1 25 659 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/c459b1b69a21f0ee42fa0bbb28f11f3a.pdf 91d7074c8d01a8690718ec979204e2ed Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2026-07-16_309-315 North Broadway approved resolution 7-16-26 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ed47d6164cc2467401548821b0dd4440.pdf 81294b1f01a95236aeea36ba8f64baa1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2025-12-18_17 Pokahoe Drive Approved Resolution 12-18-25 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/10cf01894d2773cb8f84594dd2c97a0c.pdf 7debc43214c84c7517b4518a540ee786 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes December 19, 2024 Chairperson Krakauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Chairperson Krakauer stated that SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC has requested an adjournment. Since the public hearing was noticed, the Board will hear public comments. Chairperson Krakauer stated that Lighthouse Landing Communitiees, LLC, for the Edge-onHudson Riverfront Development, Phase III Waterfront Open Space, has requested an adjournment. A work session to discuss the application is scheduled for Thursday, January 9, 2024. Present: Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson Ken Anderson Benjamin Nielsen Rachelle Gebler Also Present: Joshua B. Subin, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Absent: Chris Camia Richard Gross Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block A Proposed medical office building, Site Plan and Architectural Review ApprovalPublic hearing, Pending ZBA Approval- requested adjournment 2) KWD Realty, LLC, 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed mixed-use building, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Presentation 3) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III- Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalDiscussion 4) 16 Hudson Street Realty, 16 Hudson Street, Proposed parking area, Site Plan ApprovalPreliminary Presentation 5) Cortlandt Development, LLC, 377 North Broadway, Proposed deli/market, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation 6) Approval of minutes, November 21, 2024 1 (12/19/24) �1. SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Block A Proposed medical office building, Site Plan & Architectural Review- Public Hearing, pending ZBA approval- requested adjournment. The Board received an adjournment request from the applicant’s attorney on December 17, 2024, to adjourn the public hearing to the January 16, 2025 meeting. Benjamin Nielsen moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gebler Vote 4-0 Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Benjamin Nielsen moved to continue the public hearing to the January 16, 2025, meeting. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gebler Vote 4-0 Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board received and reviewed written comments. (See Exhibit #s 1-6) 2. KWD Realty, LLC, 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed mixed-use building, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval -Presentation Mark Constantine stated that he is an attorney representing the Applicant. Mr. Constantine stated that the proposed 100,000-square-foot self-storage facility in the C-1 zoning district would supplement and complement the ongoing high-density residential development in the Village. Mr. Constantine stated that the applicant had made changes to address concerns from the Planning Board. Mr. Constantine stated that the current proposal requires variances. Although the variance approvals are in the hands of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the applicant would like to proceed with the understanding that the Planning Board is in favor of the use, concept, and approach, and to the extent that the law tasks him in satisfying the requirements for the required variances. He requested to proceed to the Zoning Board to make the presentation. The applicant wants to satisfy the Planning Board regarding the benefit, viability, and overall enhancement the self-storage facility would provide to the Village without impacting municipal services. Benjamin Nielsen stated it is not the Board's purview to evaluate a permitted Zoning Code use of the property or the economic viability of the proposed project. The Board evaluates how the requested variances would impact the project's planning and architectural review components related to site plan development, stormwater, and traffic. The variances required for lot coverage and building height affect the architectural look of the building. The Board evaluates if the proposed building for excessive dissimilarity to adjacent properties. Mr. Constantine stated that the size of the building would have a significant impact on economic viability. 2 (12/19/24) �Bruno Pietrosanti is the architect representing the owner, Mr. Karl Dibble. He stated that the comments received from the Village Architect related to vehicle maneuverability, loading area, and landscaping will be adjusted during the site plan and engineering review. Changes were made to improve the view of the building along the streetscape, including a tower element and brick and precast façade materials. The proposed building mass is similar to the three and fourstory structures along Beekman Avenue and would not be noticeable from the street level due to the property elevations. Mr. Pietrosanti requested that the Board refer the current application and concept plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was a discussion regarding the areas of the building that require a height variance. Chairperson Krakauer stated that no changes were made to the proposed height and massing. Outstanding items related to vehicular maneuverability, loading dock, stormwater, landscaping, signage, and curb cuts still need to be submitted. Mr. Pietrosanti described the design and intentions for the loading spaces. Mr. Nielsen said the original application proposed a mixed-use building that didn't request additional lot coverage. Mr. Pietrosanti said that eliminating the drive-thru café reduced the required parking calculations but created a need for more self-storage space to offset the desired income. Mr. Constantine stated that although including the food element would reduce the building FAR, the applicant would need more space for queuing vehicles, which may create a traffic burden. Adding the design elements and features results in higher building costs that will not contribute to a return on investment for a service where people look for a safe, efficient, and economical way to store goods. The proposed square footage is required to cover the development and construction costs. The applicant needs to determine the building height and coverage approvals to return to the Planning Board and address the outstanding items accordingly. Joshua Subin stated there is a recommendation process from the Planning Board, but the applicant may insist on going before the Zoning Board without it. The application would still need to return to the Planning Board to review the architectural review component. Sleepy Hollow is unique in that if the plans are determined before you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the applicant will not have to worry about it coming back to the Planning Board. Mr. Constantine stated that the Planning Board has stated that the Zoning Board grants requested variances, yet the Board’s two main concerns relate to the proposed building height and massing. Mr. Constantine requested a referral to the Zoning Board, as it is the law that while the items are being discussed with the Planning Board, the decision to grant the variances is up to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board of Appeals may have valuable input. Regardless of the Zoning Board's decision, they will return to the Planning Board to discuss the outstanding concerns. He asked if the process requires the application to be at a point where the Planning Board says they would approve the project and then go to the Zoning Board. 3 (12/19/24) �Mr. Subin stated that the Planning Board focuses on excessive dissimilarity because it has an ARB component that overlaps with what the Zoning Board would consider. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board commonly requests items for other project reviews, including how proposed lot coverage compares with neighboring residences and commercial facilities, streetscape views, and renderings from all sides of the structure to provide a perspective on how the building would fit in the neighborhood's character. Ms. Krakauer suggested that the applicant consider reducing the building height and massing to better fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Nielsen requested that the applicant provide the heights of the adjacent buildings, including the Open Door building. He suggested considering architectural choices to reduce the scale of the building's massing. No action was taken. 3. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III-Waterfront Open Space- Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit Approval- Discussion, requested adjournment The Board received a request to adjourn the application to the next scheduled Work Session. 4. 16 Hudson Street Realty, 16 Hudson Street, Proposed parking area, Site Plan Approval – Preliminary Presentation Sam Vieira stated that he is the Project Architect representing the owner, Aniello Ricchiuti. It was determined that Mr. Ricchiuti owns a small piece of land that the previous owner purchased from the Village of Sleepy Hollow, which was never included in the property survey. A Stop Work Order was issued for work started to extend the parking areas without the required permit approvals. Mr. Vieira presented the site plan, stated that they propose constructing a retaining wall, and paved parking area to store customer's cars waiting for service. Although the plan delineates three parking spaces, they should not be reviewed for required space size and maneuverability. Landscaping screening is proposed to screen the parking area from the neighboring house, along Hudson Street, and along the property line bordering the Village of Tarrytown. The height of the retaining wall is proposed to be 5 feet at the highest point. He will submit the requested railing details and ensure proper clearance at the existing fire hydrant. Mr. Vieira requested the Board’s approval to use a 6-foot high commercial chain link fence and gate with opaque barrier inserts to handle the repetitive business uses. Mr. Vieira asked the Board to reconsider the request to extend the sidewalk to the curb cut due to the obstacles of the existing utility pole, stabilizing wires, and street signage. Although the owner has retained Hudson Engineering to provide the stormwater management calculations, he asked the Board if they require the full engineered drawings to take action or if it could be a condition of the approval. Chairperson Krakauer asked James Natarelli what he requires to review stormwater retention. James Natarelli stated that the architect is asking if the Board is comfortable with the engineer designing the stormwater calculations based on the plan presented. 4 (12/19/24) �Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the Board. Benjamin Nielsen asked Mr. Natarelli if the applicant should complete a percolation test. Mr. Natarelli stated that previous applications on Hudson Street have illustrated that infiltration would not be an issue and that he does not see an issue with getting the engineer involved now. Ken Anderson asked if a sidewalk extension would affect the impervious surface calculations. Mr. Vieira stated that the sidewalk extension won't impact impervious surfaces because it is on Village property. Mr. Natarelli stated that sidewalks are pitched toward the street, and runoff is not collected. Mr. Nielsen stated that the landscaping should include Westchester County native species, suggested including larger trees on the southern strip, and asked Mr. Vieria if the retaining wall elevations have been studied for sidewalk compatibility. There should be more appealing options than a chain-link fence. Mr. McCarthy stated that the material used for an enclosure on Dell Street has proved to hold up well. Mr. Veira stated that the retaining wall is well within the property lines, and the return is being eliminated. All landscaping is proposed on the 16 Hudson Street property. The entrance is located at the southern property line, and larger trees would be an obstruction. Residential fencing material may not hold up to commercial use. Mr. Veira stated that they would review the options for using synthetic decking materials for the fence and gate. The Board agreed that the concept plan was acceptable and that the engineer should prepare the civil drawings. Rachelle Gebler moved to schedule the public hearing for the January 16, 2024 meeting. Moved: Gebler Seconded: Nielsen Vote 4-0 Chairperson Krakauer Rachelle Gebler Benjamin Nielsen Ken Anderson Vote 4-0 5. Cortlandt Development LLC, 377 North Broadway, Proposed deli/market, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation 5 (12/19/24) �Jonathan Merheb stated that he is an engineer from JMER Engineering P.C. representing the property owner. The lot is located on the corner of Pocantico Street and North Broadway, containing a Sunoco gas station and a mechanic shop. The application proposes to convert the building into a deli market/ convenience store. The existing gas station will remain operational with no proposed changes. The application proposes to reorganize and delineate the parking spaces, include a handicap parking space on the Pocantico Street side and relocate and enclose the dumpster area to the rear of the building. Other improvements include raising the sidewalk area in front of the garage bays and replacing the gravel transition to asphalt. Mr. Merheb presented the site plans and renderings. The owner plans to maintain and restore the buildings’ brick and stone façades, replace the garage bays with glass doors and storefront windows, and install a 3-foot-in-diameter sign on the roof over the middle bay. Although the interior layout is not finalized, a kitchen, seating area, and shelving displays are proposed. Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Merheb to describe the proposed rear parking lot lighting and if there would be vehicular maneuverability issues with the spot proposed directly behind the building. Mr. Merheb stated that since they are proposing ten parking spaces, where eight are required, they could remove a parking space if it poses a maneuverability issue. He will complete a lighting plan based on requirements for building-mounted fixtures. They want to avoid excavation for bringing conduits to poles. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board is concerned about the downspouts discharging where pedestrians would be walking. Mr. Merheb stated that he is discussing the need for adding dry wells in the rear of the building with James Natarelli. Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Merheb to describe if a landscaping plan is proposed. Mr. Merheb stated that there is no room to add landscaping. Chairperson Krakauer suggested using movable flowerpots to screen the seating area in front of the building, eliminating a curb cut on Pocantico Street, and adding low shrubbery along the front of the sidewalk. David Smith said he would provide Mr. Merheb with the native planting suggestions. Benjamin Nielsen suggested a decorative screen wall instead of bollards if there is no room for a planter. He asked if moving back the parking spaces along the northeast corner would allow room to create a landscape strip along the property line of the adjacent house. This would also assist in reducing the impervious surface and stormwater challenges. Mr. Natarelli agreed that since the main stormwater concern is the downspout discharging for pedestrian safety, he agrees that pulling the parking spaces back would increase the buffer between the rear parking spots and the property line. 6 (12/19/24) �Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. Merheb to consider alternative fence options for the garage enclosure instead of chain link fencing and asked how the garbage truck would enter the site. Mr. Merheb stated that the garbage enclosure and fencing would not be visible. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the garbage truck would not enter the site and suggested Mr. Merheb consult with the owner regarding the approach for bringing garbage to the curb. Mr. Merheb stated that he would reconsider the size of the dumpster and discuss the enclosure options with the owner. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Merheb to describe where the kitchen exhaust is proposed. Mr. Merheb stated that the kitchen exhaust location has not been finalized. Mr. Nielsen suggested adding a bike rack on site. Ken Anderson moved to schedule the public hearing for the January 16, 2024, meeting. Moved: Anderson Seconded: Gebler Vote 4-0 Chairperson Krakauer Rachelle Gebler Benjamin Nielsen Ken Anderson Vote 4-0 6. Approval of minutes, November 21, 2024 Chairperson Krakauer tabled the November 21, 2024, minutes to the January 16, 2024, meeting. Benjamin Nielsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 PM. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gebler Vote 4-0 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 7 (12/19/24) �From: Benjie Sirota <beonjie@gmail.com> To: Subject: Sean McCarthy Medical Office Building Exhibit #1 Hi SeanI am writing about the medical office. The building height is actually taller at 57'-6 which is a 15' variance and the east facade should match the other facades with brick as it faces the whole village. Circulation doesn't look totally figured out and it's going to be a mess trying to get into and out of the parking area. They can easily have an entry/exit onto the road from the parking garage. There are also many parking spaces that are shown at 8'-6" in the parking lot. Why is the parking garage in the back? Is it municipal parking? Will the lot be open to anyone and will it cost money to park? These questions should be answered before any variance is granted. 1 �Benjamin Sirota Beonjie@gmail.com 2 �Exhibit #2 ���Exhibit #3 Chairman Timothy Church C/O Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings, and Building Compliance 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing December 18, 2024 Dear Mr. Church, We are writing to oppose the granting of height variances for the proposed medical office building and parking garage across the street from our Lofts condo residence at 100 Legend Drive in Sleepy Hollow. We understand a request has been made to increase the maximum building height from 42 to 52 feet, to accommodate a 5-level parking garage and office building structure. We feel strongly that height variances, especially for a parking garage, should not be allowed. We have lived in Sleepy Hollow since 2016, and spent the past 8 years watching the Edge on Hudson property develop from a cement wasteland to a vibrant residential community with a growing number of activities for residents and families. We looked forward to moving into this neighborhood and purchased a Loft unit in late 2023. We expected to buy into a suburban-like residential community with amenities such as a grocery store, restaurants, and offices, but we were not expecting it to include a 5-level parking garage that may not have aesthetics comparable to the rest of our community. As new proposals come forward for plan variances, the focus seems to be moving away from home ownership and residential appeal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joseph and Mary Louise Grotzinger �Exhibit #4 Sean McCarthy From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: chrispeulerbs@gmail.com Sean McCarthy Opposition to Height Variance for Medical Office Building Parking Garage - Zoning Board Public Hearing on December 18th/19th 2024 Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed variance to increase the height of the parking garage for the medical office building from 3 levels (42 feet) to 5 levels (58 feet including the mechanical penthouse). This increase would have a significant negative impact on Loft 2 residents, particularly those with southeast-facing units, as it would obstruct views of the Beekman streetscape and reduce the overall aesthetic harmony of our low-profile residential area. The proposed height would make the parking garage nearly as tall as Northlight or the DeCicco tower, which seems incompatible with the surrounding structures and detrimental to our community. While I understand the need for a parking structure, I strongly believe that a 3-level garage is a more appropriate solution, preserving the character of the area and minimizing the adverse effects on residents. I urge you and the Zoning Board to carefully consider the impact of this variance and to deny the request for a 5-level garage. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Christopher Peuler Resident, Loft 2 unit 204 1 �Exhibit #5 Sean McCarthy From: Xin Dai <daixin1225@gmail.com> To: Subject: Sean McCarthy Opposition to Medical Building’s Proposal Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed variance to increase the height of the parking garage for the medical office building from 3 levels (42 feet) to 5 levels (58 feet, including the mechanical penthouse). As a resident of Loft Building 2, which faces both Decicco’s parking lot and the proposed medical building, we have significant concerns regarding the impact this change may have on our home and community. While we understand the need for additional parking spaces, we believe the height increase will negatively affect both the aesthetics of our views and the overall visual character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, we are particularly concerned about our privacy, as our bedroom is located on the 4th floor of our building. The proposed height increase could result in a direct line of sight into our living space, compromising our sense of privacy. We respectfully request that you consider these concerns as you evaluate the proposed variance. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Xin Dai Resident, Loft 2 unit 301 1 �Exhibit #6 Sean McCarthy From: Kenneth Chan <chanken88@gmail.com> To: Subject: Sean McCarthy Concerned Resident Zoning Parking Dear Mr. McCarthy, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed variance to increase the height of the parking garage for the medical office building from 3 levels (42 feet) to 5 levels (58 feet including the mechanical penthouse). This increase would have a significant negative impact on Loft 2 residents, particularly those with southeastfacing units, as it would obstruct views of the Beekman streetscape and reduce the overall aesthetic harmony of our low-profile residential area. The proposed height would make the parking garage nearly as tall as Northlight or the DeCicco tower, which seems incompatible with the surrounding structures and detrimental to our community. While I understand the need for a parking structure, I strongly believe that a 3-level garage is a more appropriate solution, preserving the character of the area and minimizing the adverse effects on residents. I urge you and the Zoning Board to carefully consider the impact of this variance and to deny the request for a 5-level garage. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Happy Holidays ! Sincerely, Kenneth Chan Resident, Loft 2 unit 203 1 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2024-12-19 Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a2ddf65aac562514d0cf8169a66b05de.pdf 98e96a2530854dced1696aba694b35d3 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes December 21, 2023 Chairperson Harries called the regular meeting to order at 7:15 PM. Present: Kersten Harries, Chairperson Benjamin Nielsen Rachelle Gebler Caroline Chen Lindsay Krakauer Also Present: Joshua Subin, Village Attorney James Natarelli, Village Engineer David Smith, Village Planner Anthony Catalano, Consulting Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Absent: Clare Trapasso Agenda: 1) Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval - Continued public hearing, Draft resolution 2) Pokahoe Riverview Manor LLC, 17 Pokahoe Drive, Proposed single-family residence, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval - Continued public hearing 3) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II- Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalContinued public hearing 4) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, One Kingsland Owner LLC, Contract/Vendee, Block O/P Townhome Phase II, 320-330 Legend Drive, Amended Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Presentation 5) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, One Kingsland Owner LLC, Block O/P Townhomes Phase II, 357-363 Hollows Pass, Amended Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval - Presentation 6) SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Proposed medical office building, Site Plan and Architectural Review ApprovalPresentation 7) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan Approval- Public hearing 8) Kendal-on-Hudson, 1010 Kendal Way, Proposed enclosed balconies, Amended Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation 9) Todd and Wendi Strier, 5 Birch Close, Proposed additions and alterations, Site Plan Approval- Preliminary Presentation 1 (12/21/23) �10) Sleepy Hollow Residences, LLC, 2 Maxwell Drive, Parking garage kiosk and signage, Amended Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation 11) LL Parcel E, LLC, 338-346 and 330-336 Palisades Blvd., Amended Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation 12) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase I, Block A, Sanitary sewer easement and maintenance agreement, Amended Site Plan Approval- Preliminary Presentation 13) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block OP & N Amended Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval- Preliminary Presentation 14) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Zoning Code Amendment Petition, Section 450-38- Height exceptions, Village Board of Trustees referral- Discussion 15) Approval of minutes, October 19, 2023 1. Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Continued public hearing, Draft resolution Lindsay Krakauer moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 Chairperson Harries solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Gregory Caccioppoli is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Caccioppoli stated that additional details related to the garbage enclosure area and the landscaping plan were submitted. Lindsay Krakauer moved to close the public hearing. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 David Smith read the resolve clauses and the conditions of the draft resolution. Benjamin Nielsen moved to approve the resolution. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Harries Chairperson Harries - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Caroline Chen - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 2. Pokahoe Riverview Manor LLC, 17 Pokahoe Drive, Proposed single-family residence, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval - Public hearing 2 (12/21/23) �Chairperson Harries opened the public hearing. Ronald Pohl is the owner of the property. Mr. Pohl described the changes to the proposed plans to address the concerns of the Village staff and the public. Chairperson Harries requested that the applicant describe the landscape plan, including the trees proposed for removal. David Delardi is the landscape architect for the project. Mr. Delardi presented the landscape plan and described the trees proposed for removal and the trees to remain on site. Mr. Delardi described the proposed plantings for the site. There was a discussion with the Board and the applicant’s consultants regarding the proposed tree removal, grading, drainage along the site's north side, and the reduced driveway width. Chairperson Harries suggested that the applicant relocate the air conditioning condenser units to the left side of the site to allow for more planting beds. Lindsay Krakauer suggested that the applicant consider substitutions for the verticle Holly trees. Rachelle Gebler suggested that the Village Arborist evaluate the condition of the two trees proposed for removal. There was a discussion with the Board and the applicant regarding the proposed portico material. Michael Finelli is the architect for the project. Mr. Finelli summarized the changes made to the site plan design and the exterior façade materials. Chairperson Harries solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Caroline Chen asked Mr. Finelli to describe the changes made to reduce the height of the house. Mr. Finelli described the changes made to the design to reduce the height of the house and stated that no further adjustments to the square footage are feasible. There was a discussion regarding the angle of the front walkway and the proposed landscaping at the front of the house. Chairperson Harries polled the Board to see if they were comfortable moving forward with approving the draft resolution. Ms. Gebler stated that she approves moving forward with the vote, including getting approval from the Village Arborist for tree removals. Ms. Krakauer stated that she is comfortable moving forward with the resolution. 3 (12/21/23) �Mr. Nielsen asked Sean McCarthy to confirm that the proposed project is compliant with the Zoning Code and does not require variance approvals. Mr. McCarthy stated that the current application complies with the Zoning Code. David Smith stated that the new submission documents will be added to the resolution. Mr. Smith read the resolve clauses and conditions of the draft resolution. Chairperson Harries requested that the resolution include a condition stating that the Village Tree Code requirement for tree replacements is met for the Tree Removal Permit approved prior to the Planning Board Application. Mr. Pohl stated that no tree replacements were required for the previously approved Tree Removal Permit. Chairperson Harries stated that the Village Code requires that two trees be planted for each tree removed or that a contribution is made of an equal amount to the Village Tree Fund. Mr. Nielsen stated that the condition should specify that the tree replacements are planted on the applicants' property and follow the guidelines for native plantings. Lindsay Krakauer moved to close the public hearing. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 Benjamin Nielsen moved to approve the application and the resolution. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gebler Chairperson Harries - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Caroline Chen - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 3. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II –Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalPublic hearing Chairperson Harries stated that this is a continued public hearing. Peter Chavkin stated that progress has been made between their consultants and Woodard & Curran in providing responses and flow calculations related to hydraulic modeling for the East Parcel, how much water may come over the railroad tracks in a storm event, and how the design of North Buffer channel will work appropriately to convey the water. Mr. Chavkin stated that they are hopeful that the Board will agree that the channel will work as designed and be approved with the condition that they will be responsible for adding more plantings in the North Buffer to handle water flows if necessary. 4 (12/21/23) �Chairperson Harries directed David Smith to draft a resolution to review for next month’s meeting pending the review of the latest documents. Benjamin Nielsen requested that Mr. Chavkin review the pedestrian connectivity from the neighborhood to the Open Space, specifically from sidewalks and alleyways. Mr. Chavkin stated that they raised the crosswalk at the connection of the third section of the Tappan Zee Park into the area and just passed Hollows Pass on the other side. They increased the walking path and made a secondary connection point into Kingsland Point Park through the buffer area. There will be a pedestrian entrance into the parking lot near the roundabout. Mr. Chavkin stated that they would look into adding additional curb drops and crosswalks in the development alleyways. Chairperson Harries adjourned the public hearing to the January 18, 2024 Planning Board meeting. 4. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, One Kingsland Owner, LLC, Contract/Vendee, Block O/P Townhome Phase II, 320-330 Legend Drive, Amended Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Presentation William McGuiness presented as Contract/Vendee for the application. Mr. McGuiness stated that the plans were revised to provide elevators and a Type A accessible bathroom on the ground floor of the units without any interior changes to building levels or the front entry steps. Mr. McGuiness stated that they propose to drop the building slab by five inches and add accessibility from the back of the building. 5. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, One Kingsland Owner, LLC, Contract/Vendee, Block O/P Townhome Phase II, 357-363 Hollows Pass, Amended Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Presentation William McGuiness presented as Contract/Vendee for the application. Mr. McGuiness stated the plans were revised to provide elevators and a Type A accessible bathroom on the ground floor of the units without any interior changes to building levels or the front steps. Mr. McGuiness stated that they propose to add an additional accessible door in the back of the building. Mr. McGuiness stated that the piles are driven, and they will be ready to pour the slabs in January. Mr. McGuiness requested that the Board consider these changes as minor and approve them to be worked out with the Building Department. Benjamin Nielsen asked if lowering the height of the building reduces the number of front steps. Mr. McGuiness stated that they propose to lower the height of the sidewalk and maintain the same number of steps. Chairperson Harries polled the Board to see if they agree that the proposed changes sufficiently comply with the approved Site Plan and may be referred to the Building Department for review. 5 (12/21/23) �Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. McCarthy if he was comfortable referring the application to the Building Department. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Building Department will complete the review if the Board directs. The Planning Board agreed to refer the applications to the Building Department. 6. SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block A Proposed medical office building, Site Plan and Architectural Review ApprovalPresentation The applicant submitted a request for adjournment to the January 18, 2024 Planning Board meeting. 7. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed retaining walls and privacy wall, Amended Site Plan Approval-Public hearing Kimberly Martelli stated that the applicant is seeking approval to construct site retaining walls, a privacy wall, and landscaping along the Bedford Road side of the site between the existing Music Room and the natatorium/indoor pool. Ms. Martelli stated they received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 15, 2023. Ms. Martelli stated that their engineer would submit plans to address the Village Engineers' comments and questions related to stormwater management and the additional impervious surfaces as part of the Building Permit submission and agreed for it to be a condition of approval. Chairperson Harries asked Ms. Martelli if landscaping would be added to the New York State right-of-way in front of the chain link fence along Bedford Road. Ms. Martelli stated that the applicant would agree to a condition of approval to include plantings in the public right-of-way as part of the landscape plan. Chairperson Harries read the public notice. Rachelle Gebler moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Gebler Seconded: Chen Vote 5-0 Chairperson Harries solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Chairperson Harries moved to close the public hearing. Moved: Harries Seconded: Krakauer Vote 5-0 David Smith read the resolve clauses and conditions of the draft resolution. Lindsay Krakauer moved to approve the application and the resolution. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Nieslen 6 (12/21/23) �Chairperson Harries - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Caroline Chen - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 8. Kendal-on-Hudson, 1010 Kendal Way, Proposed enclosed balconies, Amended Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval – Preliminary Presentation Alvaro Larrain stated that he is an engineer from A2L Engineering representing the applicant. Mr. Larrain stated that they propose to enclose two existing balconies on the ground level of the main building. Each balcony will be integrated as 85 square feet of interior recreational space in the common area for the residents. Bob Michael stated that he is the Director of Facilities for Kendal-on-Hudson. Mr. Michael stated that the balconies are located off the main lobby, and using them for sitting spaces will used more by the residents. Chairperson Harries solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Chairperson Harries stated that due to the minor amendment of the proposed work, the Board has decided to waive the public hearing and vote on the draft resolution of approval. David Smith read the resolve clauses and conditions of the draft resolution. Chairperson Harries moved to waive the public hearing and approve the application and the resolution. Moved: Harries Seconded: Nieslen Chairperson Harries - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Caroline Chen - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 9. Todd and Wendi Strier, 5 Birch Close, Proposed additions and alterations, Site Plan Approval – Preliminary Presentation Frank Marsella stated that he is the architect representing the applicants. Mr. Marsella stated that the project proposes additions that will add 3,100 square feet to the existing single-family residence. Mr. Marsella presented the site plan and stated that the project includes the removal of an existing two-car garage, breezeway, and a portion of a rear deck. The application proposes to expand the existing driveway, construct a three-car garage, a new walkway, porches, covered 7 (12/21/23) �areas, and a master suite addition with a widow's walk. Mr. Marsella presented photographs of the existing house and the neighboring properties and stated that the plan would maintain onestory roof lines and fit within the character of the neighborhood. Alan Pilch is an engineer from ALP Engineering representing the applicants. Mr. Pilch presented the Layout Plan and stated that it shows the proposed driveway modifications, front entry walkway, and landscaped areas. Mr. Pilch stated that he will develop a landscape plan incorporating native planting materials as required by the Village. Mr. Pilch presented a concept stormwater management plan and stated that runoff would be collected from the new impervious surfaces and conveyed through catch basins and storm pipes to the rear lawn area of the house to a stormwater infiltration system that would meet the Village requirements. Mr. Pilch stated that an existing 18-inch drainage pipe and channel go to the site's northeast side. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Pilch if the existing drainage pipe is bringing water from off-site through the applicants’ site to open air. Mr. Pilch stated that the flow is coming from off-site, and they are not proposing to modify it. He will ensure the site runoff will not increase with the proposed work. Benjamin Nielsen asked Mr. Pilch if the stormwater pipe is owned by the Village, if there is an easement, and if there are any improvements proposed in the easement. Mr. Pilch stated that it is a Village stormwater pipe and easement and that no improvements are proposed within that area. Chairperson Harries asked if there are any trees that will be disturbed by the proposed work. Mr. Marsella stated that there are no trees in the proposed work area and they are not requesting to take down any trees. Mr. Nielsen asked if some of the driveway is on the east property line of the adjacent property. Mr. Marsella stated that there is an error on an existing survey, and the plans are adjusted to confirm that the driveway does not encroach on the adjacent property line. David Smith asked Mr. Marsella to describe the extent of the wetlands buffer disturbance. Mr. Marsella presented a diagram and stated that the closest point to the wetland is located one to two feet from where the stormwater drainage pipe discharges. The proposed project will result in a net gain of 64 square feet of impervious surface coverage in the buffer area. David Smith requested that buffer meditation plantings be included in the final landscape plan. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Marsella to describe the proposed exterior façade improvements and materials. Mr. Marsella stated that exterior work would include replacing all the windows, roofing, cedar siding, and stonework. 8 (12/21/23) �Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Marsella to describe mechanical upgrades. Mr. Marsella stated that the additions will include expansions to the existing forced air system, including new air handlers and condenser units for the additions. Mr. Nielsen suggested that the applicant consider incorporating energy-efficient methods that reduce the use of gas through solar and electricity. Mr. Marsella presented a rendering of the proposed project and stated it would maintain the 11/2–story feel and avoid any two-story straight facades. The Planning Board agreed they were pleased with the project's proposed design. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Pilch if they could finalize the landscape plan and stormwater management plan for the January meeting. Mr. Phich stated that he would develop the stormwater and landscape plans before the next meeting. Mr. Nielsen asked Sean McCarthy if the proposed project complies with the Zoning Code. Mr. McCarthy stated that the application complies with the Zoning Code. The application requires Site Plan, Wetlands Permit and Architectural Review approval from the Planning Board. Benjamin Nielsen moved to schedule a public hearing for the January 18, 2024 Planning Board meeting. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 10. Sleepy Hollow Residences, LLC, 2 Maxwell Drive, Parking garage kiosk and signage Amended Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval - Preliminary Presentation Diana Kolev stated that she is from the firm of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise and Wiederkehr, LLC. Ms. Kolve stated that she is representing Sleepy Hollow Residences, LLC. They are the owners of Block F at 2 Maxwell Drive of the Edge-on-Hudson Development. Ms. Kolvev stated that the recently completed five-story building contains 246 residential apartments and an on-site parking garage with 477 parking spaces. Ms. Kolvev stated that a Site Plan Amendment was granted approval in October 2020 to add 51 parking spaces to the originally approved 426 spaces, with 50 parking spaces to count toward future developments of Edge-onHudson development in a shared parking agreement. The applicant is seeking approval to install a parking meter on the ground floor of the garage to meter 45 unassigned parking spaces and reserve 5 spaces for the residents of Block H. Additional direction signage is also proposed for approval. Chairperson Harries asked Ms. Kolev to clarify if the 45 unassigned parking spaces are proposed to be open to the public and if this is a temporary use that will eventually be used for only Block H when completed. 9 (12/21/23) �Ms. Kolev stated that the 45 unassigned parking spaces are for the purposes of all Block H uses and are available to the public. Sophie Nitkin stated that she is an associate of Sleepy Hollow Residences, LLC. Ms. Nitkin stated that as part of the 2020 resolution, 32 of the 50 parking spaces were dedicated to Block H and 18 spaces were dedicated to the future Block M. The 32 parking spaces were dedicated for Block H uses, 5 of the spaces are being reserved for future Daymark residents, and 45 of the remaining parking spaces will remain open to the public. Peter Chavkin stated that all 50 parking spaces are dedicated to the use of Block H. The 18 parking spaces will be in a future parking garage. They are reserving 5 of the 50 parking spaces for Block H residents. The 45 remaining parking spaces will be available to the public to satisfy the parking requirements for the Block H retail uses. Lindsay Krakauer asked Mr. Chavkin to confirm that the requested signage would direct commercial patrons to the parking lot. Ms. Nikin stated that the proposed signage would indicate that the parking spaces are metered and specify that no overnight parking is allowed to deter residents of Block F or other buildings from parking overnight or not paying for available parking spaces. There was a discussion regarding the parking requirements for Block H. Sean McCarthy stated that when Block H was approved, they were short by 68 required offstreet parking spaces. During the construction of Block F, they determined that they could add 51 parking spaces to the parking garage. Sleepy Hollow Residences came back for a revised Site Plan approval to allow 50 of 68 required parking spaces for Block H to be in the Block F garage and agreed that the remaining 18 required parking spaces would be in a future block garage. Peter Chavkin stated that the owners of NorthLight are not seeking changes to the approved parking plan. They are requesting approval to install a pay station inside the garage with coordinating signage. Lindsay Krakauer asked Ms. Nitkin how the parking restrictions would be enforced. Ms. Nitkin stated that as part of the operating costs of metered parking, the NorthLight garage owners will monitor the parking spaces and call for vehicle towing. Ms. Krakauer asked Ms. Kitkin if there would be signage at Block H to direct patrons to where parking is available. David Smith requested that the applicant prepare a plan that details the different buildings and the agreed parking locations. Mr. Nielsen asked if the intended use of the 68 parking spaces was originally specified as commercial, public spaces. 10 (12/21/23) �Sean McCarthy stated that when Block H was designed, there wasn’t a mechanism to separate the residential parking for the condos from the commercial uses. The tandem spaces in the parking garage may not work for commercial activity. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Chavkin to confirm that all but 5 residential parking spaces are satisfied at the Block H building. Mr. Chavkin stated the Zoning Code requires 205 parking spaces. For marketability, they believed they needed 200 spaces, which is 2 parking spaces per residential unit. The Block H parking garage supplies 200 residential parking spaces. The remaining 5 required parking spaces will be located in the Block F parking garage. The 63 required commercial spaces will be provided by having 45 of the parking spaces in the Block F parking garage, and the remaining 18 parking spaces will be provided in a future Block K garage building. Ms. Krakauer asked if visitor parking spaces are incorporated into parking requirements. Mr. McCarthy stated there are no requirements to include extra parking spaces for visitors. Chairperson Harries stated that having directional signage when Block H is completed will be important. Mr. Chavkin stated that they will present the way-finding signage for the Block H building to the Planning Board as they get closer to completing the construction. Ms. Krakauer asked Mr. Chavkin if the 5 parking spaces for Block H are planned as secondary parking spaces for 5 different units. Mr. Chavkin stated that the purchase of the Daymark condo units will include 2 spaces with the three-bedroom units. The other units will have 1 space included at the purchase. The remaining spaces will be available for purchase. Someone from Daymark may purchase 1 of the 5 spaces in the garage as an extra spot. If all the parking spaces are not purchased, the Daymark Condominium Board may make them available for visitor overnight parking. He expects that the units will be purchased with parking spaces. Ms. Krakauer asked if the spaces would be available to purchase for storage. Mr. Chavkin stated that the parking spaces will not be permitted for storage. Ms. Kolev requested that the Board consider the request as a minor amendment, waive the public hearing and move to approve the application. Mr. Nielsen asked if this would be the first metered off-street public parking. Mr. Chavkin stated that this would be the first metered off-street public parking. Mr. McCarthy asked Peter Chavkin if Block A would be metered parking and if there would be parking restrictions. 11 (12/21/23) �Mr. Chavkin stated that the medical office building portion may choose to have metered parking, but he doesn’t think the the DeCicco surface parking lot will be metered. They will have similar parking restrictions to prevent overnight parking. Caroline Chen moved to waive the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a draft resolution for consideration at the January 18, 2024 Planning Board meeting. Moved: Chen Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 11. LL Parcel E, LLC, 338-346 and 330-336 Palisades Blvd., Amended Architectural Review Approval - Preliminary Presentation Peter Galotti stated that he is from Toll Brothers. Mr. Galotti stated that they are seeking approval to change the stone façade materials for the Block OP section of the brownstone units. The color pallet approved in the 2021 ARB approval included a 9-inch x 18-inch stone that they are currently installing on the building. The architectural drawings showed a random size stone. Mr. Galotti stated that Toll Brothers started to install the 9-inch x 18-inch. stone and then stopped due to the contradiction in the drawings. Toll Brothers feels that the 9-inch x 18-inch stone has a commercial feel and that the random-sized stones feel more residential and more appropriate for the buildings. Toll Brothers are willing to remove the installed 9-inch x 18-inch stones and reinstall the random-style stones. Mr. Galotti presented sample boards of the approved and requested stone types. Chairperson Harries suggested that they install a larger mock-up panel of the stone on the building façade for the Board to review. Mr. Galotti stated that it would take a month to get the stone, and then, if the Board approves it, it would be an additional month to get the rest of the stone delivered to complete the building. Chairperson Harries asked they have renderings or photographs of the proposed random stone installed on a building. Zach Mongiovi stated that he is an associate with Toll Brothers and that the stones come in random individual-sized stones that will be installed in a random pattern. Benjamin Nielsen asked if the stones are relatively to scale with how they are shown on the elevation drawings. a Mr. Galott stated that the rendering is relatively to scale with how the stones will appear on the building. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Galotti if the drainage channel detail would remain the same. Mr. Galotti stated that the drainage channel would remain and be more concealed due to the thickness of the random stones. Sean McCarthy stated that the manufacturer's stone specifications state that the random stone heights come in 3-inch, 6-inch, and 9-inch heights and lengths of 12-inch, 18-inch, and 24-inch. The stones range from 3/4 inch to 2 inches thick. 12 (12/21/23) �There was a discussion on how they could reduce the difference between the foundation wall and the stone façade and reduce the appearance of the drainage channel. Chairperson Harries provided the manufacturer's website address and the stone color of the proposed stone façade material. Chairperson Harries stated that the proposed stone façade material complies with the approved plan. The Planning Board approves for Toll Brothers to continue with the installation of stone as presented. 12. