Irvington planning board finds Varma 76 North Broadway project exempt under new state housing law amid public challenge

The Irvington Planning Board voted June 3 to determine that the proposed development at 76 North Broadway meets the criteria for a new state CEQR exemption enacted May 27 and to adopt a draft negative declaration documenting the board's review.

The application from Varma RE Development would replace an existing office complex with a multifamily building containing 53 dwelling units and an on-site school. Kathy Zellantis, counsel for the applicant, told the board the project qualifies under the new subsection to New York's environmental law because the site is previously disturbed, is served by public water and sewer, and the school and other nonresidential uses do not exceed 20% of the gross floor area by the applicant's calculations. "Based on the definitions in the statute and our submittals, the project is a qualified action exempt from environmental review," Zellantis said (speaker 21).

That legal finding prompted extensive public comment and technical challenges. Neighbors' counsel Adam Stolaro urged the board not to both declare the project exempt and adopt a negative declaration, saying the board cannot rely on both paths and that the developer's floor-area calculations understate the nonresidential area once basement parking is counted. "If you add the parking to the school, you're close to 50 percent of the floor area," Stolaro said (speaker 24). He asked the board to resist the exemption and require fuller review.

The board heard detailed rebuttals from its landscape consultant Suzanne Nolan and from visual and acoustical experts retained by neighbors. Nolan said the current vegetation along Broadway includes many invasive, overmature trees in poor condition and that the applicant's planting plan replaces those with long-lived native trees and a dense screening strategy. "The proposed plantings will renew the canopy with long-lived native species and layered screening," she said (speaker 3).

Acoustical consultant Dan Pruzanowski for the neighborhood group reported separate noise measurements and modeling that differed from the developer's study, saying the applicant's analysis omitted some potential sources (vehicle queues, garage exhaust fans, generators) and relied on a single background measurement point. "The developer's noise assessment lacks supporting information and underestimates some potential noise impacts," he said (speaker 19). The board's consultant (AKRF) had reviewed an earlier study and submitted comments; staff said revised noise language and conditions were included in the negative declaration to require final equipment-level modeling before building permits.

Planning staff and the board's consultants reviewed traffic, stormwater, canopy and other technical submissions at length. The project team presented updated site simulations and a canopy exhibit showing proposed year-1 and year-10 vegetation and argued the design minimizes off-site visibility from sensitive public viewpoints. Paul DeVito of Stonefield Engineering presented the stormwater and landscape analyses and said the plan reduces peak runoff and increases infiltration compared with the existing parking-lot condition (speaker 14).

After taking testimony and public comment, the board's chair moved the resolution finding the project meets the statutory exemption and accepting the negative declaration as drafted. The motion carried on a roll-call-style affirmation; the chair then outlined that the board will continue to require specific technical responses in subsequent site-plan and special-permit reviews, including final noise modeling tied to actual HVAC equipment, finalized stormwater/percolation test data, tree protection/mitigation plans and confirmed parking/coverage calculations.

What happens next: the board recorded the exemption finding tonight but left a series of open technical items for the project team to address as part of the ongoing review of site-plan and special-permit approvals. Several neighbors and consultants signaled they will continue to press their technical objections in subsequent submittals and, if necessary, litigation.

Votes and procedural note: the board proceeded with a recorded affirmation of the exemption resolution after debate. Several board members noted they relied on the village's consultants (AKRF, Stonefield) in reaching the board's conclusion. The public record for tonight includes the applicant's submittals, consultant memos, and the neighbor expert reports submitted to the board docket.

The board will accept revised technical materials and responses in writing and schedule follow-up hearings on the pending site-plan and special-permit details.