|
RCBJ-Audible (Listen For Free)
 |
Village Board Reintroduces CBM District To Wary Residents Protective Of Piermont’s Downtown Charm
By Tina Traster
Max Stach, of Nelson Pope & Voorhis, a planning firm, did his darndest to sell a zoning change to the people of Piermont. But in the end, villagers were not interested in A versus B – they wanted to scrap a proposed plan to rezone the downtown and wait until the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan is completed before deciding how to go forward.
What brought the issue to a confluence was an unpopular development proposal along Piermont Avenue that relied on the recent adoption of a new district (but the zoning was struck down in court. More on that later). For months, Piermont has been in a frothy state, fighting lawsuits, and less-than-civil discourse on social media.
But on Monday, in a workshop meeting, the Village Board heard the people – many in the overflow crowd of 100 or more questioned whether readopting the same downtown zoning plan made sense. It appears that the many requests to hold off on voting anew for the same plan hit the skids when residents asked for a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday to be put off.
“The Board is postponing the Public Hearing and the vote for the consideration of readoption of the CBM Zone that was scheduled for Tuesday, December 10th’s Board Meeting until further notice,” the village said in a prepared statement on Wednesday.
“We are also considering waiting to hold a public hearing until after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted, which should be in March/April,” said Mayor Bruce Tucker.
In April, an audible gasp reverberated through a packed room during a Piermont Planning Board meeting when an architect revealed a color-rendering for a three-story 14-unit residential proposal on Piermont Avenue, the village’s main commercial street. The proposal by Piermont Developers LLC showed a modern, boxy brick-and-Hardie plank multi-family building more commonly seen in urbanized downtowns like White Plains.
Village residents who turned out in droves – and filled the chambers to standing-room-only capacity — objected to the development at 447-477 Piermont Avenue, saying the design defied the historical character and aesthetics of the village.
But rather than focus on the development itself, the fight turned toward the legitimacy of the zone itself. There was confusion over whether it met the GML requirements, meaning that the county had an opportunity to see, comment, and make recommendations on the proposed zoning text amendment. The county said it never received the documents.
Later that month, four Piermont residents filed suit in Rockland County Supreme Court seeking to void the Village’s new zoning law and to stop the developer’s application before any approvals or permits are issued.
They based their opposition to the CBM on correspondence from the Rockland County Department of Planning that declined to review the proposed development because it claimed the Village had not complied with the General Municipal Law (GML) which mandates that the County have the opportunity to review amendments to municipal zoning codes.
The neighbors, utilizing the failure to comply with the GML to successfully challenged the new zone in Court. In October, Rockland County Supreme Court Justice Hal Greenwald agreed with the neighbors and the County Planning Department and voided the Local Law, calling Piermont’s Central Business Multi-Use (CBM) Zoning District “null, void and jurisdictionally invalid.”
Both the Village and the developer have appealed the Court’s ruling, while at the same time complying with the Court’s order requiring the Village to submit its planned zoning changes anew to the County for GML review.
On October 31st the Village resubmitted its proposed zoning law to the county and in correspondence back to the Village on November 18th, the County Planning Department made a few recommendations, including creating different bulk requirements for studios/professional offices, specific language referring architectural designs be submitted to the Village Architectural review Commission (which does not exist), and clarification on how off-site parking would function.
Nothing in the County’s response materially affected the Village’s plans or suggested rejecting the zoning amendment, and the submission seems to have met the county’s requirements affording it the opportunity for GML review.
The workshop was designed to educate residents on what would be a new attempt to pass the voided law.
In March of 2023, the Village amended its zoning code by local law and introduced the new CBM zone. The zone was largely created for two purposes – one, to make more of the downtown properties zoning compliant rather than non-conforming, and two, to facilitate a proposal to build a multifamily structure at 447-477 Piermont Avenue.
Stach told residents that the Village’s existing downtown zoning, known as “Business B” was incongruous with the reality of the lots in downtown Piermont.
In extreme detail, Stach explained that there was not a single downtown lot that met the minimum lot size, lot width, or front yard setback requirement of the existing B Business zone. He explained that less than half of the downtown building lots meet the rear yard, side yard, or floor area ratio requirement of the B Business Zone. He described how the current zoning had no maximum density for buildings with commercial frontages.
Stach attempted to explain the benefits of the proposed CBM (Central Business Multi-Use) zone – among them the limitations on the maximum dwelling units per acre (the B Business zone provides for unlimited units per acre compared with the CBM’s limit of 35 per acre), reductions in the minimum lot size and lot width, and an increase in the FAR from .20 to 1.0. The maximum building height of 35 feet would remain the same from the B Business to the new CBM.
But the major difference introduced in the CBM district is that a property owner can build multifamily housing with a Special Permit from the Village Board. The B Business does not allow multifamily buildings. And the CBM, as proposed, also allows multifamily construction in the new zoning district without ground floor retail directly on Piermont Avenue.
There are already non-compliant ground floor residential multi-family buildings in the B Business zone in buildings without commercial storefronts.
The introduction of the CBM seemed more like déjà vu though.
The audience peppered Stach with questions for almost two hours, with many residents repeating their objections to the rezoning. After Stach spoke, the Village opened the floor to public comment (this was not a public hearing), but did not address the questions at the workshop.
Residents also expressed concern over the breakdown in neighborliness this conflict has caused.
“Preserve Piermont is the theme at the heart of the issue for the CBM district as proposed and the process to move through it,” said resident Paul Kadin. “Many feel that accepting what the zoning would allow threatens the character of the village, at least in the look and tone of the downtown area. Strong feelings are being expressed on social media and in meetings like this.’
Kadin continued, “I, for one, am worried that another characteristic of Piermont needs to be preserved, and that is civility, mutual respect, and yes, friendliness.”