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase I, Block A sanitary sewer easement and maintenance agreement, Amended Site Plan Approval - Preliminary Presentation Peter Chavkin stated that currently, there is one sewer connection inside the Block A/B parcel out onto Legend Drive and a manhole inside the Block access road. Originally, it was proposed as a private manhole. The Westchester County Department of Health mandates that manhole and sewer connections must be public if multiple buildings are connecting through it. The Village Engineer raised the issue of having a public manhole and sewer line on private property. It was suggested that they consider creating individual sewer connections for each building in Legend Drive. Mr. Chavkin stated that they determined that the amount of infrastructure between the sidewalk and sewer along Legend Drive would make it difficult or impossible to make multiple connections. Mr. Chavkin stated that they propose to have the Commercial Condominium Association grant the Village an easement to access the manhole and agree to be responsible for all obligations to maintain the manhole and sewer pipe going forward. They have revised and submitted a maintenance agreement to address the Village’s liability concerns of the Village Engineer. Chairperson Harries asked Peter Chavkin if there is a section that shows the heights of the different infrastructure lines under the street to explain the circumstances that make it difficult and infeasible to create multiple connections. Mr. Chavkin stated that Verizon communications conduits in Legend Drive would cause an issue. Craig Tompkins stated that their engineer is concerned that they would not be able to obtain the required pitch for the sewer pipes and connections. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Tompkins who had received the amended maintenance agreement and who would be reviewing it on the Village’s behalf. Craig Tompkins stated that he would share the revised agreements with the Board and the consultants for review. Lindsay Krakauer asked Peter Chavkin, who is responsible for the repairs if the Village agrees to a public sewer easement and there is damage to the sewer lines. 13 (12/21/23) �Peter Chavkin stated that the agreement requires there be the Commercial Condominium Association responsible for completing any repairs. If the association neglects to make the repairs after being notified by the Village, and the Village is forced to complete the repair work, the Village will not be held liable for any business interruption, and the association is obligated to pay the Village for all associated costs. James Natarelli stated that if the sewer is dedicated to the Village as a public main, the Village is legally responsible for the sewer line no matter what happens. The proposed maintenance agreement puts all the maintenance and repair responsibilities on Block A Condo Association. The Village is legally obligated to respond to sewer overflows in a certain amount of time. If the Association doesn’t respond at the appropriate time, the agreement will allow the Village to step in and make the necessary repairs and hold the Block A Association financially responsible for the repairs. Caroline Chen asked Peter Chavkin to explain why the Village should agree to take on this responsibility and if costs are a reason they don’t want to pursue separate connections. Peter Chavkin stated that their civil engineer has determined that due to the infrastructure in the ground, it would not be possible to get the required pitches for the gravity flow needed. James Natarelli stated that the sewer lines on Legend Drive are deep and the Verizon lines are not installed as deep. Mr. Natarelli asked if the Verison lines were definitely in the way. Peter Chavkin stated that there is infrastructure in the way. Chairperson Harries stated that the Board needs to review the amended maintenance agreement document. There was a discussion regarding the other utility connections that will need to connect to Legend Drive. Joshua Subin asked how the Condominium Association would resolve disputes between the three entities in the Association. Janet Giris stated that she is a Partner with the firm of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise and Wiederkehr, LLC, representing Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC. Ms. Giris stated that she does not know what the Condominium Association Declaration says for resolving disputes between the different unit owners. Ms. Giris stated that having a public main is the most efficient way of handling the mandate from the Board of Health. The application was adjourned to the January 18, 2024 Planning Board meeting. 13. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block OP & N Amended Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval - Preliminary Presentation Peter Chavkin stated that minor corrections to the approved file subdivision plat are needed. During a title review of the filed map, numerical inconsistencies need to be corrected before they 14 (12/21/23) �proceed with the first closing of the townhome lots. There are no changes to what the Board approved. Lindsay Krakauer moved to approve the amended subdivision plat and to direct staff to draft a resolution. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Chen Chairperson Harries - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Caroline Chen - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 14. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Zoning Code Amendment Petition, Section 450-38- Height exceptions, Village Board of Trustees referral- Discussion Joshua Subin stated that the Board is required to submit their review or recommendations to the Board of Trustees within 45 days or by February 2, 2024. Janet Giris stated that she is a Partner with the firm of DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise and Wiederkehr, LLC, representing Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC. Ms. Giris stated the Board of Trustees referred the petition to the Planning Board for recommendations. The petition proposes modifications to the Zoning Code to allow certain architectural features of the Edge-onHudson buildings to be exempt from specific height restrictions. They are requesting that pergolas and awnings on the rooftop and fourth levels of the buildings be exempt from the Zoning Code height restrictions. Ms. Giris stated that the recreational features on top of the buildings were addressed and encouraged during the approval of the Special Permit and the Design Guidelines but were never addressed in the Zoning Code. Ms. Giris stated that there are several buildings that have been constructed with roof pergolas that exceed the height restrictions. Ms. Giris stated that the rooftop pergolas were always contemplated and not determined as being part of the building height. Peter Chavkin stated that the pergolas were part of the approval record for the Daymark building and part of the submissions to the ARB and Building Department documents. Chairperson Harries stated that the rendering presented is new and was not seen by the Board. Mr. Chavkin stated they have become aware that the pergolas may not be zoning-compliant. Mr. Chavkin said they corresponded with the Village Council and the Building Department to inform them that the pergolas on the Block H rooftops were part of their marketing proposal and that their contract purchasers were expecting them. Instead of requesting variances, they petitioned for a Zoning Code change. Chairperson Harries asked if this is the only project to date that needs to be adjusted. Mr. Chavkin stated that he expects all the blocks with waterfront buildings to want shaded pergolas for recreational spaces. 15 (12/21/23) �Chairperson Harries stated that the Board would discuss the petition at a future work session before making their recommendations to the Board of Trustees. 15. Approval of minutes, October 19, 2023 Chairperson Harries moved to approve the October 19, 2023 minutes. Moved: Harries Seconded: Gebler Chairperson Harries - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Caroline Chen - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Chairperson Harries moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 PM. Moved: Harries Seconded: Krakauer Vote 5-0 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 16 (12/21/23) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2023-12-21_Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d93a1a4072789264a00ba5efedc158b7.pdf cfed9af0d33f47e47a9d3d7ec7ab75d7 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes December 22, 2022 The regular meeting was called to order at 7:04 PM by Acting Chairperson Krakauer. The Board voted to approve Lindsay Krakauer to act as the Chairperson. Acting Chairperson Krakauer summarized the agenda. Present: Lindsay Krakauer, Acting Chairperson Benjamin Nielsen Matthew Brennan Erin Carney Also Present: Joshua Subin, Village Attorney James Natarelli, Village Engineer David Smith, Village Planner Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Absent: Rachelle Gebler Kersten Harries Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Continued public hearing 2) 46 Hudson St., LLC/Alex Tseng, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval - Public hearing Pending ZBA approval 3) Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval - Requested adjournment 4) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan Approval-Requested adjournment 5) Marcello Poguio, 95 College Avenue, Proposed one-story rear addition, Amended Site Plan approval- Preliminary presentation 6) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit- Preliminary Presentation 7) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block H, Amended Site Plan and Final ARB Approval- Presentation 8) Approval of minutes, November 17, 2022 1. Franceso Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site Plan 1 (12/22/22) �Approval- continued public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Carney Vote 4-0 Maximillian Mahalek stated that he is an attorney with Cuddy + Feder LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Mahelek stated that the December 8, 2022 submission addresses the Board’s and the consultants concerns from the November 17, 2022 meeting related to parking, lighting and stormwater runoff. Mr. Mahalek stated that the request received to include a three-bedroom unit, and changing the building front yard setback were not included due to physical building location constraints and lack of Zoning regulations. Mr. Mahalek stated that the proposed building complies with the Zoning Code for the lower Beekman Avenue area. The additional renderings, aerial views, and elevations drawings submitted address the concerns received from David Smith and James Natarelli. Mr. Mahalek stated that the proposed increased building length will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Mahalek stated that they added the leader drainpipes and they lowered the site lighting fixture heights to 14 feet. The applicant would agree to a condition to add shielding to the lighting fixtures if needed. Mr. Mahalek summarized how the proposed application complies with Site Plan and ARB requirements as they relate to the Village Code requirements. Mr. Mahalek requested that the Board close the public hearing and move to draft a resolution of approval. Christopher Barbagli is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Barbagli stated that they added a fourth parking space back along Beekman Avenue by creating four spaces that would be 19’6” in length. They are unable to move the building back because it would interfere with the parking configurations. Mr. Barbagli stated that the stair shown in the engineering drawings was not necessary and that the revised drawings are accurate with the architectural drawings. The updated aerial renderings and elevation drawings demonstrate where the proposed building would extend back an additional 15 feet. David Smith asked Mr. Barbagli why the applicant is proposing the increased building length. Mr. Barbagli stated that they needed to relocate two one-bedroom apartments to the back of the building in order to construct the gym amenity on the first floor. Mr. Barbagli stated that only the rear elevation would change. Mr. Barbagli summarized the changes to the lighting fixtures and the drainage for the porches. James Natarelli asked if the proposed lighting fixture specifications include an option for glare shields. Mr. Barbagli stated that they would use a third-party shield if necessary and that the proposed lighting fixtures are code compliant. Mr. Natarelli stated that the concern relates to the visibility of the light fixtures from other properties and suggested that they determine if the fixture specified has manufacturer shield capabilities. Mr. Barbagli stated that they he will research the availability of lighting fixtures that have the option for a shield for light spill over. 2 (12/22/22) �Acting Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the Board. Benjamin Nielsen asked Mr. Barbagli to describe how the proposed architectural design minimizes the scale of the proposed building in relation to the smaller neighboring buildings. Mr. Barbagli stated that the proposed building is to scale with the properties’ large site. The building design is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and that the use of a mansard roof will bring the scale and the height of the building down. Mr. Nielsen asked if there are façade transition materials that they could use to improve the visual aesthetics of the building mass. Acting Chairperson Krakauer suggested that the applicant use some material and color variations to articulate dimension to the building façade specifically in the east side elevation where the tower is showing continuous siding. Erin Carney suggested that the applicant rework the rooflines at the two vertical tower elements to create more variation in the design of the façade. Acting Chairperson Krakauer requested that the applicant provide details on the proposed roof railings and to resolve the discrepancies related to the columns. Ms. Krakauer asked if there is equipment proposed on the roof. Mr. Barbagli stated that there would be condensers on the roof and that a sitting area is proposed. Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. Barbagli to describe the location for the proposed rooftop sitting area and asked if there will be railings around it. Mr. Barbagli stated that the proposed rooftop sitting area would be in the back rear of the building with railings around it. Ms. Carney requested that Mr. Barbagli provide consistent elevations drawings that show how the balconies will sit on the building. Mr. Mahalek requested that the Board incorporate their comments from the Work Session, and send to the applicant team to address with Sean McCarthy and the Village consultants at an upcoming meeting. Acting Chairperson Krakauer suggested adding a window in the stairwell to provide more light, and stated that the Board has concerns related to the parking spots and appropriate signage. Ms. Krakauer asked Sean McCarthy to explain the issue with the accessible parking spot near the rubbish alcove. Mr. McCarthy stated that the access isle at the accessible parking spot is required to be 8 feet wide. 3 (12/22/22) �Mr. Nielsen questioned how the curved area of the rooflines relate to the balconies along the west side elevation. Mr. Barbagli stated that the drawing should depict a straight vertical shingled wall at the balconies. The shingled roof will slope down on either end of the balcony. Mr. McCarthy requested that Mr. Barbagli submit a section through the mansard roof and properly detail that area. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Board will not consider having shingles or siding on a vertical roof surface. Acting Chairperson Krakauer suggested that the applicant consider adding more landscaping features to the part of the driveway that is a one-way traffic area into the parking lot. Mr. McCarthy stated that the site plan scales the one-way width of the driveway as 16 feet. The applicant could reduce the width in that area to reconfigure the diagonal parking spaces along the driveway or to add landscaping on one or both sides. Mr. Mahalek asked Mr. McCarthy how narrow the driveway could be to comply with standards. Mr. McCarthy suggested that applicant discuss the options with their traffic consultant. Mr. Barbagli asked Mr. McCarthy to confirm that the front of the driveway needs to be 20 feet wide. Mr. McCarthy stated that the driveway should be a wide as possible where there is two-way traffic. Acting Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the Board and the consultants. There were no additional comments from the Board or the consultants. Acting Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. Anne White lives at 1010 Kendal Way. Ms. White stated that the proposed enlargement of the building is not a minor change and that it will have significant impact on the surrounding area. The rear yards of the properties on Kendall Avenue will face the building and the parking lot. The developer was aware that the owners along Kendall Avenue felt that the height and length of the building would affect their homes, particularly casting shadows on their backyards. Since the Village amended the Zoning Code, this issue is no longer against the Village Code. The applicant is proposing to add an additional 16 feet to the back of the building and this will be an exasperating impact on the small homes on Kendall Avenue. Ms. White stated that the noise from the rooftop seating area would be disruptive to the neighboring properties late at night. Ms. White stated that there is a large tree shown on the rendering for the north side in front of the building on Beekman Avenue that she thinks is critical. The list of planting materials submitted does not indicate a tree of the same size proposed. Ms. White requested that the Village Tree Officer be involved in selecting a tree that will have a large tree pit so that it continues the line of large trees. The existing house contains three low to moderate rentals. The developers stated a 4 (12/22/22) �couple times that they would agree to have three apartments in the new building that would be approximately equal in rent and hopes that this promise can be part of the approval. There were no further comments from the public. Mr. Mahalek stated the proposed building massing is Zoning compliant and there are no variances required. The proposed rooftop space will adhere to the Village’s noise and lighting requirements and that the Village has the ability to enforce the regulations. In regards to the trees, the Village has its requirements for tree enforcement. The landscape plans are incorporated into the site plan and will adhere to the rules and provisions associated with the removal and planting of trees at all elevations. Mr. Mahalek stated the applicant has not made any promises in terms of the rental pricing of the units. There are no affordable housing requirements in the Village Code applicable to the site. Under New York Law, the Planning Board looks at the application to review what it proposed what impact it would have on the neighborhood. The applicant sets the rental prices and it is not in the purview of the Planning Board. Mr. Mahalek requested that the Board close the public hearing since there will be no changes that will materially impact the community. Mr. Mahalek stated that if the Board wishes to keep the public hearing open, he requested that the Board direct staff to prepare a draft resolution for the next meeting. Joshua Subin stated that the rooftop space is not just subject to Village Code enforcement policies and can result in civil complaints against the applicant for noise or nuisance. Mr. Mahalek stated that buildings can also have their own set of rules and regulations that they may enforce and that the applicant is willing to work with the Village to make sure that it doesn’t become an issue. Motion was made to continue the public hearing to the January19, 2023 meeting and to direct staff to prepare a draft resolution. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Carney Vote 4-0 2. 46 Hudson St., LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval – continued public hearing The application was adjourned to the January 19, 2023 meeting. No action was taken. 3. Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan Approval – Requested adjournment The applicant has requested an adjournment to the January 19, 2023 meeting. No action was taken. 4. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan approval- Requested adjournment 5 (12/22/22) �The applicant has requested an adjournment to the January 19, 2023 meeting. No action was taken. 5. Marcelo Poguio, 95 College Avenue, Proposed one-story rear addition, Amended Site Plan approval - Preliminary presentation Steven Costa is the engineer representing the applicant. Mr. Costa stated that the property was originally an auto repair shop and converted into a grocery store in 2012. The application proposes to construct a walk-in box addition in the rear northwest corner of the property at College and Valley Street that will be accessible from the loading area at the north side of the building structure. The proposed addition is a masonry structure that is 10 feet wide by 12 feet long, and 10 feet high with stucco finishes to match the existing building. There are no proposed lighting changes and the addition will be constructed on top of an existing paved area. A roof gutter is proposed to collect water and bring it down to the paved area at grade. Because the property has a high water table, they are unable to install cultecs for the drainage. The proposed addition is Zoning compliant and will not require variances. The proposed addition will be located near an existing parking lot and will be visually hidden from neighboring properties. Acting Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Costa to describe the purpose of the proposed addition. Mr. Costa stated that the Board of Health has requested that the applicant store seafood and meats separate from the other items for the store. Benjamin Nielsen asked Mr. Costa if there will be additional mechanical elements required for the addition. Mr. Costa stated that the compressor units will be located on top of the roof in a parapet that is not visible from the street. Acting Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Costa how the addition will be accessed. Mr. Costa stated that there will be exterior entrance door on the outside of the walk-in box. The addition will not be accessible from the inside of the main building. Acting Chairperson Krakauer suggested that Mr. Costa confirm that the existing lighting will be adequate for access at night. Mr. Costa stated that there is existing hood lighting on the side and the rear of the structure. The applicant will install additional lighting if Sean McCarthy determines that it is required upon the construction of the addition. Mr. Nielsen solicited comments from James Natarelli regarding the stormwater management. Mr. Natarelli stated that the application does not propose to add additional impervious surface. Mr. Natarelli asked Mr. Costa where the main building drains discharge and asked if the new addition could tie in with existing drainage system. 6 (12/22/22) �Mr. Costa stated that he is not sure but believes that there are interior roof drains sloped towards the center of the building. There was a discussion between Mr. Costa and Mr. Natarelli regarding the existing drop curb at the frontage on Valley Street. Acting Chairperson Krakauer stated that the proposed application seems straight forward and solicited comments from Mr. McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Board has the discretion to waive the public hearing as a minor site plan amendment and vote to direct staff to draft a resolution for the January meeting. Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. Costa to describe the adjacent properties. Mr. Costa stated that there is a parking lot and an adjacent delicatessen business to the west of the applicant’s property and multi-family residences to the north of the building. Motion was made to waive the public hearing and to direct staff to prepare a draft resolution for approval at the January 19, 2023. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Carney Lindsay Krakauer - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan- yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 6. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Phase II - Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalPresentation The applicant has requested an adjournment to the January 19, 2023 meeting. No action was taken. 7. