by John Patrick Schutz
Nyack’s Village Code is 59 chapters and sub-chapters of ordinances, building codes and zoning regulations filled with the rules and regulations governing our community. It’s a fascinating read which gives us insights to the history of our village.
For instance, did you realize Nyack has a curfew after 10 PM for those under the age of 17? Owning a rooster is illegal? Are you aware that property owners who have not cleared the sidewalks abutting their property of snow by 11 AM (or salted, if the storm is continuing) are liable for a substantial fine? How about the restriction of ALL pets from attending the street fairs – not just dogs as many seem to think, but kitties, birdies and SNAKES too (Remember the guy with the python wrapped around his neck at all the street fairs? Obviously, he freaked out one too many people!)
I was hoping to find some really wacko laws still hanging around the books (I mean come on, Nyack has been around since the 1600s!) but alas, no. Our faithful mayors and boards of trustees have diligently removed most of the silly ordinances over time. However, there is subtle humor to be found – it seems our 59 chapters of Village Code are laid out ALPHABETICALLY which does create some really wonderfully juxtapositions of concepts. Therefore we find “Public Performances” followed immediately by “Refuse Disposal”; “Noise” prophetically proceeding “Notice Prior to Civil Action”; “Assessments” leading to “Bankrupt Goods License” and “Streets and Sidewalks” linked to “Solicitation” caused me to wonder if there’s a side to Nyack I am missing. The combination that left me stuck between laughter and outrage was my discovery that “Domestic Partnerships” are wedged between “Disorderly Conduct” and “Animals”. (Leading me to think Chapter 17 was once simply “Dogs”, which does not really improve the consequences of this unintended bit of humor!)
Reading through any Municipality’s Code is like taking a walk through history. The earliest resolutions (Drinking in Public, Animals, Property Maintenance) go back to 1935.
If you know any Nyack history, you might guess when certain chapters were added. Curfew laws were strengthened during the period of youth unrest in 1968, hawking and peddling regulations when door-to-door salesmen filled the streets in the 1950s. When I was a kid in the 1970s, downtown began to be littered with abandoned shopping carts – everywhere, so Chapter 2 was adopted in 1973. Filming Permits began in earnest in the 1980s when everyone seemed to want to use Nyack as a setting for their film or TV show, and the regs were strengthened back in the early 2000s when “Ed” was filming and taking our village just a bit too much for granted.
So why not take a look at Nyack’s Village Code and see what laws YOU don’t know about. My fellow realtors might want to direct their buyers this way so that they are aware that, yep, the sidewalks and their complete maintenance , repair and replacement are their responsibility! Now, if SOMEBODY would just enforce that regulation about keeping your privet hedges from blocking the sidewalks!
John Patrick Schutz is a realtor for Rand Realty in Nyack, NY. You can read his blog posts at AtHomeInNyack.
I referenced the Magee case as an extreme example of arbitrary enforcement you are right it is not analogous to this situation.
I disagree that we should not be citing the most egregious violators of their sidewalk cafe privileges.
Like with the rooster I think there are some people who count on relationships with Village Hall to give them a pass.
This is quite an interesting discussion. And you are all wrong! Just kidding.
JC, thank you for pointing me in the direction of the Magee case, but it is not an analogous situation. In that case, the town rescinded Magee’s permit and changed the zoning purely for political motives to prohibit his specific construction project — after he had already started. Of course, the town lost that case.
Similarly, if a town enforced sidewalk codes against one business, but not against others, the town could get sued for persecuting that one business.
But it’s a totally different thing to be generally lax about enforcing codes where the violations are not causing any serious harm. In my view, the sidewalk encroachment is not serious harm, unless they are putting tables right up to the curb. Similarly, I would not want the town to issue a penalty for someone who had a old rooster that lacks vocal cords. Or issue speeding tickets for someone who goes 27 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h. zone. It’s just common sense. The question is: at what point does a violation become worthy of a crackdown?
I personally don’t think we are at that point, either with outdoor dining or roosters.
