village of Nyack- Planning Board - (6th October 2020) than an impermissible attempt to regulate the details of the operation of the petitioner's enterprise." (Old Country Burgers, Co., Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 160 A.D.2d 805 (2nd Dept. 1990). As such, the Hospital respectfully submits that it is fundamentally and clearly unlawful for the internal operations of the Hospital's Parking Garage to be reviewed or regulated by the Village Planning Board for this current application. Such efforts would not provide qualified immunity to any Board Members or others as I am sure you will counsel the Board Members before acting. PUBLIC-- comment by the neighbors -- all centered around delay of the project. No specific objections have been articulated to counter any of the facts, evidence or opinions of the neighbors near the project. The matter must be sent to the Village Board for consideration of the parking regulations on the nearby streets. Mr. Galante will prepare a referral letter to the Village Board. Mr. Galante will also prepare a summary memo for the Planning Board. The Village Attorney will respond to the legal representations of the Applicant’s attorney. Board Action-- Chairman Klose moves to close the public hearing subject to the right of any party to submit further written comments within 10 days. Second for the motion Voletsky, roll call vote, public hearing will remain open for another month while we prepare a resolution and SEQRA findings. 4- 2 to remain Open. The Chair made a motion to authorize the Village Planner to prepare a Negative Declaration for this proposed action for the Board to review and consider at their next meeting. Second for the motion by Voletsky and approved 5-0. The Planning Board will review the off-site parking regulations recommended by FP Clark and applicant’s consultant and refer the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Village Board - knowing that there are limits to any conditions relating to off-site improvements/requirements. OTHER BUSINESS-- Motion to adjourn by Klose, seconded by Kestenbaum- passed by a vote of 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM. 11