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Block H- Amended Site Plan and Final ARB approval- Presentation Craig Tompkins stated that he is an associate of Biddle Real Estate Ventures, LLC. Mr. Tompkins stated that they received approval in February of 2022 that permitted them to go forward with the Block H building. The approval resolution contained stipulations and requirements in order to receive Building Permit approvals. Mr. Tompkins stated that Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC hired two members of the Hines Development team to build the Block H building for them. Elizabeth Darby is the Vice President of Construction for Hines. Ms. Darby presented a video to show the status of the Block H Building Site. Ms. Darby stated that there were eighteen (18) 7 (12/22/22) �conditions included in the February 22, 2022 approved Amended Site Plan and Limited ARB resolution. Ms. Darby stated that the submission addresses all of the outstanding items. Eight (8) of the outstanding conditions are required prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. Ms. Darby stated that an agreement is required between Sleepy Hollow Residences, LLC at Block F, the future Block K developer, and LL Parcel H, LLC in order to satisfy the parking requirements for the Block H building. They submitted preliminary parking agreements for review. They are working with their legal team to address the comments received from the Building Department. Ms. Darby stated that they are working on how to designate the the forty-five (45) public spaces. Ms. Darby requested that the Planning Board defer the signage requirements from the issuance of the Building Permit and allow them to file separate signage permits in order to coordinate with the signage consultants, the master developer, and to receive opinions from the future retailers that will occupy spaces. Ms. Darby stated that an updated logistics plan has been submitted for review by the Building Department. Benjamin Nielsen asked Sean McCarthy how the Village has handled way-finding signage in other developments. Mr. McCarthy stated that way-finding signage has not been applicable to other developments in the Village. Since parking requirements for one development Block are being shared with other development Blocks, there needs to be mechanisms to direct the residents and the public. Ms. Darby stated that they submitted a final utilities plan for review and approval as part of the Building Permit application submission. All review and permit application fees have been paid. Ms. Darby stated that as part of the final landscape plan, they are proposing to use architectural metal screening in lieu of landscaping to hide utility equipment and to provide the required locations and accessibility for Con Edison. Mr. Nielsen questioned why they are proposing metal screening instead of material that would match the façade of the building. Ms. Darby stated that the proposed metal screening would coordinate with the metal railings proposed along the front of the façade and that they are using similar metal screening for the mechanical equipment on the rooftop. The screening has to provide a gate access for the utility companies. David Smith asked Ms. Darby to display the proposed graphics of the metal screening. Ms. Darby presented an elevation drawing that detailed the proposed screening. Mr. Nielsen requested that Ms. Darby provide a full elevation and a rendering for the proposed metal screening due to the location and visibility along Westward Drive. Ms. Darby stated that she would submit a full elevation drawing and a rendering for the metal screening for the Boards review. Ms. Darby stated that the landscape plan details the additional landscaping that will be installed between Westward Drive and Ichabod’s Landing. Ms. Darby stated that in response to the 10/14/22 consulting engineer’s memo, they are working on revising the peak flow rate of the county manhole and the sanitary sewer report. Ms. Darby stated that they relocated the grease trap to the inside of the garage and out of the right-of-way. They 8 (12/22/22) �relocated the fire department connection to above the water meter room and away from the building façade. The proposed ventilation area on Westward Drive was moved further south so it is setback from the property line and the sidewalk, and set behind the screening, and not visible. They will remove the sanitary manhole on Horseman Boulevard and reroute to filter down to the sanitary manhole on Westward Drive. Acting Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the Planning Board, consultants, or the Building Department. Acting Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Boards’ main concern is how the public street parking spaces will be managed because if residents have to rent and pay for their parking spots, what will preclude them from using the street parking spaces for free, and then limiting the parking spaces available for visitors. Ms. Darby stated that they would like to continue their discussions with the Building Department staff and legal teams to finalize the parking agreements while having Building Permits issued. Mr. McCarthy stated that the signage requirements can be deferred as a condition of the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, Joshua Subin suggested that the parking agreements could be subject to approval from him and Mr. McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Board might want the opportunity to weigh in on the parking terms and the directions to other locations. Acting Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Smith how the Board would work the signage requirements into a resolution and asked the Board if they are comfortable directing staff to draft a resolution. Mr. Smith stated that they could revise the signage requirements to be condition required before the issuance of a temporary or final Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Tompkins if the utility landscape screening at Ichabod’s Landing is part of the application. Mr. Tompkins stated that they plan to complete the landscape utility screening at Ichabod’s Landing in the Spring. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Board has requested to see additional details on the metal utility screening, the parking agreements, and the final sanitary sewer report. Acting Chairperson Krakauer suggested that the applicant prepare responses for the next meeting. Ms. Darby asked if the sanitary sewer report is a requirement of the Building Permit issuance. James Natarelli stated that the reason that they are asking that the sewer report be completed prior to issuing the Building Permit is because the Block H building and another building are tributary to a manhole where the pipes leading to it are running close to capacity. In the previous 9 (12/22/22) �approval, the Health Department capped off how much wastewater the developer could send to those pipes. The Boards needs to see if any change to bedroom counts or spaces would increase the amount of wastewater going to the pipes. Ms. Darby stated that the applicant reduced the number of apartments in Block H so the demand should be sufficient for the Health Department. Mr. Nielsen stated that the elevations for the proposed metal screening detail is not just important to consider in the relation to the Block H building but how it would interact with the public space. Ms. Darby stated that the proposed screening would be located on a short distance after the Block H garage entrance and will be not be visible from the park or the River Walk area. Acting Chairperson Krakauer asked Ms. Darby if they considered adding additional plantings along the metal screening. Ms. Darby stated that there would not be room to add additional landscaping and still provide the utility clearance access that Con Edison requires. Mr. Tompkins stated that since the streets currently do not have parking regulations, residents from Northlight are using street parking and not moving their cars. When the Village takes over the street and activates the alternate side parking regulations, there will be more residents willing to pay for parking. Mr. Tompkins stated that it will take approximately two years to build the Block H building and they anticipate occupancy in the third quarter of 2024. Mr. Tompkins asked if the issuance of the Building Permit is pending the approval of a resolution. Mr. McCarthy stated that the current resolution of approval stands until the Planning Board votes to change it. Mr. McCarthy suggested that the Board could approve revisions to the time line of the some of the condition requirements that are not design related. The sanitary sewer report is the only condition that is required to address before issuing the Building Permit. Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. McCarthy if the Building Department is ready to issue a Building Permits. Mr. McCarthy stated that it would be some time before the developer would be constructing the utility screening and parking spaces, and that any significant changes to the design would not alter the work related to the foundation and other pertinent permits required at the beginning of the project. The Board and the consultants had a discussion on which conditions the Board could amend on the resolution in order to issue the Building Permit. Mr. McCarthy stated that the Board could vote to approve amending the language on the adopted resolution and to direct staff to draft a confirmatory resolution. Motion was made to amend the February 17, 2022 resolution of approval modifying condition #5 to require submission of the revised Sanitary Sewer report prior to the issuance of a Building 10 (12/22/22) �Permit, and to modify condition # 3 and #4 requiring that the shared the parking agreements and way-finding signage to be satisfied on or before the March 16, 2023 meeting. Moved: Krakuer Seconded: Carney Lindsay Krakauer - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan- yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Vote 4-0 Vote 4-0 APPROVED David Smith stated he will draft a confirmatory resolution for review at the the January 19, 2022 meeting. 8. Approval of minutes- November 17, 2022 The Board tabled the approval of the November 17, 2022 minutes to the January 19, 2023 meeting. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 PM. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Carney Vote 4-0 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 11 (12/22/22) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2022-12-22_Approved Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/70431d0526f9ba6538a52440d666dd60.pdf 593f8bef88ab62eed650c7efbf8c26bb PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes January 7, 2021 The special work session and meeting was held via Zoom webinar and was called to order at 6:30 PM by Chairperson Marjorie Hsu. Residents could not attend in person due to the COVID19 pandemic, but could participate by phone and video conferencing. The Board and the applicants participated by videoconferencing. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Erin Carney Kersten Harries Tom Andruss Ed McCarthy Lindsay Krakauer Matthew Brennan Also Present: Clinton Smith, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner Anthony Catalano, Consulting Engineer Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 199 Beekman Avenue, Phase III, preliminary subdivision plat and Block O/P partial site plan approval - Draft resolution 1. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 199 Beekman Avenue, Phase III, preliminary subdivision plat and Block O/P partial site plan approval - Draft resolution David Smith stated that a revised resolution has been circulated to the Planning Board and the applicants' team. Comments have been received from the applicant. David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution and solicited the applicant to add comments as needed. Clinton Smith asked David Smith if Townhome One will be the defined term name for this application. David Smith stated that Townhome One is a defined term used on the resolution. 1 (1/7/21) �David Smith stated that the applicant requested that the language be revised for the second condition of the resolution stating that subsequent submissions for townhome development mirrored facades shall be only permitted with a vertical delineation. Sean McCarthy stated that the Village doesn't want to prohibit the ability for the applicant to mirror the designs of the townhomes, but there should be a clear vertical delineation or separation in the architectural materials between the townhome units. There was a discussion on the process for approving the architectural facades for subsequent townhome unit designs as it relates to the role of the Planning Board acting as the Architectural Review Board Kersten Harries asked Peter Chavkin if mirrored facades could be avoided. Peter Chavkin is the Managing Partner of Biddle Real Estate Ventures and stated that mirrored facades could be avoided but the use of mirrored facades with vertical separation provides an elegant architectural tool in the development. Andrew Tung is an associate with Divney Tung Schwalbe LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung shared an illustration and explained where the high visibility units, referenced in resolution condition number 6, will be located. The Planning Board, consultants, and the Village Architect discussed and agreed to the revised language for the resolution condition numbers two, five, and six. There was a discussion on condition number seven and how it relates to the initial 2015 site plan documents and presentation. Peter Chavkin stated that site plan amendment applications were submitted by Toll Brothers and approved by the Planning Board in 2018 which detailed grading issues and flood map concerns that eliminated the capability to accommodate private patio options for certain townhome units. James FitzPatrick is the Division President of the New York Region for Toll Brothers Inc. and stated that elevation changes prevented options for patios for certain units in Block-J. Mr. FitzPatrick stated that structural suggestions provided by Sean McCarthy are being considered that would allow for patio spaces and still retain the 5-foot front yard setback. Mark Weingarten is a partner in the law firm of Delbello Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP representing the applicant and stated that they have requested that the front yard setback language be revised to 5 feet to allow for instances where the 7-foot front yard setback cannot be accomplished. Mr. Weingarten stated that they will utilize best efforts to accommodate for patios where appropriate and that they will provide site plans for the Planning Board to review. Chairperson Hsu questioned whether it is the vertical elevation height of the structure or the front yard setback that prevents the options for patio areas. 2 (1/7/21) �James FitzPatrick shared an illustration and described the intentions of the designs for the front patio spaces and the concerns related to the flood elevations at certain unit locations. Allowing the change from a 7-foot front yard setback to a 5-foot front yard setback will allow Toll Brothers Inc. to continue using their current architectural drawings without substantial revisions to the unit designs. Mr. FitzPatrick stated that the front patio areas will be accommodated in the design of the balance of the O/P townhomes. Peter Chavkin stated that they will address the desire for ground level patios on the street level facing units with new architectural designs for the balance of the Block O/P townhome units. They agree to explore Sean McCarthy's suggestions for the proposed twenty units but request to keep the front yard setback at 5 feet. The Planning Board, consultants, the Village Architect, and the applicants discussed and agreed to the revised resolution language of condition number seven. David Smith stated that condition number 13 relates to utility meter locations. The development at Ichabod's Landing incorporated the meters within each of the units. James FitzPatrick stated that they have no issues with complying with the condition for the mechanical and electrical meters however, Con Edison no longer allows for gas meters to be located inside the buildings unless a conditional waiver is granted. Sean McCarthy stated that Toll Brothers has worked out the locations for the mechanical equipment and electrical meters. They have relocated gas meters on the end units, and have been researching splitting the buildings so that they have more opportunities for screening in the alleyways. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicants should make their best efforts to explore recessing the gas meters in compliance with Con Edison specs and with their current plans. Chairperson Hsu stated that the location of the gas meters will be managed by Sean McCarthy and the Building Department. The Planning Board, consultants, Village Architect, and the applicants discussed and agreed to revised resolution language for condition number thirteen. The Planning Board, consultants, and the Village Architect agreed to the revised resolution language for condition numbers eight, nine, eleven and fourteen. The Planning Board, the consultants, and the application agreed to revised language for the first "Whereas" clause of the resolution. Chairperson Hsu called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM. Chairperson Hsu stated that all the Planning Board members are in attendance and read the agenda. Motion was made to approve the resolution. 3 (1/7/21) �Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: McCarthy Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Erin Carney - yes Tom Andruss - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Vote 7-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 PM. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 4 (1/7/21) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2021-01-07 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/617e679541e1a8a02baa61658e9353d0.pdf 908b837bcf70a0730faae14f6c1f7650 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2026-07-09__7-9-26 Approved Planning Board Work Session Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b82991ef75bcb8505d5b9cf4eb985958.pdf 9786a542696ee504f222bbb4964a6dc5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2025-12-18_Block Q Filling Operations approved resolution Q 12-18-25 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/12e6811eb009edc27415b657ca0847ba.pdf e4ad2370bb76e94ff7bd7450502d2b9d PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes November 21, 2024 Chairperson Krakauer called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. Chairperson Krakauer read the agenda and stated that Quality High LLC has withdrawn their application for the proposed cannabis dispensary at 36-38 Beekman Avenue. The applicant for 16 Hudson Sreet has also requested an adjournment. The public hearing procedure requirements for the application submitted by SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, were discussed. Present: Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson Richard Gross Ken Anderson Chris Camia Rachelle Gebler Also Present: Joshua B. Subin, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Absent: Benjamin Nielsen Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) Joshua Egan and Jennifer Schwartz, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Proposed detached garage with accessory dwelling, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval 2) Quality High, LLC, 36-38 Beekman Avenue, Proposed cannabis dispensary, Site Plan & Architectural Review- Public hearing-Application withdrawn 3) SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block A Proposed medical office building, Site Plan and Architectural Review ApprovalPublic hearing, Pending ZBA Approval 4) One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 308-318 Legend Drive, Proposed (6) unit townhome building, Amended Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Presentation 5) KWD Realty, LLC, 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed mixed-use building, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Presentation 6) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III- Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalPresentation 1 (11/21/24) �7) 16 Hudson Street Realty, 16 Hudson Street, Proposed parking area, Site Plan ApprovalPreliminary Presentation-Requested adjournment 8) Approval of minutes, October 17, 2024 1. Joshua Egan and Jennifer Schwartz, 120 Gorey Brook Road, Proposed detached garage with accessory dwelling, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Public Hearing David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution. Richard Gross moved to approve the resolution. Moved: Gross Seconded: Gebler Chairperson Krakauer- yes Richard Gross- yes Rachelle Gebler- yes Chris Camia- yes Ken Anderson- abstained Vote 4-0-1 2. Quality High, LLC, 36-38 Beekman Avenue, Proposed cannabis dispensary Site Plan and Architectural Review – Public Hearing The Board received a request from the applicant to withdraw the application. 3. SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Block A Proposed medical office building, Site Plan & Architectural Review- Public Hearing, pending ZBA approval Richard Gross moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Gross Seconded: Camia Janet Giris is a partner with the law firm DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, and is presenting on behalf of the Applicant. Ms. Giris acknowledged that although the Board opened the public hearing, it will be adjourned and re-noticed for next month. At the June meeting, the Planning Board expressed concerns regarding the proposed parking spaces and architecture of the medical office building and parking structure. A new architect modified the architectural design of the medical office building and added a new parking structure with 52 parking spaces. This would provide 238 parking spaces in the structure and 426 parking spaces on the site. Ms. Giris stated that although the height of the parking structure requires a variance, it would not be higher than the building’s bulkhead and the DeCiccos Supermarket. Ms. Giris stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals requested additional information, which will be provided for the December meeting. Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. 2 (11/21/24) �Ted Lai stated that he is the owner of 102 Legend Drive. He appreciates the applicant moving of the loading zone to the back of the building and that a variance request for parking is a compromise. Chairperson Krakauer adjourned the public hearing to the December 19, 2024 meeting. 4. One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 308-318 Legend Drive, Proposed (6) unit townhome building, Amended Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval - Presentation Peter Chavkin stated that he is the Managing Partner of Sun Homes. Mr. Chavkin stated changes have been made to address the comments from the Planning Board and the Building Department. Changes include the removal of the planters and trees between the roof terraces on the proposed application and the previously approved buildings. Owners will have options for individual planter boxes. Unit designation numbers have been reduced from 8 inches to 4 inches in height. The precast concrete lintel material was thickened above and below the windows and on top of the door to match the brick at 3 ½ inches, and window boxes were added. Details were added to the plans to detail the locations of the gas meters, electric meters, and vapor mitigation system ports. Utility meters will be screened with perennial plantings to satisfy requests from the Building Department. Signage was added for the Fire Department as required. The rooftop mechanical equipment will be fully enclosed. He described the construction and proposed materials for the Washington Wall separating the front yards from the sidewalk. He said the wall would not exceed 24 inches or include horizontal seams. He presented the brick façade material samples to show how colors would delineate the units. Chris Camia asked if the same brick colors are proposed for all 90 townhome units and if underground utility lines will run from the front of the building to connect the meters on the sides of the building. Mr. Chavkin stated that the brick colors are for this building and may differ for the buildings facing the park. The utility lines are proposed to run around the building, not underground. Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Chavkin if the design for the rooftop shade structures had been finalized. Mr. Chakin stated that they are not currently proposing rooftop shade structures. They do not intend to install rooftop pergolas but may develop an idea for some retractable awnings in a future application. Richard Gross stated that the Fire Department Sprinkler connection signage should be indicated correctly. Mr. Chavkin stated that the location for the signage will be confirmed with the Building Department during the Building Permit drawings review David Smith asked Mr. Chavkin to confirm the roof coverage on the end units. 3 (11/21/24) �Mr. Chavkin stated that they show approximately 72% coverage and the Board was previously comfortable with a condition to allow them to increase from the required 50% coverage on the low visibility end units. Chairperson Krakauer stated that she is comfortable with the coverage condition and polled the Board for their comments. The Board members were amenable to the additional coverage condition on the end units. Mr. Camia suggested backlighting the unit numbers for visibility. Mr. Chavkin stated that they intend to have the unit numbers lighted. Chairperson Krakauer requested that David Smith read the draft resolution David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution. Rachelle Gebler asked if the condition regarding pergolas should be removed since it is not part of the proposed plan. There was a discussion regarding the applicability of some of the previously approved resolution conditions. The Planning Board agreed that approval was based on the current site plan drawings and agreed to keep conditions as limitation restrictions. Richard Gross moved to approve the amended draft resolution. Moved: Camia Seconded: Gebler Chairperson Krakauer- yes Richard Gross- yes Rachelle Gebler- yes Chris Camia- yes Ken Anderson- yes Vote 5-0 5. KWD Realty, LLC, 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed mixed-use building, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval -Presentation Bruno Pietrosanti stated that he is the project architect representing the owner, Mr. Karl Dibble. Changes to the application include removing the drive-through restaurant, shifting the building within 10 feet of the property line along North Broadway, and adding planter base retaining walls along the property line. The building structure was redesigned to step in and out to reduce the view impacts from the street, and the parking area is proposed to be covered. An architectural tower element and a combination of brick and precast façade materials were added. The current plan would require variances for a front yard setback of 10 feet where 20 feet is required, a 5-foot rear yard setback variance where 20 feet is required, limited height variance for the rear yard, and lot coverage for covering the parking area. Mr. Pietrosanti presented view renderings 4 (11/21/24) �of the proposed building and stated that architectural details are open for improvements. He plans to address the Village Engineers' stormwater comments upon approval of the concept plan. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the proposed building height and massing are viewed as excessive and asked Mr. Pietrosanti if they could design a structure that is as of right and in conformance with the Code and permitted uses. Mr. Pietrosanti stated that the applicant desired 100,000 square feet to be successful, where they would expect 60% occupancy and adequate rentable space availability. Providing the requested architectural details and covered parking area would increase construction costs. Approval of the requested variances would allow the applicant to address the Board’s concerns. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Planning Board has the authority to recommend the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals and requested that the applicant consider a design for that meets the allowable requirements for the intended use. Karl Dibble, the property owner, stated that several changes have been made to the proposed structure's aesthetics to address the Board’s request to bring the building forward and to close the parking entranceways. Spaces are proposed with garage doors for car storage. Several variances for bulk and height have been approved for residential structures at the Riverfront Development, where he seeks to build a commercial building. Joshua Subin stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals reviews applications for variance approvals. The Planning Board can provide a positive or negative recommendation regarding the proposed site plan. The Planning Board is expressing concerns that the site plan is too massive. Comparisons to other Village properties, reasons why the applicant feels variances are warranted, and what the market would tolerate for what is needed for a return on investment for the structure should be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals has the purview to make an independent determination. Mr. Dibble provided a history of his experience obtaining Planning Board approvals for this property and expressed how the village has discontinued utilizing his commercial and retail services with prejudice. Without a positive referral from the Planning Board, the Zoning Board may not approve the variance requests. The self-storage facility examples provided in David Smith’s review were from Somers and a rural area in Pawling, New York. Examples should have been provided to show self-storage facility designs from neighboring river towns in Westchester County. Height variances are required to provide the step-back design for a building when the property is situated on a hill. The current property use is approved as a general contracting yard, recycling facility, mixed-use with residential, and a material supply yard. A self-storage facility use would have the least impact on the school system, traffic, and the environment. If the approved recycling business were fully operational, a line of dump trucks would be waiting on North Broadway to get on site. A self-storage facility would greatly benefit the Village because the residential riverfront development provides very little storage and parking capabilities for extra vehicles. 5 (11/21/24) �Mr. Subin stated it is his role to establish a good record and to avoid liability for the Village. There has been no animosity from the Planning Board or Mr. Smith. He requested that David Smith have the opportunity to address the comments directed at him. David Smith stated that he agrees with Mr. Dibble concerning his comments about the comparison with a self-storage facility in Pawling. His comments were intended to show that a storage facility doesn’t have to look like a storage facility. Huge is a term of art. The proposed building in its context is what the Board has to determine Rachelle Gebler stated that the Planning Board has concerns regarding the height variance of 52 ½ feet, where 35 feet is permitted, and the lot coverage of 83.7%, where 60% is permitted. Mr. Pietrosanti stated that the building's mass has been reduced. Bringing the building forward to the street line adds to the coverage impact with the covered parking. He asked the Board to consider the similarity of the Open Door facility in relation to its massing and parking structure. Sean McCarthy stated that the Board's intention was to suggest shielding the parking area from the street view. Enclosing the area isn’t necessary. Mr. Pietrosanti stated that they could revert to the 24-foot front setback and install landscape screening along the 10-foot setback line to eliminate the issue of covering the parking area. Mr. McCarthy asked Mr. Pietrosanti how increasing the setback would help with the coverage and desire to obtain 100,000 square feet of space. Mr. Pietrosanti said they could add square footage below grade. Mr. McCarthy suggested that aligning the building setback with the adjacent street-line structures would provide a more attainable variance than height or coverage. The Planning Board suggested the applicant consider making improvements to step down the building massing, relocate loading bays and the refuse area, and be conscious of impacts to the residences along Lawrence Avenue. Richard Gross asked Mr. Pietrosanti why the applicant removed the café use. Mr. Pietrosanti stated that they determined that the café would cause further traffic impact Mr. Camia stated that the Board suggested that the applicant evaluate the traffic impact of a drive-through café and did not instruct the applicant to remove it. James Natarelli requested that applicant considering stormwater management now so to be sure that the proposed site plan could provide 100% retainage of the 100 year storm on the site based on the new construction. 6 (11/21/24) �No action was taken. 6. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III-Waterfront Open Space- Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit Approval- Preliminary Presentation Peter Chavkin stated that he is representing Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC and has nothing new to present. Woodard & Curran and WSP have communicated regarding questions related to the North Buffer / North Meadow section. He attended a Board of Trustees work session, which some Planning Board members attended. He requested to be included in the upcoming Work Session to discuss the proposed uses of the Boat House. A work session was held with the Board of Trustees to discuss proposed uses of the Boat House. Mr. Chavkin said he would resubmit the operating cost study prepared for the proposed ice skating rink options. Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Chavkin if wall alternatives have been designed. Mr. Chavkin stated that the Art Colonnade is an important park design feature. He is willing to consider alternating its length or removing it at the Board's request. The design and material finishes could be discussed at the upcoming work session. No action was taken. 7. 16 Hudson Street Realty, 16 Hudson Street, Proposed parking area, Site Plan Approval – Preliminary Presentation The Board received an adjournment request from the Applicant’s architect. The application was adjourned to the December 19, 2024 meeting. 8. Approval of minutes, October 17, 2024 Richard Gross moved to approve the October 17, 2024 meeting minutes. Moved: Gross Seconded: Gebler Chairperson Krakauer- yes Richard Gross- yes Rachelle Gebler- yes Chris Camia- yes Ken Anderson - abstained Vote 4-0-1 Chris Camia moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 PM. Moved: Camia Seconded: Gross Vote 5-0 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 7 (11/21/24) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2024-11-21 Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/c472117155dec852461046636d4490cf.pdf 45f0939eff36a519d2f5a20dcd17819b PDF Text Text ���� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2023-12-21_180 Bedford Road Approved Planning Board Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/c6088010b8717cf0aca91f936d9fa580.pdf be5d16b556eab5e8ab75ea8df73c2589 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes November 17, 2022 The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson Hsu. Chairperson Hsu stated that there is a quorum present. Chairperson Hsu introduced Benjamin Nielsen as a new Planning Board member and stated that he is a civil engineer for a consulting firm that focuses on making water accessible to people for recreation. Chairperson Hsu stated that she has submitted her resignation and that this will be her last meeting. Chairperson Hsu summarized the agenda. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Kersten Harries Benjamin Nielsen Matthew Brennan Rachelle Gebler Also Present: Joshua Subin, Village Attorney James Natarelli, Village Engineer David Smith, Village Planner Anthony Catalano, Consulting Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Absent: Lindsay Krakauer Erin Carney Agenda: 1) LL Parcel E, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 201 Horseman Boulevard, (Building E-3), Utility enclosure- Amended Site Plan Approval-Draft resolution 2) Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Continued public hearing 3) 46 Hudson St., LLC/Alex Tseng, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval - Referred to ZBA 4) Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval - Requested adjournment 5) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan Approval-Requested adjournment 6) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit- Preliminary Presentation 7) Approval of minutes, October 20, 2022 1 (11/17/22) �1. LL Parcel E, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 201 Horseman Boulevard (Building E-3), Utility enclosure, Amended Site Plan approval- Draft resolution Mark Gratz stated that he is a Project Engineer for DTS Provident Engineering representing the applicant. The application proposes to install a second gas enclosure for Building E-3. The revised drawings address the comments from the Board including the reorientation of the gas enclosure and the addition of a floor drain. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Chairperson Hsu requested that David Smith read the highlights of the draft resolution. David Smith stated that the Village staff and the applicant have reviewed the draft resolution. Mr. Smith read the resolve clauses of the draft resolution. Motion was made to adopt the resolution. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Benjamin Nielsen - yes Rachelle Gebler- yes Matthew Brennan- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 2. Franceso Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site Plan approval-Continued public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 Maximillian Mahalek stated that he is an attorney with Cuddy + Feder LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Mahelek summarized the proposed application and stated that due to the recently adopted Zoning Code regulations, the appeal submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals was withdrawn. Minor changes have been made to the proposed application in order to comply with the new Zoning Code. Mr. Mahalek stated that the proposed application would not cause an adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood as it relates to Zoning Compliance, the amount of parking provided, and the provisions of landscaping and usable open space. The proposed architecture reflects the nature of some of the surrounding structures. The stormwater plans comply with the requirements for stormwater management. Mr. Mahalek requested that the Board close the public hearing and grant Site Plan approval. 2 (11/17/22) �Christopher Barbagli is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Barbagli stated the proposed changes include increasing the length of the building by 16 feet in order to add the fitness center back into the first floor. The fitness center will include changing rooms, bathrooms, and a refreshment center. Two one-bedroom apartments were relocated to the second floor and third floors. The rear and east elevations were revised to accommodate the new unit layouts, three outside parking spaces were moved to under the building, and the trash enclosure was moved to allow for an additional parking space. There are no changes proposed to the roof or the front elevation. Mr. Barbagli presented revised renderings to show the longer building viewed from the street and how the proposed building will look in relation the size of the property. Mr. Mahalek solicited questions from the Board. Chairperson Hsu asked if the increased building length would affect the proposed outdoor amenities. Mr. Barbagli stated that the outdoor space would not change as it is in the back of the property. David Smith asked Mr. Barbagli to demonstrate where the commercial district is located in relation to the property. Mr. Barbagli demonstrated on the aerial view rendering where the commercial and residential districts are located in relation to the property and the proposed building. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Barbagli if the proposed building length increase is now adjacent to the residential district neighboring properties. Ms. Harries stated that the previous site plan proposed the building to be entirely in the commercial district. Mr. Barbagli stated that the proposed building would extend 10 feet into the residential district. Rachelle Gebler asked Sean McCarthy if moving the building 10 feet adjacent to the residential district effects the required rear yard setback. Sean McCarthy stated that the adjoining residential district does not affect the rear yard setback on the applicant’s property. Although it reduces the proposed setback, they still meet the setback requirements. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Barbagli how the increased building size effects the proposed floor area coverage. Mr. Barbagli stated that the permitted floor area ratio is 1.4 floor and the proposed building has a floor area ratio of .85 to .95. Kersten Harries requested the architect submit the revised renderings to the Board. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Barbagli if alterations to the existing driveway are required and how it will affect the street parking. 3 (11/17/22) �Mr. Barbagli stated that the larger curb cut would eliminate (1) street parking space. Mr. McCarthy suggested that Mr. Barbagli provide a compact parking space. Mr. Barbagli stated that he would check to see if providing a compact parking space is possible. Ms. Harries requested that Mr. Barbagli be sensitive to the lighting levels on the eastern side as per the concerns received from neighboring property owners. Ben Nielsen asked Mr. Barbagli to explain how the diagonal parking spaces will be utilized and asked if there are garage doors for the under building parking. Mr. Barbagli demonstrated on the site plan how the parking turning radius work and stated that the parking area under the building is open. Chairperson Hsu stated that there has been extensive discussions on the parking layout and the traffic flow, including the accessible spots. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. James Natarelli stated that there is a difference between the architect’s site plan and the engineer’s site plan as it relates to the connection from the front patio to the sidewalk. Mr. Natarelli asked Mr. Barbagli to confirm if a secondary set of stairs is proposed. Mr. Barbagli stated that he would review with the engineer and confirm if the set of stairs are required. James Natarelli asked if the building’s front balconies are open and not proposed to have a roof, and if they are installing scuppers to capture the runoff and to avoid water going onto the sidewalk. Mr. Barbagli stated that the front balconies will be open and that they propose to have scuppers and leaders to capture the runoff. Kersten Harries asked how far the adjacent neighboring buildings are from the proposed building. Ms. Harries suggested that the proposed building be aligned or behind the neighboring buildings and not projecting in front of them. Ben Nielsen asked Mr. Barbagli to explain why the windows are different on the east elevation side. Mr. Barbagli stated that he designed the windows for circulation because the east elevation contains two staircases, the elevator, and the trash room. Ms. Harries suggested that the applicant consider providing three-bedroom apartments, and stated that although it may affect the unit count, there is a great demand for them. 4 (11/17/22) �Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Barbagli if the applicant has considered the rental pricing for the apartment units. Mr. Mahalek stated that pricing of rental apartments is not the purview of the Planning Board. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board previously discussed rental pricing with the applicant. David Smith stated that the applicant had committed to having three of the apartments with comparable rental prices to the three existing units. Mr. Mahalek stated that the comments could be included as conditions of the approval or be part of the consideration with the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Mahalek requested that the Board close the public hearing so they can focus on the getting the plans ready for Site Plan approval. Chairperson Hsu stated that the application proposes a significant development on lower Beekman Avenue, which is a prominent street in the Village. Since there has been such a large gap in time since the public was involved, the Board suggests keeping the public hearing open one more month so that members of the public have the opportunity to comment on the changes to the application. Kersten Harries agreed that the proposed changes are significant enough where the Board needs time to review them and that the public should have an opportunity to comment. Mr. Mahalek asked if the applicant is required to re-notice the public hearing. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board is not requiring the applicant to re-notice the public hearing. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Mahalek if the applicant would be ready for Architectural Review Board review because the Board would prefer to grant one approval. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the December 22, 2022 meeting. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Gebler Vote 5-0 3. 46 Hudson St., LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan Approval – Referred to the ZBA Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board referred the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The applicant will be appearing at the December 22, 2022 meeting for a public hearing pending approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 21, 2022. No action was taken. 4. Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan Approval - Requested adjournment 5 (11/17/22) �Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment to the December 22, 2022 meeting. No action was taken. 5. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan Approval- Preliminary Presentation- Requested adjournment Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment to the December 22, 2022 meeting. No action was taken. 6. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Phase II - Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalPreliminary presentation Andrew Tung is an associate with DTS Provident Engineering representing the applicant. Mr. Tung stated that when they presented Phase I of the Waterfront Open Space in 2020, there was a master plan for the entire space that wraps around the site. The waterfront open space consists of three components, which include the Promenade, the Overlook, and Palisades Green. As part of Phase I, the Promenade and the Overlook were constructed and recently opened. Phase II includes Palisades Green as well as its extension eastward into the third section of Tappan Zee Park, and the eastern border in the space between Hollows Pass and the Kingsland Point Park buffer. Lanie McKinnon is a landscape architect from Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects representing the applicant. Ms. McKinnon presented the proposed site plan and stated that within the Palisades Green, there are separate components of the Phase II waterfront open space. The Lighthouse Terrace will be a gathering space that will have a continuous view to the lighthouse through the development. The Palisades Green will be a big open recreational lawn that allows for picnics. The proposed Cove will provide access for waterfront kayak use. The eastern part of Tappan Zee Park will contain a more calm lawn space and more robust plantings since it will be in between housing. Phase II also proposes three circles with historical references. The Woodland Circle and the Meadows Circle designs propose ideas of nature play and exploration. The Lawn Circle provides views of the waterfront. Ms. McKinnon presented renderings and described the natural materials, paths, art, and landscaping proposed for the circle areas. Ms. McKinnon stated that an interactive fountain is intended as part of the Boathouse Interpretive Center future phase of the Waterfront. They propose to use the same benches and lighting installed in Phase I to provide easier maintenance methods. Rachelle Gebler asked if this plan includes the plan for the Interpretive Center or just the landscaping. Ms. McKinnon stated that they have not designed the Boathouse. The design will be a part of the Block Q performance. They discussed and sited the location of the Boathouse with the Public Space Council in order to make sure that the views in the park stay open. 6 (11/17/22) �Chairperson Hsu asked if the Public Space Council is still doing requirements gathering for the functions of the Boat House Interpretive Center. Peter Chavkin is a Managing Member of Biddle Real Estate Ventures on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Chavkin stated that they have had discussions with the Public Space Council on what the functions of the Boathouse Interpretive Center will be and the he does not think they have reached a final determination. Mr. Chavkin stated that they are seeking to accelerate the development and construction of the Waterfront Open Space. They are holding off on the center because of limited resources but acknowledged that the Boathouse Interpretive Center is a commitment and a requirement of the Special Permit. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Chavkin to confirm the projected timeframe for Phase II. Mr. Chavkin stated that certain aspects would start immediately as the Kingsland Point Park buffer is a requirement for Certificates of Occupancy in Block O&P. The third section of Tappan Zee Park is a requirement for Certificates of Occupancy in the Block O&P building that fronts the space. Mr. Chavkin stated that they have applied for grant funding from Empire State Development in order to accelerate the other part of the waterfront open space. They plan to start construction next year. Rachelle Gebler asked Ms. McKinnon to explain where the access path is from the circle to Kingsland Point Park. Ms. McKinnan located the path at the roundabout on the Site Plan. Peter Chavkin stated that the path is designed as an emergency access connection requirement coming off the roundabout heading into Kingsland Point Park. The access path would remain closed with a fence going into the Park and that the intention will be for emergency services. The Public Space Council stated that their important design objective was to have one means of pedestrian access at the existing entrance of Kingsland Point Park. If the Board wants this path to be accessible for a pedestrian connection, they will do so. Rachelle Gebler stated that it would be very useful to be able to get from that side of the development into Kingsland Point Park. David Smith stated that there seems to be a disconnect from some of what the Public Space Council has provided for guidance and the official policy documents that the Village has because it clearly shows on the Riverfront Development Concept Plan that there will be a pedestrian walkway to the Park from the roundabout. There are similar issues documented in his memo that will need ironing out with the Board. Benjamin Nielsen stated the Kingsland Point Park site and the Waterfront are not well connected. Mr. Neilson asked if the primary focus of the Kingsland buffer area is stormwater retention treatment. Peter Chavkin stated that the topography of the buffer area has to be kept low for FEMA flood level requirements in order to handle potential floodwaters from the Pocantico River over topping the train tracks and that the meadow area had to be kept low. Their original vision was to 7 (11/17/22) �build the meadow area up and to provide more of a seamless connection between the open space and Kingsland Point Park. Mr. Nielsen suggested providing more of a looping access through the Cove around Kingsland Point Park, and suggested a boardwalk style pathway through the park. Ms. McKinnon stated that they designed the pathways at grade to avoid washing out from water flow. Peter Chavkin stated that they have design restraints because Westchester County owns Kingsland Point Park and the Village of Sleepy Hollow manages it. Mr. Chavkin stated that they are open to working with the County to help with enhanced connections. Chairperson Hsu suggested that Ben review the drawings for the Sleepy Hollow Commons and stated that they show more context for the reasons why they designed the plans for the Wetlands. David Smith stated that as part of the Boat House Interpretive Center, there was a plan for a transient boat dock. Mr. Smith asked Peter Chavkin if the transient boat dock will be included in the future proposal, or if it will not be a part of the overall proposal. Peter Chavkin stated that the transient boat dock in the North Cove is not part of their overall plan. The dock on the southern face and the fishing pier elements are a part of the plan. While they were working with the Public Space Council one of the key direction points was the location of the Boat House. Peter stated that in the Riverfront Design Concept Plan, the consultants focused on siting the location of the Boathouse and preserving the views. When they finalized the location, it was most important to create a pathway to provide access to the water for activities. When they submitted their original application, they had proposed to expand the Cove beach area, but it was rejected by various regulatory agencies. David Smith stated that the walk-in access from the water to the Boat House and the transient boat dock launch element is a critical piece of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program for providing waterfront access for independent uses. Not allowing the public additional access to the waterfront is a deficiency in the plan. Peter Chavkin stated that he would review the history of the Village documents. Peter Chavkin stated that they have their approval for the Phase I docks but that they missed the window for this year to start construction and that they will have to wait until September 1st through October 31st of next year. Ben Nielsen asked Peter Chavkin if the Boathouse use would include the availability to rent slips and or have rentals and deliveries of kayaks and paddleboards. Mr. Chavkin stated that the Village decides how to design and maintain the use of the Boathouse Interpretive Center. 