I will finish by saying most of the cafe permits do comply with the code as I understand it. There are a couple of really egregious examples and a couple of establishments who need to pay a little more attention to details like only serving alcohol to someone seated at a table outside (we have an open container law too and it says “seated at a table” not just inside the barricade).
We are in substantial agreement about enforcement of all the codes that deal with the Nyack’s appearance that truly resembles an unmade bed in some areas.
My neighbors and I on 2nd Ave had to go to extreme lengths to basically force the Village to enforce its own laws on property maintenance a year ago.
When we did finally prevail upon the Board to do the right thing Vic and his guys did a bang up job cleaning up the derelict property.
We convinced the Village to then bill the homeowner for the cleanup on his Village Tax bill. Same thing could be done for hedges or snow removal I would think.
I would go one step farther and bill out DPW man hours as OT or even double time. At those rates I doubt wed see a lot of repeat offenders.
Now as soon as I can find that dam Rooster I think I’ll take him to a street fair and get him drunk, maybe a cockfight in front of Black Bear?
This has been one heck of a Rooster! Better than any alarm clock (I really sometimes wish we were still living in those days of simplicity, when a rooster actually did wake us up).
I still think that we need to have proper enforcement (which is not selective, which is what does happen and is unfair and puts the Village actually, at a potential legal risk, in my opinion).
We can start by notifying/educating anyone that is out of compliance with information as to why they are out of compliance (by notification of the code and how to stay in compliance) and if they continue to repeat their actions, sorry, a violation and then fines must be issued.
Paul:
So then you see (a little) the slippery slope of selective enforcement. IE: This Rooster is OK because
A: he only bothers some people
B; We are in a relationship
C: He’s been invited to dinner next Tuesday (it’s wing night!).
By embracing selective enforcement the Village relinquishes its authority to enforce any of its laws.
Not only does it encourage bad behavior generally it has also led to huge judgements against municipalities when laws have been found to be selectively or arbitrarily enforced. (Read about the Magee VS Orangetown case a few years ago) and guess who pays for that?
Much better to write good legislation and then enforce it even handedly. If the legislation proves over time to be untenable then change the law to something that is more acceptable, but you cant have it both ways.
I would argue a 60 inch fairway clear of obstruction on all our streets is a good and reasonable criteria for a sidewalk. If it cannot be maintained then the Building Department needs to determine this and forbid the activity.
Most building, fire and public safety codes, are written in blood, especially when they involve public access in and around public spaces. So if we want to be able to enforce a law we can all live with, like blocking fire exits or maintaining the size of egress portals, then need to enforce the same laws on our public streets.
This issue goes beyond the annoyance of my having to navigate around someone’s appetizer. Placing barricades on a public sidewalk essentially transfers control of that from public to private hands.
My question here would be “in consideration of what?” The next question is “anybody in Village hall listening? Buehler? Buehler? anybody? anybody?
JC – To some extent, yes I am in favor of non-enforcement of laws where the violators are not causing any real harm.
That being said, I noticed that the stanchions outside the new Pour House seem to be pretty far out into the sidewalk. Annoyed me (a little), on tonight’s stroll.
Paul:
So I take it you are in favor of a selective enforcement of the Village law? We should enforce only the one that don’t happen to inconvenience you?
Maybe everyone doesn’t posses your uber stroller skills.
60 inches doesn’t seem to me to be a lot to ask for an obstruction clear public walkway. In the most egregious examples (see photo posted here somewhere) there is less than thirty inches.
So if we are to enforce an ordinance on hedges (or not) what exempts the much more populated main street walkway.
We are after all talking about public property and to some extent public safety though I’ll admit we seem to be safely inured from a stampede of roosters in town praise the lord.
My 2 cents is that Roger is 100% correct about some of the more obvious aesthetic issues.
But as for the outdoor tables along Main St – come on, whether these are technically a few inches too far into the sidewalk, this is hardly worth agonizing about.
1. It’s ONE street.
2. Actually it’s only ONE SIDE of one street. The south side of Main has no tables. Just cross the street.
3. Actually, it’s not too hard to maneuver even on the north side of the street – I have no problem getting by WITH a stroller.
