Planning Board Work Session
Revised proposed Text Amendment for the WF Zoning District. For Planning Board review and recommendation to the Board of Trustees per the requirements found in Article V VON § 360-5.6 B.
Village Attorney– The Village Board of Trustees has generated a revised proposed Text
Amendment for the WF Zoning District, which amendment purports to incorporate the
Planning Board’s suggestions made in its previous review of proposed text amendment
language in the Board’s recommendation issued on June 11, 2015. Village Code
Board Review– Local Law #1 of 2016 A Local Law to amend Section 360-2.5 (B) of the Zoning
Ordinance of the Village of Nyack as pertains to the WF Zoning District. On April 2,
2015, the Nyack Village Board received a Petition (and supporting documentation)
from an entity known as TZ Vista, LLC, seeking to amend section 360-2.5(B) of the
Zoning Code of the Village of Nyack, which section contains the zoning requirements
applicable in the Waterfront Development District (WF Zoning District) in Nyack.
Upon receipt of the Petition, the Village Board, in compliance with the provisions of
its local law governing Petitions to amend the zoning text, referred the Petition for
review and comments to the Nyack Planning Board (required by Village Code section
360-5.6(B)(3)(a)), and to the Rockland County Department of Planning (required by
Village Code section 360-5.6(B)(3)(b), and General Municipal Law 239 (L) & (M)).
Additionally, the Village Board sought comments on the Petition from the Village of
Nyack Planning Consultant Robert Galvin, as well as from BJF Planning Consultants
(an experienced private consulting firm previously retained by the Village of Nyack to
provide professional expertise in planning, design, environmental analysis, real estate
We note that the Village Board engaged BFJ Planning to incorporate many of the
recommendations set forth in the Planning Board’s previous review of June 11, 2015,
- A reduced Building height from the original proposal as recommended by the
PB is included (now limited to 52′ only if reduction of building width is reduced
or step-back design is adopted).
- A reduced increase in FAR is included (with a capped residential density #) only
if more detailed Waterfront improvements are provided, such as an expansion
of the nature and scope of required public access to the waterfront – 30 foot
wide access along the whole property length, pedestrian access a minimum of
every 200 feet from the nearest adjacent west-west streets, restaurant inclusion, and only if detailed extensive design guidelines physically set forth
in the law are incorporated into the project.
- Modified parking requirements available only if parking is built underground.
Chairman Klose– Upon review of the Proposed Local Law #1 2016, and all of the proposed
text amendments to such law, the Planning Board notes that many of our
recommendations were considered and a modified version adopted in the updated
proposed legislation; and Planning Board would move to support this version of the
text amendment based upon the Planning Board’s recommendations which were
adopted by the Village Board, and also based upon the Planning Board’s findings and
recommendations from its prior review (June 11, 2015) and report to Village Board
dated July 9, 2015; and would encourage the Village Board to plan and adopt
responsible development of this Zoning District to enhance our community through
responsible guidelines as outlined by the design concepts and zoning requirements of
the Local Law. The Planning Board, however, again requests that the Village Board
consider, analyze and otherwise comment and adopt a fee or other financial
contribution requirement by a developer based upon a per square foot of bonusable
and incentivised gross floor area (here from 0.9 FAR to 1.5 FAR) to be granted only
upon payment to be used for off-site development for improvements and to fund
public benefit off-site and at other public areas. The Planning Board would also
suggest that the viewsheds and building setbacks as seen down the Village Streets (not
just from Gedney) and that are within the viewsheds be stepped back to permit the
widest possible viewshed at the highest point of the building to avoid the canyon
effects of oversized tall buildings as we look toward the River. Seconded by Voletsky
(Vote 5-0 ).