8 (11/17/22) �Ben Nielsen suggested that the applicant design the Kingsland Point Park access path to accommodate the public, provide a better connection between the road and the access path, and provide some sort of pull off lawn space so that visitors can unload recreational equipment and then park their cars on the road. Kersten Harries asked Ms. McKinnon to confirm that parking is only available on the street and asked how the proposed natural play areas compare in scale to others created. Ms. McKinnon stated that there will be 3,500 square feet inside the play circles. Chairperson Hsu stated that it took two years to build the Phase I waterfront open space and asked for the projection for Phase II. Ms. McKinnon stated that it would take two planting seasons to complete. Ben Nielsen suggested that the applicant provide more access to the water’s edge. Mr. Nielsen suggested that terraced boulders would provide the ability to get down closer to the water and the ability for someone to get out of the water safely in an emergency. Peter Chavkin stated that a study was completed and that they were required to repair the rip-rap in certain locations. The evaluation of other barriers methods has not been a consideration. David Smith stated that the rip-rap discussions related to safety concerns and building code issues in Phase I. The considerations that were included in the design for Ichabod’s Landing did not come out as intended and that a barrier was necessary. Mr. Smith stated that he agrees with Ben Nielsen and that there needs to be more of a discussion on the relationship with the site, the rip-rap and the Hudson River. Andrew Tung stated that they would review the Board’s comments and prepare a revised submission for presentation at a future meeting. No action was taken. 7. Approval of minutes- October 20, 2022 Motion was made to approve the October 20, 2022 minutes. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Matthew Brennan- yes Benjamin Nielsen - abstained Vote 4-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 PM. Moved: Hsu Seconded: Gebler 9 Vote 5-0 (11/17/22) �Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 10 (11/17/22) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2022-11-17_Approved Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/70003a47476427c8130542ec3459b40b.pdf 965125b13ba70df5c2cf88f37f371fb4 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the January 21,2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board RESOLUTION: Final Plat Approval PROPOSED: Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment LOCATION: Hudson Valley Writer Center 300 Riverside Drive TAX MAP DESIGNATION 115.6-1-2 ZONING: R-2 One Family Residence, Low Density WHEREAS, the Hudson Valley Writers Center (the "Applicant") had previously been granted subdivision approval on 2/16/95 for an approximately 0.1458 parcel associated with the former Philipse Manor Train Station now home to the Hudson Valley Writers Center from the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Planning Board"); and WHEREAS, the original subdivision approval was not filed properly with the Westchester County Clerk's office and the approval has subsequently lapsed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the following materials: 1. Cover letter from Kristin Pelatti on behalf of the Applicant dated 12/2/20; 2. Planning Board Application dated 11/24/20 signed by Donald Stever, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Hudson Valley Writers Center, Inc. 3. Property Survey prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers Inc dated 8/20/20; 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form, dated 11/24/20 signed by Donald Stever; 5. Coastal Assessment Form, undated and unsigned; 6. Review memo from Planning & Development Advisors dated 12/14/20; 7. Correspondence from Kristin Pelatti submitted on behalf of the Applicant dated 12/16/20 and 1/20/21; and 8. Subdivision Plat completed prepared by Ward Carpenter Engineers, Inc dated 1/6/21. WHEREAS, the Applicant as required by Section 425-7.C(l) has officially submitted the Final Subdivision Plat at the Planning Board's 1/21/21 regular meeting; and WHEREAS, the Applicant described as part of their 12/16/20 correspondence and at the 12/17/20 regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting that the Final Subdivision Plat had very minor adjustments compared to the Preliminary Subdivision Plat; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: Page 1 of 2 �1. 2. Received an application fee; Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Engineer, Village Planner and Building Inspector about the proposed project; 3. Requested, received and reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Planning Board, after review of the materials submitted, public comments and recommendations and the EAF has determined that the proposed action is a Type II Action and makes a determination of non-significance of environmental impact; and be it further RESOLVED, that the said Application for a final subdivision as shown on the Subdivision Plat prepared for the Hudson Valley Writers Center dated 1/6/21 is hereby granted approval and the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairperson on a copy of the resolution and the appropriate subdivision plan, which endorsement shall permit the filing of the Final Plat, provided however, that this approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Village Building Department, in accordance with the approved plan(s): 1. The Applicant shall pay the Village of Sleepy Hollow all application and review fees as 2. The Applicant is in negotiations with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) required by the Village Code prior to this resolution being signed. for an easement for pedestrian circulation over the northerly portion of the lot identified as "Macadam Pavement" on the Final Plat. A note shall be included on the Final Plat which states that if such easement is not in place within two years, then the Applicant will declare that portion of the Macadam Pavement running from the head of the stairway to the opposite border with that parcel identified as "Riverside Drive" on the Final Plat as an easement for the benefit of the public for so long as the area at the base of the stairs is fit for mass transportation of the public.. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW the undersigned ClerkgDeputy Clerk^do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true S p y of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Trustees^pnin^/Zonin^of the Village of Sleepy Hollow r on the ^ day of h>hrOa W. 2 0 ^ and of the whole thereof, and I further certif^lhat the same was entered intojtej^nutes of the meeting of said Board of Tmstees^Plannjn^Zoning held on said date. IN WITNESS WHEWEQF, I have^hereunto set my hand and official seal thisffi day of fabfWS'U , 20c>( )ep Page 2 of 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2021-01-21_300RiversideDrive-ApprovedResolution Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/8704cb6137b5c54db80d7df03e5645d3.pdf 7660121ceb82b7e3e9b336fafce5baae Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2026-06-18_6-18-26 Approved Planning Board Meeting Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9f4ecbe5d9abb5c8e1b54d497ec14bda.pdf 4a8dc39dcf964d9933a1b38842eaf070 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2025-12-18_Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/417a182421c0dcb8a642481ed4eac8bb.pdf 6e8affc0faf30c14229bf3977bf118e9 PDF Text Text ��� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2024-11-21_120 Gorey Brook Road Approved Planning Board Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2024 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/5a5ef9d42d3730361716625e1c0e894a.pdf f6368f782b654126e788f1916581768b PDF Text Text ������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2023-12-21_17 Pokahoe Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/6bf221e3eef97798dbb50e820c79a367.pdf 7bef09ab125573163eff63b2f57abb3c PDF Text Text ���� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2022-11-17_Approved Resolution EOH Block E Building E-3 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/62c03715a59483a1518bf09110b6e92f.pdf 7e03236d77d6c472d92b407491c7cce5 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the January 21,2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board RESOLUTION: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED: Conversion of former office space to residential LOCATION: 45,47,49 Beekman Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.11 Block 3, Lots 27, 28 and 29 ZONING: C-2 Central Commercial WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow has reviewed an application for site plan approval (the Application) pursuant to the Village Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Site Plan review, and to applicable laws and regulations considered pertinent to the Application, which is for the change in use by converting current vacant former office uses to multi-family residential use and continue certain commercial uses. The Application is submitted on behalf of Philip Adler, member of Sleepy Hollow Associates, LLC (the Applicant). WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the following materials: 1. Site Plan application package, dated 11/04/20, signed by Philip Adler; 2. Cover letter dated 11/05/20 from Kyle McGovern, project attorney; 3. Site plan set for the subject site, dated 11/04/20, Sheet S-2 last revised 1/18/21 submitted by David W. Mooney Architects; 4. Short Environmental Assessment Form, dated 11/4/20 signed by David W. Mooney; 5. Photo-documentation provided by the Applicant; 6. Review memoranda dated 11/17/20 and 1/5/21 Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, An Al Engineering Company Village Engineering Consultant; 7. Review memoranda from Planning & Development Advisors Village Planner, dated 11/18/20. 8. Correspondence from the Westchester County Planning Board dated 12/14/20; 9. Correspondence from R. Ricker received 12/16/20; Page 1 of 3 �10. Response letters from David W. Mooney Architects dated 12/15/20 and 1/18/21; WHEREAS, the proposal was discussed by the Planning Board at public meetings held at Village Hall on 11/19/20,12/17/20 and 1/21/21; and WHEREAS, on 12/16/20 the Applicant appeared before the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals and was granted the requested variances with a condition that the Applicant work with the Building Department on the height of the fence as the fence line approaches North Washington Street; and WHEREAS and 12/17/20 a duly noticed public hearing was held in which all members of the public were invited to be heard and said hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency pursuant to Part 617 of the Implementing Regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Received an application fee; 2. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Engineer, Village Planner and Building Inspector about the proposed project; 3. Requested, received and reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF); and 4. Held a duly noticed public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Planning Board, after review of the materials submitted, public comments and recommendations and the EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) has determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action and makes a determination of non-significance of environmental impact; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board has reviewed with the Applicant the Village of Sleepy Hollow Complete Streets checklist to determine what elements could be incorporated into the Site Plan and has determined with concurrence from the Applicant to provide a minimum of two street trees installed according to Village standards along the North Washington street front, bicycle parking and to the extent practicable, introduction of low maintenance landscaping within the existing parking lot; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the said Application for site plan approval relative to the change in use of the former office and commercial uses to multi-family residential units and commercial uses as shown on the site plan as revised 1/18/21 is hereby granted approval and the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chair on a copy of the resolution and upon the site plan drawings, as and when revised as necessary, which endorsement shall permit filing in the Sleepy Hollow Department of Architecture, Land Development, Buildings & Building Compliance (the Building Department) for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, provided however, that this approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Village Building Department, and, the Applicant has not obtained the required building permit or permits for construction in accordance with the approved plan(s): 1. The Applicant shall pay the Village of Sleepy Hollow all application and review fees as required by the Village Code prior to a building permit being issued. Page 2 of 3 �2. Documentation, sufficient in form and substance for the Village Engineer that the list of items outlined in the Village Engineer's 1/5/21 correspondence have been incorporated onto the Site Plan drawings or otherwise addressed; 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit that Applicant shall pay the required Recreation 4. The site plan shall be revised to reflect that the proposed fence for the parking lot buffer, Fund fee in accordance with Chapter 200-5 of the Village Code. garbage enclosure and recycling enclosure shall be solid, w o o d or similar material. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, an as built survey shall be provided to the Village Building Department, and any material change to the site plan from that approved by the Planning Board will require the Applicant to present the revised plan to the Planning Board for a site plan a m e n d m e n t . P L A N N I N G BOARD V I L L A G E OF SLEEPY H O L L O W Date I. ^ ( V l O ^ O C f j the undersigned Ciert^putyClerk; do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Tru^ee#lannin^Zonin^ of the Village of Sleepy Hciow, on the f g i d a y of f o . 2 0 ^ L _ and of the whole thereof, and I further certif^ that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Bioafri of Trusfeefr/Planninqfconinq held on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, t have^preunto set my hand Page 3 of 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2021-01-21_45-49BeekmanAvenue-ApprovedResolution Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/0b8e594e3732978098eb12a6f872389c.pdf a232791f0fe0aacd1e1c77c19b666b7c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2026-05-21_5-21-26 Approved Planning Board Meeting Minutes.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/4c30da4680c14748c25b32975a66548b.pdf 359616bb7d9b5a9ac8ab4372907b3d39 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes November 20, 2025 Chairperson Krakauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Chairperson Krakauer reviewed the agenda. Present: Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson Chris Camia Jay Schulz Ken Anderson Richard Gross Benjamin Nielsen Also Present: Joshua Subin, Village Attorney James Natarelli, Village Engineer David Smith, Village Planner Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) 188 Wyatt, LLC, 188 Cortlandt Street, Amended Site Plan Approval- Draft resolution 2) John Mancebo, 278 Harwood Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Continued public hearing, Draft resolution 3) Joseph & Devin Bandelli, 274 Kelbourne Avenue, Proposed pool, Site Plan ApprovalContinued public hearing, Draft resolution 4) 72 Beekman Avenue Enterprises, LLC, 72 Beekman Avenue, Proposed mixed-use building, Amended Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Continued public hearing 5) Pokahoe Riverview Manor, LLC, 17 Pokahoe Drive, Proposed single-family residence, Amended Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Public hearing 6) Russel Rodriguez, Main/Broadway, LLC, 467 1/2 Munroe Avenue, Proposed singlefamily residence, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Public hearing 7) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III- Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Permit Approval- Public hearing 8) KWD Realty LLC, 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed 4 story self-storage facility, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval -Discussion 1 (11/20/25) �9) Phelps Hospital/Northwell Health, 1 Phelps Lane, Nurses Residential Building, Proposed change of use- Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval - Preliminary Presentation 10) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Palisades Blvd., Block Q -material storage, Site Plan Approval – Preliminary Presentation 11) Approval of minutes, October 9, 2025, October 16, 2025 1. 188 Wyatt LLC, 188 Cortlandt Street, Amended Site Plan Approval -Discussion Chairperson Krakauer asked David Smith to read the draft resolution. David Smith read the resolved clause and conditions of the draft resolution. Richard Gross moved to the approve the resolution. Moved: Gross Seconded: Camia Chairperson Krakauer, yes Chris Camia - yes Richard Gross- yes Ken Anderson- yes Jay Schulz- yes Benjamin Nielsen- yes Vote 6-0 2. John Mancebo, 278 Harwood Avenue, Proposed additions and alterations, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Continued public hearing, Draft resolution Benjamin Nielsen moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Gross Seconded: Schulz Vote 6-0 Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Dipti Shah, the architect representing the applicant, stated that no changes have been made to the architectural drawings. James Natarelli stated that there are no outstanding engineering concerns. David Smith read the resolved clauses and conditions of the draft resolution. Richard Gross moved to close the public hearing and approve the resolution. Moved: Gross Seconded: Nielsen Chairperson Krakauer- yes 2 (11/20/25) �Chris Camia - yes Richard Gross- yes Ken Anderson- yes Jay Schulz- yes Benjamin Nielsen- yes Vote 6-0 3. Joseph & Devin Bandelli, 274 Kelbourne Avenue, Proposed pool, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Continued public hearing Richard Gross moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Gross Seconded: Schulz Vote 6-0 Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Sherman if the use of the pool has changed since the original application. Mr. Sherman stated that incorporating part of the pool into a hot tub would not change the pool's footprint or the location of the equipment proposed in the basement. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board has reviewed the application with respect to noise and street visibility. She asked Mr. Sherman how much of the pool would be utilized for lap swimming when considering the stairs. Mr. Sherman stated that the lap pool area would be 30 feet in length. The planting area is three feet wide and would provide enough room for the proposed plantings. Devin Bandelli stated that they propose eliminating the stairs and using the benches to step into the pool. The Board held a discussion with the applicant and design professionals regarding the width of the planting area, whether the plantings would provide adequate screening of the pool, and whether the plantings are salt-tolerant. James Natarelli discussed the open engineering comments with the applicants’ engineer, Brian Hildenbrand, related to the stormwater retention designs and elevations. Chairperson Krakauer asked Sean McCarthy if the Zoning Board of Appeals had approved the current use of the pool. Sean McCarthy stated that the Zoning Board approval did not include the spa. The Board requested that the applicant increase the size of the planting area, address the stormwater management concerns, and revise and coordinate the site plan, landscape plan, and engineering plans to correctly identify what is being proposed. Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. 3 (11/20/25) �There were no public comments. Devin Bandelli asked whether the Board would allow them to install the fencing before the pool's approval. The Board was not opposed to the proposed fence design and installation locations. Mr. McCarthy requested that the applicant identify the scope of work fencing they would like to complete, excluding the area where the wall replacement is proposed. Richard Gross asked Mr. McCarthy if the footing for the stone wall would be installed under the public right-of-way. Mr. McCarthy stated that the current wall extends into the right-of-way. The bulk of the footing would be on the back side of the wall. Chairperson Krakauer directed David Smith to draft a resolution. Richard Gross moved to continue the public hearing to the December 18, 2025 meeting. Moved: Gross Seconded: Anderson Vote 6-0 4. 72 Beekman Avenue, Proposed mixed-use building, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Continued public hearing. Benjamin Nieslen moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Camia Vote 6-0 Gabrielle Salman, the architect representing the applicant, described the proposed plans for new stormwater chambers in connection with the existing drywells and the inability to comply with the 100-year requirements. She described the proposed changes to the wall construction and location. James Natarelli described the outstanding concerns related to the stormwater design and the retention of groundwater at the proposed wall. Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. Ronald Steinvurzel is an attorney from Steinvurzel & Levy Law Group representing the owner of 74 Beekman Avenue. He described the property owners' concerns regarding the foundation, footings, curb cuts, drainage, and damage to the 74 Beekman Avenue building. Mr. Steinvurzel stated that he will be submitting comments and engineering evaluations in the upcoming week. Joshua Subin stated that the Planning Board is reviewing whether the construction of the 72 Beekman building complies with the site constraints. Although the Board may include conditions of approval, damages to 74 Beekman Avenue are civil matters between the property owners. 4 (11/20/25) �Richard Gross moved to continue the public hearing to the December 18, 2025 meeting. Moved: Gross Seconded: Camia Vote 6-0 5. Pokahoe Riverview Manor, LLC, 17 Pokahoe Drive, Proposed single-family residence Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Public hearing Richard Gross moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Gross Seconded: Anderson Vote 6-0 Michael Finelli is the architect representing Ronald Pohl, the applicant. Mr. Finelli stated that the proposed house is 4,037 square feet, with increased side-yard setbacks and reduced height and roof designs. Mr. Finelli summarized the proposed changes to the master bedroom windows, the front porch, and the entrance door. Chairperson Krakauer asked the applicant to confirm the proposed tree removals. Ronald Pohl stated that the plan includes removing the oak tree near the proposed horseshoe patio and that he intends to preserve the oak tree on the side of the property. David Delardi is the landscape architect for the project. He described the proposed landscape plan and indicated the oak tree they intend to remove and the oak tree they intend to save. Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Chairperson Krakauer directed David Smith to prepare a draft resolution for the next meeting. Mr. Finelli stated that the adjacent neighbors submitted letters in favor of the design. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board has received the correspondence from the neighboring property owners ( See Exhibits #s 1 & 2) Mr. Pohl asked whether the Board would allow alternative options for the southeast corner of the basement, pending potential rock-removal costs. Sean McCarthy stated that any change to an approved plan would require the applicant to submit an amended site plan application. He encouraged the applicant to finalize the plan details before the next meeting. The Board suggested providing plans that detail the alternatives. Richard Gross moved to continue the public hearing to the December 18, 2025 meeting. Moved: Gross Seconded: Schulz Vote 6-0 5 (11/20/25) �6. Russel Rodriguez, Main/Broadway, LLC, 467 1/2 Munroe Avenue, Proposed singleFamily residence, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval- Public hearing Richard Gross moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Gross Seconded: Nielsen Vote 5-0 Jonathan Merheb is the engineer representing the applicant. Mr. Merheb stated that the changes include adding an awning over the garage and eliminating the door from the master bedroom to the deck. Mr. Merheb stated that he is working to resolve engineering concerns related to site grading, retaining walls, and bringing the basement underground. The applicant has agreed to add a walkway from the front of the house to the street and to add a platform and stairway to provide access from the rear deck to the yard. He plans to move the house back two feet so the garage awning will not require a variance while keeping the trench drain from pitching back into the garage. Benjamin Nieslen requested that Mr. Merheb eliminate the inverse driveway slope design to avoid basement flooding. He requested that the grading be revised to be consistent with the neighboring properties and that the proposed excavation be evaluated to determine whether it will harm the trees' health. Mr. Merheb stated that the applicant proposed to keep as many trees as possible. He will submit an arborist report evaluating whether trees need to be removed for construction. He will revisit the grading plan to improve the flow between the properties to the north and south, and the driveway drainage. Chris Camia stated that there are opportunities to improve the architectural features, and he agrees with the request for an overlay of the tree plan. There was a discussion regarding the proposed setbacks and the house's siting relative to the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Nielsen requested that Mr. Merheb submit a photographic survey of the neighboring homes and consider improving the proposed house's architectural style. Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. Janice Landrum stated that she lives in the house to the north, expressed concerns regarding grading and drainage, and requested that the applicant remove the Honey Locust tree located 36 feet along the property line. 6 (11/20/25) �Kristy Farbman stated that she lives across the street. Ms. Farbman stated that she submitted written comments. She summarized her concerns regarding the effects construction would have on the trees, wildlife, debris, emissions, and noise. Patricia Juarez stated that she lives at 476 Munroe Avenue. She is concerned about the construction-related traffic and work-related noise. Mr. Merheb stated that the applicant is open to addressing tree-related concerns and that the stormwater system has been designed for a 100-year storm event. Chairperson Krakuer stated that the Board received the written comments. (See attached Exhibit #s 3 and 4) Chairperson Krakauer asked Sean McCarthy to describe the permitted working hours. Sean McCarthy stated that construction noise is permitted Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM and from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays. Robert Landrum stated that eleven hours of construction work is unacceptable. Richard Gross stated that the Board of Trustees manages the Village Code. Mr. Nieslen stated that the property is adjacent to the Pocantico River and asked David Smith if there are additional waterway buffers to consider. David Smith stated that he doesn’t believe there are wetland buffer issues, but he would check the DEC website for any special concerns. Richard Gross moved to continue the public hearing at the December 18, 2025 meeting. Moved: Gross Seconded: Anderson Vote 6-0 7. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riversfront Development Phase III Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit approvalPublic hearing Lanie McKinnon is a Senior Associate with Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architects. Summarized the site plan and different sections proposed for the Palisades Park design, including pathways, furnishings, landscaping, and kayak access. Matthew Martiniqua is an architect with Appel Design Group Architects. Mr. Martinque stated that he described the progression and the proposed changes to the boathouse. 7 (11/20/25) �Benjamin Nieslen asked Mr. Martinqua to describe how the indoor space will transition to the outdoor space, what the occupancy capacity is, and whether there is a roof overhang on the riverside. Mr. Martinqua stated that tilt-up garage doors are proposed, and that the 1,200 square feet would accommodate 90 people. There is no overhang on the riverside. Chairperson Krakauer asked how they plan to heat and cool the community rooms and restrooms. Mr. Martinqua stated that mini-split systems are planned for heating and cooling. There was a discussion regarding the proposed bathrooms, boathouse, splash pad/skating rink, connection points from Kingsland Point Park, pathways, signage, bicycle accessibility, drainage and the kayak launch. Benjamin Nielsen suggested that the applicant attend the December 11, 2025 work session for further discussion. Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. Ted Lai stated that he lives at 102 Legend Drive. Mr. Lai provided reasons for his objection to the proposed splash pad/skating rink as they related to use, cost, environmental impact, maintenance costs, health risks, and regional attraction. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board received several written comments. ( See attached Exhibit #s 5 -10) Benjamin Nieslen suggested that the applicant’s team come to the December 11, 2025 work session. Richard Gross moved to continue the public hearing at the December 18, 2025 meeting. Moved: Gross Seconded: Nielsen Vote 6-0 8. KWD Realty LLC, 309-315 North Broadway, Proposed 4 story self-storage facility Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval - Discussion Chairperson Krakauer stated that the discussion has been postponed to the next meeting. 9. Phelps Hospital/ Northwell Health, 1 Phelps Lane, Nurses Residential Building, Proposed change of use, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval -Preliminary Presentation Jefferey Meade is the Facilities Manager for Northwel Health. Mr. Meade provided a history of the site and when the first floor was converted into office space for the Phelps employees. 8 (11/20/25) �Javier Taborga of C&T Design Build, LLC, described the proposed changes to create additional exits and ADA-accessible bathrooms and entrances. There was a discussion related to how the additional impervious surfaces may affect drainage. James Natarelli described his concerns. The Board was in favor of waiving the public hearing requirement, pending the applicant’s response to engineering concerns. The Board directed David Smith to draft a resolution. 10. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Palisades Blvd., Block Q material storage Site Plan Approval- Preliminary Presentation Peter Chavkin stated that the amendment to the filling and operations permit requests the delivery and storage of 11,000 cubic yards of processed fill used for under sidewalks and building pads. Mr. Chavkin stated that the project will take 3 to 4 weeks to complete. Mark Gratz is an engineer from DTS Provident Design LLP. He described the previous DEC approvals and explained how dust control would be monitored and managed. Chairperson Krakauer asked Sean McCarthy how the Board should proceed with the logistics of trip size, weight, and frequency, and how routes would be managed. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board sets the parameters for approval. The Building Department would enforce the approved conditions. David Smith stated that the conditions from the East Parcel approvals regarding the school schedule could be incorporated. There was a discussion about the videos that examine the impact trucks may have on the sanitary sewer lines. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board is open to waiving the public hearing requirement pending the applicant’s response to the Building Department concerns. She directed David Smith to draft a resolution for review at the December 18, 2025 meeting. 11. Approval of minutes, October 9, 2025, October 16, 2025 Ken Anderson moved to approve the minutes from the October 9, 2025, and October 16, 2025, meetings. Moved: Anderson Seconded: Gross Chairperson Krakauer - yes Chris Camia - yes Richard Gross- yes Ken Anderson- yes Jay Schulz- yes Benjamin Nielsen- yes 9 (11/20/25) �Vote 6-0 Richard Gross moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:36 PM. Moved: Gross Seconded: Nielsen Vote 6-0 Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 10 (11/20/25) �Exhibit #1 From: To: Subject: Date: Ryan Demler Pamela Kroll Support for Plans at 17 Pokahoe Drive Wednesday, November 5, 2025 7:08:57 PM Hi Pam, This is Ryan Demler at 19 Pokahoe Drive. I wanted to reach out regarding the latest plans that Ron Pohl shared with us for 17 Pokahoe. My wife and I reviewed the materials and were pleased with what we saw. From our perspective, the design looks like a good fit for the neighborhood. Assuming everything complies with code, we believe this version would be a positive addition to our community. Please note that, as direct neighbors, we support the proposed plans and appreciate being kept informed throughout the process. Thank you for your time and consideration. Warm regards, Ryan Demler 19 Pokahoe Drive 646-425-8837 �Exhibit #2 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Pamela Kroll Pamela Kroll 17 Pokahoe Drive Behren 11-13-25 Monday, November 17, 2025 8:00:52 AM image001.png From: Behren, Roy Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 Subject: 17 Pokahoe Drive Design Plans Hello Ms. Kroll and the board, I and my wife Joan reside at 15 Pokahoe drive, next to the proposed construction at #17. Joanie and I would like to transmit our support and lack of objection to Mr. Pohl’s proposed construction plans for his house at 17 Pokahoe Drive. We think he was responsive to the constructive comments registered by the board and the neighbors regarding his prior plan submitted a year or so ago. The current design should be a welcome addition to the neighborhood! Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or would like any further commentary. Regards, Roy and Joanie Behren ROY D. BEHREN Co-President and CIO 100 Summit Lake Drive 914•741•5600 • Valhalla, New York 10595 P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL: This communication, including attachments, is intended only for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and any use, review, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy any and all copies of this communication. �Exhibit #3 From: R E F Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 5:17 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Cc: ICE Kristy ; R E F Subject: Planning Meeting Hi Sean, I plan on attending this evening but do have to coach my basketball team at 8pm. Just in case I'm Not able to discuss our concerns I am outlining here. Concerns & Requests: Conditions on approvals to mitigate potential negative effects on our property. *We have not seen the effect of the trees being knocked down and how that will impact light on our property. We are also concerned with other trees that may not be knocked down and what will be done to ensure safety to our property should the impact of the removal change the stability of what is surrounding.   Pre construction surveys and restoration previsions along with a commitment to restore any damage post construction. Mitigation Plans to address specific on site and off site impacts, such as water runoff, erosion, sedimentation and potential flooding. *Through the biggest storms we have never had water enter through our garage or basement. We want to be sure that is addressed in the testing phase. We have many items that would have to be moved should that change without notice. Environmental Impact to address noise, pollution, traffic and effect on the local ecosystem and natural features. *Since they dug two weeks ago, we have seen an increase in dangerous wildlife. What are the measures being taken to prevent dangerous impacts stemming from uncovering burrowed nests of vermin? We are wondering why any digging or testing was conducted without first addressing that? �*Very Important. Our garage is directly across from the construction zone. During the few days of testing we had cars parked and blocking our normal routines of pulling in and out of our driveway, and our son's ability to practice basketball. We also have a dog that spends time in our yard and are concerned about the emissions and what potentially that can mean. We also walk her and are concerned about debris from future work left behind. We have not seen signage that the site is OSHA compliant and with our son and other kids playing on the street by our house we need to know that all compliance is in order. My wife works for corporate America from home 3-4 days a week on meetings and needs to maintain connectivity so will need to be sure that provisions are in place for power and internet if disrupted. She also will need to be able to maintain reasonable professional standards during calls with coworkers, managers and others. There are days that she presents from home so a schedule of work should be worked out with that in mind. Ultimately we are concerned with activity that may interfere with the enjoyment and use of our property. This includes but is not limited to; Noise pollution, odors, other environmental pollutants and physical hazards or obstructions. We would like to request that the new property owner insure and indemnify us for damages and claims arising from their work. As well we would like to be put on their insurance as additionally insured to cover anything should it arise. Also should the construction require access on our property we would like to be made aware of that prior to construction so a comprehensive plan and agreement for any impacts it will have on our time and our property. I think that is it for this round.   Be Well, Ross & Kristy "Set a goal so big that you can't achieve it until you grow into the person who can." -- Zig Ziglar �Exhibit #4 RECEIVED Janice and Robert Landrum 469 ½ Munroe Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY d10591 NOV 2 0 2025 BUILDING DEPT: VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Chairperson Krakauer c/o Village of Sleepy Hollow Dept. of Architecture, Land Use Development Buildings and Building Compliance 28 Beekman Ave. Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Dear Mr. Krakauer, We live directly next to 467 ½ Munroe Avenue, which has submitted plans for development of a home. We have two concerns about the plan: trees and drainage. 1. There is a honey locust tree, in poor condition, almost on the common property line approximately 36 feet back from Munroe Avenue. History of splitting and dropping branches. The trunk is split now, and half of tree appears dead. Tree dropped a branch on a car of ours, nearly totaled it. Please take it down. This serves as notice that failure to tend to this tree is negligence, and whatever damage it causes to our property is the property owner's liability. 2. We want advance notice of any tree and grading work to be done, so that we can secure any of our property possibly affected. Our driveway, cars and home are very close to the areas which will be under removal, pruning, grading and construction. 3. We have never had flooding in our yard or home. But the lot to be developed is higher than ours by several feet, and currently heavily wooded. With trees removed and grading, and a roof deflecting water rather than absorbing, there needs to be an effective drainage plan. Gutter and drainage system away from our property? ' i"Ji/ anice and Robert Landrum �Exhibit #5 From: Daniel Convissor Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 7:53 AM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Trustees <trustees@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Edge on Hudson waterfront park Dear Planning Board Members, Mayor, and Trustees: The Planning Board has a hearing before them regarding Edge-on-Hudson's designs for the northern part of the waterfront park. The paths around "The Cove" (at the north end, connecting to Kingsland Point Park) are 6 feet wide (Sheet SP-1.00, PDF page 27). The other parts are 10 feet wide. Riverwalk is a major route for walking and cycling, with high volumes of people. Guidelines say paths with these conditions should be at least 12 feet wide. Ideally, there would be separate paths for walking and cycling. Sincerely, --Dan �Exhibit #6 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Alec Miller Sean McCarthy; samantha miller Pamela Kroll One Kingsland Riverwalk Phase 3 concerns Sunday, November 16, 2025 8:35:54 AM Dear Mr. McCarthy and the planning committee: We are local residents and we have purchased a home on 355 Hollows Pass, Sleepy Hollow as part of One Kingsland. We understand there are plans to put in a splash park, an ice skating rink, a fire pit, along with a bathroom along the Riverwalk. We are strongly opposed to this plan as we prefer to have that portion of the park resemble the beautiful design of the lower portion of the park, which is walkways and benches and beautiful landscaping. We are very concerned about creating any reason for people to congregate for hours, day and night--instead of having transient walkers like ourselves who keep moving through the park. Additionally maintaining such structures that require ongoing maintenance, cleaning, and security, is an unnecessary expense with low reward and high risk. We understand in Feb 2023, at a town hearing, the expert discouraged building an ice rink or any structure that would cause people to congregate at the base of a residential property for the aforementioned reasons. Our family and our neighbors much prefer to have a quieter and safer Riverwalk for all parties to enjoy year round, encouraging people to walk through the park, rest on a bench, and take in the beautiful sights and sounds of the Hudson. Thank you for your strong consideration of our request. Sincerely, Alec L. Miller and Samantha L. Miller Secured by Paubox - HITRUST certified �Exhibit #7 Westchester County Planning Board Referral Review Pursuant to Section 239 L, M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code Kenneth W. Jenkins Westchester County Executive November 18, 2025 Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 County Planning Board Referral File SLH 25-003 – Waterfront Open Space Phase Two Edge-on-Hudson – Hollows Pass Site Plan Approval Dear Mr. McCarthy: The Westchester County Planning Board has received a site plan (revised October 2, 2025) and related materials for a proposed application regarding Phase Two of the waterfront open space within the ongoing Edge-on-Hudson development. This phase would construct a portion of a new waterfront park between the banks of the Hudson River and Hollows Pass, south of Kingsland Point Park (SBL 115.10-1-1.5). The site currently hosts the Sleepy Hollow Lighthouse and connecting bridge, which would remain, as well as a portion of the Westchester Riverwalk, which would be replaced through the site. The proposed park would consist of various programmed and open greenspace areas, including a kayak launch and boathouse, splash pad/ice skating rink, landscaped meadow areas, open lawn spaces, and terraces. Seating areas and public art installations would be dispersed throughout the park. Sidewalks and pathways would spread throughout the site, and connect to the Phase One space to the south, Kingsland Park to the north, and a lawn area to the east that extends through the interior of the Edge-on-Hudson development. Connection to the lighthouse would be maintained, and landscaping would be used to highlight the historic structure. A new community space and concession building would also be included. The County Planning Board was active in its review of the Edge-on-Hudson proposal between 2003 and 2011 under the provisions of Section 239 L, M and N of the General Municipal Law and Section 277.61 of the County Administrative Code, and we have reviewed periodic updates as development progresses. This Phase Two application for the waterfront park is consistent with our understanding of the larger development concept for the former General Motors site, and we offer the following comments: 1. Westchester Riverwalk. We commend the Village and the applicant for providing more public access to the waterfront via this linear open space area, which will connect to adjacent waterfront open spaces. We also appreciate that this park would continue to include routing of the Westchester Riverwalk. We recommend that the applicant and Village consult the Westchester Riverwalk Design Guidelines Manual in order to maintain aesthetic consistency in the design of signage and other applicable trail amenities. 432 Michaelian Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, New York 10601 Telephone: (914) 995-4400 Website: westchestergov.com �Referral File No. SLH 25-003 – Edge-on-Hudson Waterfront Open Space Phase Two November 18, 2025 Page 2 2. Sea level rise and flood hazard areas. We note that the location of the proposed park will act as a buffer between the Edge-on-Hudson buildings and the Hudson River. The proposed design should take into consideration anticipated sea level rise in accordance with the NYS Community Risk and Resiliency Act and the revised flood elevations as shown on the FEMA Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which indicate that the area is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. 3. Bicycle access. We appreciate the inclusion of bicycle racks within the site plans, and recommend the Village consider using signage to define the route for bicycles through this open space area, or for areas where cyclists should dismount. We note the site’s close proximity to the Old Croton Aqueduct Trailway and the Mario M. Cuomo Bridge shared use path may make it an attractive destination for cyclists. 4. Green building technology. We encourage the applicant to include as much green, or sustainable building technology as possible within the proposed development, including the use of permeable pavement where possible. In addition, the Village and the applicant should give consideration towards the provision of electric vehicle parking capabilities within the proposed parking areas. 5. Universal Design. We encourage the Village to consider the principles of universal design in this development, in addition to any building standards required by ADA regulations. Universal Design standards allow all residents and visitors to fully engage in our public spaces. Universal Design is also an important means of providing accessible pedestrian access and parking for persons with mobility issues. Please inform us of the Village’s decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Thank you for calling this matter to our attention. Respectfully, WESTCHESTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Bernard Thombs Chair, Westchester County Planning Board BT/mv cc: Blanca Lopez, Commissioner, Westchester County Department of Planning �Exhibit #8 From: Megan Isenstadt Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 1:09 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Public hearing Waterfront Open Space at the Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development. Dear Planning Board Members, I am writing regarding the design of the Cove. I am a community advocate for river use and public access to local, affordable swimming. Currently sleepy hollow residents lack any local, affordable swim options. This cove could look like the Sleepy Hollow Beach Club and be open to residents. I would like to suggest the design for this area include the following additions with this in mind: Maintain Beach access for the potential of future swimming site Explore floating pool/ seasonal floating dock for swimming. Provide picnic benches with shade trees along the water front. Bathroom structure: 1. Bathroom structure should include Outdoor shower hook ups. Whether or not this is installed for use now- pls include connections for future. 2. 2 stalls is not enough. Suggest min 3 and a family stall with changing table. SUP storage is not included in this plan. A kiosk or shack for water sports rentals should be included in this plan. Sincerely, Megan Isenstadt 287 N Washington st �Exhibit #9 From: Rachael Ricker < Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2025 2:08 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Waterfront Open Space Public Comment; Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Dear Planning Board Members, I am writing regarding the proposed design for the Cove. One major gap in our village is the lack of nearby opportunities for swimming and waterfront recreation. There is a clear disparity among residents who are only able to access swimming through costly options such as the Crest, a condo unit in The Edge that includes a pool, or home ownership that grants access to the Philipse Manor Beach Club. Currently, the majority of Sleepy Hollow residents lack accessible and affordable swimming options within their own community. With that in mind, I respectfully request that the design incorporate water access and swimming facilities. We have an opportunity to look to the Philipse Manor Beach Club as inspiration and create a similar experience—one that is open and available to all residents. Picnic areas, shaded seating, swim access, and space for community events are sorely needed, and the Cove presents an incredible opportunity to offer these amenities to everyone who lives here. Thank you for your time and consideration. These additions would help ensure that the Cove becomes a vibrant, accessible, and community-centered space for all residents of Sleepy Hollow. Sincerely, Rachael Ricker 255 N Washington St �Exhibit #10 From: Benjie Sirota Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 6:21 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov>; Paula Mccarthy <pmccarthy@sleepyhollowny.gov> Subject: Waterfront park design comments for the Planning board It is very exciting to see the next section of the waterfront park being developed for our community. I wanted to give feedback on the design and ask questions about items that were not clear, so we can help refine the design together as a community. The designers need to explain the scale of each space so we understand how they work. We also should push the design team to provide more opportunities for residents to get into and engage with the Hudson. I am sharing comments broken into a few categories: Overall Park design There are no dimensions or scales on the proposed designs, making it hard for the public to comprehend the public spaces and pathways. I noticed that there were dimensions are on the previous design from 2024 The view sheds are not all clearly defined, please provide a broader context site map that explains site orientations Amount of trees in the park could easily increase by at least 10% The amount of hardscape could easily be reduced by at least 10%. Is the proposed grading much different from the existing condition? There should be wayfinding included at the waterfront park There should be historical markers / signage dedicated explaining the local natural environment, historical context or previous historical residents.   