4. Finally, referring to a post from a few days ago, Nyack is not Europe so we don’t have a nice plaza, but we do have one or 2 bustling streets with residents mingling and enjoying the town, which gives it charm and character and life that is painfully lacking in 99% of American towns.
If we want to make a great place even better, let’s start with cleaning up those empty lots, and broken sidewalks that Roger refers to.
Hey – as a side comment – our DPW does an outstanding job….the garbage is picked up – it’s the residents that are the problem who are violating the garbage codes…. did not mean to imply otherwise.
Roger – agreed. Our enforcement of aesthetic codes has really been lacking for a very long time. Garbage cans at residences for instance, are left out on the wrong days, garbage is piled up at private residences at times, nothing done. Calls are made, nothing done. I could go on and on. I feel that Nyack has tried very hard to be a friendly village, but that comes sometimes at the great cost to the residents (in more ways than one). There is nothing wrong with first notifying the residents and businesses of those codes that will be enforced regularly and without prejudice first and then actually enforcing them. As to the navigation problems with our wonderful downtown restaurants, same thing. Simply notify those restaurants (all probably) with a friendly reminder of the current regulations and the restaurants that have decided to become too VIP, nail them with a violation and collect the appropriate fine for doing so.
It would be great also to enforce existing requirements around town. For example, the entrance to Nyack — the two lots on Main Street at 9W — is terribly unsightly. The old carpet store/dog grooming store’s parking lot is loaded with bags of garbage. Why is that permitted to sit there? The old used car lot has weeds growing over six feet tall.
Why not force the cleanup of both lots? Issue violations, collect the fines, and force the owners to clean up.
The parking lot at the old Nyack Grande — at the corner of Main Street and Piermont — has a load of garbage that has been there for over two years.
The sidewalk on Main Street below Gedney is broken, impassible and dangerous.
Other villages enforce regulations that require clean and safe spaces. This should be easy for Nyack to implement. Issue violations, collect the fees, and force the property owners to comply.
Dpsi:
I too agree that a “take back the streets” march would probably be ineffective at best. That having been said I did a cursory review of the cafe permit language it would appear that while the stanchions and ropes are codified (ugh) it also says there must be five feet of clear of obstruction. It’s essential that Nyack doesn’t sacrifice its essential walkability to a few who still seem to feel that the majority of us owe them, if not exactly a living, our forbearance of their disregard for public access and safety on our narrow streets and sidewalks.
If the popular jazz lyric states “you have to crawl before you walk” I would add we have to be able to walk before we can “bustle”.
Perhaps the cafe owners should get into compliance before residents start agitating- I agree that it’s great to see cafe tables in front of restaurants, but because the permits are being routinely abused, the sidewalks have become impassable in many places, and made all pedestrians- visitors and residents feel unwelcome.
While it seems fairly obvious that the cafe permits are being abused in some areas, the restaurant business and a busy downtown is critical to the survival of the business district. It is very inviting to drive through (or walk, albeit sometimes difficult to navigate) and see it bustling on any given day or night). I would not, for an instant, ever think to encourage or participate in a “take back or sidewalks” walk or campaign. Better that the building department deal with any permit issues privately and behind the scenes. However, it’s better that our restaurants are full, both inside and out, especially in this down economy. Let’s work on making our sidewalks and downtown busy, beautiful and bustling!
I agree, JC, that the sidewalk cafe permits are being abused. How can it be that the outside cafes have tables and delineated ‘server aisles’ that are wider than what is left for the pedestrian walkway? Maybe we need to do a ‘take back our sidewalks’ walk.
I have the same issue with the hedges encroachment on sidewalks. I would like to suggest we re-examine the sidewalk cafe permits as well. I don’t have a problem with a row of tables in front of a restaurant but some of them are now two or more rows deep and surrounded by stanchions and rope barricades.
I recently observed a mom and two kids in a stroller trying to negotiate this maze and wonder why the stanchions are necessary, or if they are approved.
Tables are one thing but obstructing the sidewalk with a barricade or velvet rope is something else and needs to be curtailed.