REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Nyack Village Hall November 29, 2010
Nyack, New York
Present: Catherine H. Friesen, Chair In Memoriam:
Mary Ann Armano Raymond O’Connell
Ellyse Berg
John Dunnigan
Robert Knoebel, Sr.
The following resolution was offered by Member Knoebel, seconded by Member Berg, and carried based upon a review of the evidence presented at the public hearing held on November 29, 2010.
BOARD OF APPEALS
VILLAGE OF NYACK, COUNTY OF ROCKLAND
——————————————————————–X
In the Matter of the application of Nyack Fencing Academy,
Inc. (40 Lydecker Street) for a Special Permit in accord with
VON 59-1.9D(2) to permit a change from one non-conforming
use to a different non-conforming use
———————————————————————X
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public meeting on the 29th day of November 2010, and due deliberations having been made thereon;
Now, upon said hearing and upon the evidence adduced thereat, it is hereby found and determined that:
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
FIRST: Applicant, Nyack Fencing Academy, Inc. petitions the Zoning Board for a Special Permit in accord with VON Code Section 59-1.9D(2) to permit a change from one nonconforming use in the TFR (residential zoning district) to another nonconforming use.
SECOND: The ZBA, in reaching its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has taken the following factual testimony and evidence under consideration:
1. The application and supporting documents submitted;
2. Testimony of John Scarpino and Alex Acevedo on behalf of the applicant:
3. Testimony of Rob Hara and Jeff Hara, building owners;
4. ZBA members knowledge of the site in question;
5. Site visits by all members of the ZBA
6. Building Inspector’s Plan Review Summary dated November 29, 2010;
7. Testimony of the following members of the public: Jeremiah Hesse.
THIRD: The site in question is located in the TFR (residential) zoning district. The Applicant has leased the space from the owner, R&J Nyack Realty, and has submitted proof that the owner consents to the application.
FOURTH: The Applicant proposes to operate a fencing academy on the lower level of a building located at 40 Lydecker Street, which is approximately 6,000 square feet. The building in question, which is a two story structure, was constructed in 1925 for commercial use, and has been in non-conforming use for at least 25 years. The lower level of the building was most recently occupied by Vintage Car Store, Inc., for use as an automobile showroom, and the upper level of the building houses Trans-Ocean Photos.
FIFTH: In configuring the space as a fencing academy, the Applicant need only add special flooring, seating and internal offices, and does not propose to enlarge, extend, reconstruct, or use any different portion of the lot for its purpose than was previously used by the automobile showroom. In addition, the Applicant proposes to change the existing garage door on the High Avenue side to create a storefront entrance which will reduce the industrial appearance of the building. The Architectural Review Board approved the door and external signage at its most recent meeting held on November 17, 2010.
SIXTH: VON Code Section 59-1.9D(1) provides that any non-conforming use may be continued indefinitely, but may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or placed on a different portion of the lot, nor shall any external evidence of such use be increased by many means whatsoever. VON Code 59-1.D(2) further provides that a nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use without a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals and then only to a use that, in the opinion of said Board, is of the same or a more restricted nature.
SEVENTH: According to VON Code 59-5.5(C), Table of Minimum Parking Requirements, the parking requirements for commercial indoor recreation facilities are less intensive (1 space per 500 sq. ft) than for vehicular use (1 space per 333 square feet), and thus the Applicant does not need to provide any additional off-street parking spaces per VON Code 59-5.5(B)(3). In addition, the parking lot contains space for 20 cars, and according to the Applicant, there will be no need for its customers to use on-street parking spaces.
EIGHTH: According to VON Code Table 3-1 (Table of Permitted Uses), vehicle-related
uses are categorized as “industrial uses” and are permitted only in the commercial corridor (CC) zone. Indoor commercial recreation facilities, unlike vehicular uses, is a permitted use in the DMU district which is in close proximity to the subject property. The properties abutting Lydecker Street contain a mix of commercial, municipal and residential uses, and the properties abutting High Avenue contain a mix of commercial and residential properties.
NINTH: The hours of operation on Saturday and Sunday will be 9 am to 3 pm, and the hours of operation on Monday to Friday will be 3 pm to 9 pm.
The above Findings were moved and passed. (5-0)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
| As to the application for a Special Permit, the Zoning Board of Appeals has first considered whether the proposed use is of “the same or a more restricted nature” than the vehicular use of the space at that location as required by VON Code 59-1.D(2), and has concluded that it is “the same or a more restricted nature” because the parking requirements for the proposed use are less intensive, and indoor recreational facilities – unlike vehicular uses – are permitted in the adjacent district.
In addition, the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered the factors set forth in VON Code 59-6.9(C) and makes the following Conclusions of Law: FIRST: That the applicant has shown that all proposed structures, equipment and material will be readily accessible for fire and police protection. SECOND: That the applicant has shown that the proposed use shall be of such location, size and character that, in general, it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the district in which it is proposed to be situated and will not be detrimental to the orderly development of adjacent properties in accordance with the zoning classification of such properties. THIRD: The applicant has shown that the location and size of such use, the nature and intensity of operations involved in or conducted in connection therewith, its site layout and its relation to access streets shall be such that both pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and from the use and the assembly of persons in connection therewith will not be hazardous or inconvenient to or incongruous with said district or conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. FOURTH: The applicant has shown that the location and height of buildings, the location, nature and height of walls and fences and the nature and extent of landscaping on the site shall be such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or impair the value thereof. |
…