There should be public art. It would be a great opportunity to represent the historic site. There is no visible remnants from the 100 plus years of local automobile heritage Names of the new spaces and buildings should reference historical residents & icons There should be an outdoor space dedicated to host placemaking and cultural events Will the connections into Kingsland be open to walk through during all hours once complete? Page 4 is the only drawing that shows the meadow design and is mainly focused on circulation. Can you please define the design more clearly in this area of the park? �The meadow is not clearly defined along with the connections into Kingsland park Splash pad / seasonal skating is very small and an awkward shape for skating. There is also very little shade provided at the splash pad. A splash pad this close to the river would be better served in another location within the village, especially considering there is beach access directly adjacent. It could be moved to Barnhart park, where the splash pad is planned to be replaced, other locations could be Kingsland or the east parcel. Additionally, ice skating at this location will be extremely cold and windy in the winter with no protection along the riverfront. There should be a seasonal commercial skate rental shack located that could be used as a tourist kiosk or cafe during the summer and fall high season. Community space and bathroom buildings The buildings have a very odd relationship with the street and riverfront and don't utilize the river views. Most of the plaza area does not overlook the water and the pathway connection There should be a shaded picnic area with benches similar to the PMBC A canopy structure on the north facade of the community space is not ideal solar orientation. Shifting it to the south end of the Boathouse would make more sense. The community space building doesn't have a vestibule or pre-function space and bathrooms are in a separate building. Additionally there is no back of house space for MEP, Janitor closet or storage Bathrooms should include a family bathroom and changing room and each bathroom should have 3 stalls Bathrooms for the community space are in a separate building is not ideal   bathroom pavilion is far from the splash pad / seasonal skating area The boat storage should include SUP storage It is not clear how the storage facility actually functions when loading kayaks into the building There should be a commercial outfitter space for seasonal rentals so the village can offset some of the park costs. Why would there be office space and meeting rooms in the boathouse? This program doesn't make sense Why are there food truck electrical hookups at this location? Are trucks mounting the curb and parking in the plaza? Seems like an odd location if there will be food and beverage at the community space �It will be challenging for the separate buildings to share combined MEP systems since they are separate structures. There should be a water fountains, rinse showers and a hose bib located at this site Indoor/outdoor fireplace should be electric or add a wood burning Fireplace located is odd and would be better as a stand alone fire pit in the plaza area paved areas around bathroom pavilion and community building seems excessive and mostly without views towards the river Beach / water access The project should consider a water restoration project to increase the natural ecosystem at the river's edge this is a great example https://aqua.org/explore/exhibits/harbor-wetland The project should consider a river pool in the hudson. There is currently no swim access in sleepy hollow. This is a huge local issue and this would be the lowest cost project to build and maintain https://www.riverpool.org/ https://thecharles.org/uncategorized/9-cities-making-polluted-waterways-intoswimming-hotspots/ https://thecharles.org/swim-park-project/ Why is there no dock planned in this whole area? Is the river wall new or the existing condition? the concrete ramp at the beach significantly reduces what is already a small beach the new ramp should be flipped to be against the large concrete retaining wall at Kingsland Benjamin Sirota Beonjie@gmail.com � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2025-11-20_ Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a15b8336cff57bf8af412ecb0998e592.pdf afa12a0d126858edd92bfa4b18656f41 PDF Text Text ��������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2024-11-21_308-318 Legend Drive Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2024 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/159e6b13b3241f8be1030707b2c96199.pdf 6a44fc2053de70e994ed633448d3e265 PDF Text Text ������ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2023-12-21_305 North Washington Street Approved Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/c3ba9a8f82b0b41730aef6a4e5685436.pdf 43f032a1161fa531eabf9464207403dc PDF Text Text �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2022-10-22_Approved Statue Island Park Resolution Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1162e0191b5e780c6c29f2fa9425db16.pdf ea44827db1422ad8756b47d90b396caa PDF Text Text RESOLUTION Adopted at the January 7,2021 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL - PARTIAL BLOCKS O & P TOWNHOME ONE PROPOSED: Edge on Hudson Partial Blocks O & P Townhome One LOCATION: 199 Beekman Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 115.10-1-3.2 ZONING: RF - Riverfront District WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the Planning Board) has reviewed an application for a site plan and preliminary subdivision approval (the Application) pursuant to the Village Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Site Plan review, and Chapter 425 of the Village Code, Subdivision of Land, and to applicable laws and regulations considered pertinent to the Application, which is for Phase 1 of the redevelopment of the former North Tarrytown General Motors Assembly Plant site located at 199 Beekman Avenue to be known as Edge on Hudson. The Application is submitted on behalf of Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC (the Applicant); and, WHEREAS, the Applicant had previously been granted Site Plan and Subdivision Approval on or about 10/22/15 for Phase 1 Block J which included 72 townhome units; and WHEREAS as part of that review the Planning Board did review and consider the Riverfront Development Concept Plan (RDCP) and the Design Guidelines prepared for the redevelopment of the Edge on Hudson site; and WHEREAS, the Application is in furtherance of the Lighthouse Landing Special Permit approval and Riverfront Development Concept Plan approval, which was the subject of a comprehensive environmental review conducted by the Board of Trustees acting as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); the SEQRA proceeding culminated in Findings Statements issued on July 24, 2007, and on January 25, 2011, in which the Board of Trustees determined after due consideration that the Riverfront Development Concept Plan Page 1 of 12 �(RCDP), with its associated mitigative measures, would not have a significant adverse environmental impact and that the project would provide a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social, economic, and other considerations of sound public policy; and WHEREAS, on 5/21/20, the Planning Board approved Edge on Hudson Phase 3 Roads and Infrastructure site plan approval for roads and infrastructure and preliminary subdivision approval for the balance of the Edge on Hudson blocks; and WHEREAS, given the current development climate, the Applicant is desirous of constructing additional townhome units on portions of Blocks O and P created as part of the 5/21/20 preliminary subdivision approval; and WHEREAS, on or about 9/3/20 the Applicant submitted a facially complete site plan and subdivision application for the construction of 20 townhome units in four buildings fronting along Palisades Boulevard with associated circulation and parking (the "Proposed Action"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking approval for just 20 of the townhome units associated with Blocks O and P ("O and P Townhome One"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant is not requesting any change in the number of townhome units in the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reviewed and considered the Application at its 9/17/20, 10/22/20,11/19/20,12/17/20 regularly scheduled meetings and a specially scheduled meeting on 1/7/21; and WHEREAS, on 10/22/20, the Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Application in which all members of the public were invited to attend and comment and the public hearing was subsequently closed on 11/19/20 with the Applicant agreeing to toll any time requirements prior to a formal decision by the Planning Board; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested a variance for building height for three of the proposed townhomes from the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals and did receive said approval on 12/16/20; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the following materials: Page 2 of 12 �• Application package dated 9/3/20 including: 1. Executed Application Forms 2. EAF short form 3. Coastal Assessment Form • Review memos dated 10/16/20 and 11/18/20 and email correspondence dated 1/6/21 from Woodard & Curran, Village Engineering Consultant • Correspondence and review memos from Planning & Development Advisors dated 9/17/20, 10/16/20 and 11/17/20; • Response letters/memos from Divney Tung Schwalbe on behalf of Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC dated 10/8/20, 11/9/20 and 11/12/20 to the Planning Board • Correspondence from Martina Zolldahn-Brown to the Planning Board dated 1/2/21; • Existing construction and condition and proposed elevations drawings prepared by KTGY Architecture dated 10/8/20 and 10/22/20 (Block J Configuration); • Site plan drawings submitted by the following last revised 11/12/20: a. Cover Sheet, Divney Tung Schwalbe (DTS); b. Key Plan and General Noted (SP-0.1) DTS; c. Block O/P Townhomes One Site Layout Plan (SP-1.0) DTS; d. Block O/P Townhomes One Grading and Drainage Plan (SP-2.0) DTS; e. Block O/P Townhomes One Overall Storm Drainage Plan (SP-2.1) DTS; f. Block O/P Townhomes One Utilities Plan (SP-3.0) DTS; g. Block O/P Townhomes One Utility Profiles (SP-3.1) DTS; h. Block O/P Townhomes One Landscape Plan (SP-4.0) DTS; i. Block O/P Townhomes One Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (SP-5.0) DTS ; j. Block O/P Townhomes One Erosion & Sediment Control Details (SP-5.1) DTS ; k. Block O/P Townhomes One Site Details (SP-6.0-6.3), DTS; 1. Block O/P Townhomes One Existing Conditions (EX-1.0), Control Point Associates, Inc. (CPA) and DTS; m. Block O/P Townhomes One Subdivision Plat (CPA). WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, the SEQRA regulations, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: Page 3 of 12 �1. Received a completed application and application fee; 2. Requested, received and considered comments from the Village Engineer, Village Attorney, Village Planner and Building Inspector about the proposed project which were provided in written form or discussed with the Board during the course of the Planning Board meetings; 3. Requested, received and reviewed a short Environmental Assessment Form and Coastal Assessment Form; and 4. Held a duly noticed public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that having reviewed the entire record as noted above, in relation to the previously approved Special Permit and Riverfront Development Concept Plan, the Planning Board: 1. Considered Section 450-16.A(2)(a) of the Village Code which covers site plan review by the Planning Board and after a review of the documentation submitted by the Applicant, the Planning Board finds that the Application meets the riverfront development design standards set forth in Section 450-18 of the Village Code; 2. Considered Section 450-B(3) of the Village Zoning Code which requires a review of a site plan in comparison to the approved RDCP. The Applicant made a detailed presentation of the comparison between the RDCP and the Proposed Action in their 9/3/20 submission and as part of a formal presentation to the Planning Board during a regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board requested and Applicant provided an Illustrative Plan of the balance of Blocks O and P prepared by Hart Howerton dated 11/2/20. After review of both plans, the Planning Board finds that, while there may be minor variations between the Proposed Action and the RDCP, the Proposed Action is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the RDCP; 3. Finds after review of Coastal Assessment Form prepared by the Applicant and the Waterfront Consistency determination prepared by the Board of Trustees for the RDCP, that the Application is consistent with the goals and policies of the Village of Sleepy Hollow LWRP; Page 4 of 12 �4. Considered the proposed Partial Block O and P site plan in light of the purposes for design review as outlined in Chapter 9, Architectural Review Board, of the Village Code with respect to the degree of uniformity, dissimilarity, inappropriateness, or poor quality of design in the exterior appearance of buildings and the degree to which any such uniformity, dissimilarity, inappropriateness, or poor quality of design adversely affects the desirability of the immediate area and neighboring areas for residential, business or other purposes and by so doing impairs the benefits of occupancy of existing property in such areas, impairs the stability and value of both improved and unimproved real property in such areas, prevents the most appropriate development and use of such areas, contributes to the degeneration of property in such areas, with attendant deterioration of conditions affecting the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and contributes to the diminution of the taxable value of real property in such areas and ability to support the municipal services provided thereto, taking into account and applying the review criteria and standards of Chapter 9, Architectural Review Board, of the Village Code, and specifically the Design Guidelines for Lighthouse Landing Riverfront Development adopted by the Board of Trustees on June 7, 2011. The Planning Board finds that the proposed Application will need to return to the Planning Board as part of the Planning Board's ARB mandate before the issuance of a foundation permit by the Building Department to ensure that the Proposed Action is consistent with and meets all applicable standards of Chapter 9 of the Village Code. The Planning Board has identified the following specific items to be addressed as part of the townhome designs for Block O and P: 1. The elements of the "Kit of Parts" needs to be specified and submitted to the Planning Board for approval for O and P Townhome One. Subsequent submission to the Planning Board for additional phases of townhome development will need to similarly include a "Kit of Parts" specific to that townhome grouping. 2. Mirrored facades shall not be permitted for O and P Townhome One. For subsequent submissions for townhome development mirrored facades shall be only be permitted with a vertical delineation. Page 5 of 12 �3. Articulation of the front facades is required. 4. Vertical architectural delineation between units shall be required on the front and rear elevations. 5. Fourth floor enclosed/ roofed areas shall be limited to less than 75% of the floor below for interior units. 6. Fourth floor enclosed/ roofed areas shall be limited to 50% or less of the floor below for end units generally open to view or for higher visibility units as may be determined by the Planning Board. For O and P Townhomes One that shall include units 1, 9,10 and 20. 7. For O&P Townhomes One the front yard setback shall be not less than 5_ feet. The Planning Board strongly encourages the inclusion of the private entry patios consistent with the initial 5/1/15 presentations made to the Planning Board for the balance of Block O and P. 8. Side yard setbacks for end units shall be not less than 10 feet however the Planning Board may reduce the setback when the side fa9ade has been designed with articulation similar to the front fa?ade. 9. The distance between adjacent end units, without an alley or road shall be not less than 10 feet and 15 feet when a walkway or alley is present. 10. Fa9ade details and materials shall be continuous on end units elevations. 11. Roof pergolas shall be open to the sky and open on at least three sides. Roof beams shall be spaced to permit not less than 70% openness unless otherwise authorized by the Building Department. 12. Roof pergolas shall not occupy more than 75% of the roof area. 13. Electric meters and mechanical systems shall not be located on the front facade and shall be screened with materials matching the architectural design of the unit. The Applicant shall use best efforts to not locate the Con Ed gas meters on the townhome's front fa?ade and to provide architectural and or landscape screening for such equipment when such meters cannot be relocated. Page 6 of 12 �14. All exterior vent terminations shall compliment or match the adjacent exterior surface colors to minimize their visibility. 15. Barbecue grilles shall not be permitted against open loft railings; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board, after review of the materials submitted, public comments and recommendations and the EAF has determined that the Application does not present significant adverse environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the comprehensive environmental review under SEQR conducted on behalf of the Village as part of the preparation of the Riverfront Development Concept Plan for the Project, and there are no changes in circumstances or newly discovered information presenting such potential impacts; and be it further RESOLVED, that having fully considered the environmental review record and supporting documentation, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirement of 6 NYCRR 617.7 and 617.11, the Planning Board confirms and restates previous certifications that: 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met and fully satisfied; 2. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, from among the reasonable alternatives available, the proposed Project is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable; including effects disclosed in the environmental impact statements; and 3. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable. 4. Received and reviewed the Environmental Findings Statement and Amended Environmental Findings Statement adopted by the Board of Trustees, as SEQRA lead agency, on July 24, 2007, and January 25, 2011 (collectively, the "Environmental Findings"); and be it further Page 7 of 12 �RESOLVED, the Planning Board hereby adopts the Environmental Findings as the Planning Board's involved agency environmental findings statement pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.11(c), except that the Planning Board finds that the construction phasing presented by the Applicant on the Application differs from the construction phasing considered by the Board of Trustees as Lead Agency on the environmental review, that the Lead Agency found at Page 117 of the Findings Statement dated July 24, 2007, "that the proposed sequencing of building construction should be flexible in order to allow for manageable detailed site plan review and provide an efficient development schedule [and the] proposed schedule of Building Group sequencing during the construction process shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval during the site plan review process," and that the currently proposed construction phasing and sequencing presented by the Applicant to the Planning Board on the Application is appropriate and will not have an adverse environmental impact; and be it further RESOLVED, that said Application is hereby granted approval and the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chair on a copy of this resolution and upon the site plan drawings and preliminary subdivision plat for lots 3.21,3.22,3.23 and 3.24 as shown on the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, subject to conditions and modifications identified below: 1. This approval shall expire if the following modifications and conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Village Building Department: submission of a satisfactory building permit application for building construction within one year of the date of the adoption of the site plan approval, subsequent construction commencing within six months of the date of building permit issuance and thereafter diligently pursued and construction completed within two years of the issuance of the building permit. Opportunity for extensions of the site plan approval to be granted for good cause by the Planning Board at the request of the Applicant for periods of six months each. 2. Documentation, sufficient in form and substance, for the Village Engineer to determine that the list of items outlined in the Village Engineer's 11/18/20 correspondence have been incorporated onto the site plan drawings. 3. Submission of as-built building plans and an as-built survey prior to the issuance of any Temporary or Permanent Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a 100% performance bond, in a sum to be determined by the Village Engineer and approved as to form by the Village Page 8 of 12 �Attorney, shall be furnished to and accepted by the Village, to guarantee the satisfactory and complete installation and construction of all water and sewer utilities to be dedicated to public use, roads to be dedicated to public use, public sidewalks, lighting in public rights-of-way and in public open space areas, and stormwater management facilities and sediment and erosion control structures and measures within public rights of way. 5. Provision of landscape maintenance bonds to remain in effect for two years to ensure landscape plantings are established and maintained in a healthy and vigorous growing condition. The extent of the bonds to be determined by the Village Building Inspector and Village Administrator in consultation with the Applicant and in a form satisfactory to the Village Attorney. Such landscape maintenance bond(s) shall be posted for each Block upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last residential unit of that specific development Block. 6. The Applicant shall submit any geotechnical investigation of the site completed to date which will include the geotechnical analysis of the site soil conditions as they relate to the design and construction of any proposed structure. Any compaction/pile driving operation required at the site shall be monitored by a professional engineer licensed in the State of New York. During the process of compacting/pile driving, the gauges shall be placed in the vicinity of the adjacent structures and utilities to monitor the soil movement as recommended by a geotechnical engineer. Any damage to the adjacent structures or utilities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 7. No Temporary or Permanent C of O for a building shall be issued until the Applicant offers for dedication: public roads, public sidewalks, lighting in public rights-of-way and in public open space areas, public utility lines for water and sewer service, and any public stormwater management facilities and corresponding easements associated with that building and or Block. Such offer for dedication shall be in a suitable form acceptable to the Village. 8. As part of the June 7, 2011 Special Permit, prior to the issuance of the Temporary or Permanent C of O covering the 300,000th square foot of new development, the Applicant shall be required to complete the following traffic improvement mitigation measures within the Village of Sleepy Hollow. a. Improvements to US Route 9 at New Broadway/Bedford Road, Beekman Avenue/Hudson Terrace b. Improvements to Beekman Avenue at Pocantico Street The Village Board, by correspondence dated 10/31/18, has suspended these requirements and will give the Applicant notice in the future when completion, Page 9 of 12 �replacement or payment is due. A copy of this resolution shall be furnished to the Village Board for their records as to the status of overall development. 9. Prior to the completion of Phase 1, the Applicant shall submit a report to the Village Architect to demonstrate Project's anticipated compliance track under the LEED-ND program. 10. The Applicant's LEED-ND compliance program will take into account and facilitate the incorporation of bicycling as an alternate means of transportation in a manner like that described in correspondence of Divney Tung Schwalbe dated October 22, 2015. The LEED-ND reference guide defines "bicycle network" to include any combination of bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, and streets designed for a target speed of 25 miles per hour or slower. 11. In accordance with paragraph 13 of the June 7, 2011 Special Permit, the preliminary subdivision plat shall include at a minimum separate parcels for the Waterfront Open Space, the portion of the South Parcel intended to be for public uses by the Village, and that portion of the West Parcel associated with the first phase of development. The layout of such parcels shall be consistent with Figure No. 2 Public Open Space and Public Use Diagram as referenced in paragraph 9 of the June 7, 2011 Special Permit. The East Parcel was subdivided and conveyed to the Sleepy Hollow Local Development Corporation, the Village's designee, by deed dated December 22, 2014 and recorded December 24, 2014 and any further subdivision of the East Parcel is not within the Applicant's control. 12. The Applicant shall pay the Village of Sleepy Hollow all application and review fees as required by the Village Code prior to any building permit being issued. 13. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit by the Village, the Applicant is required to provide to the Village for the Village Building Department's approval and the Village's Consulting Engineer's approval, a comprehensive Site Utilities Plan which illustrates in plan and three-dimensional view, the proposed location of all subsurface and surface utilities including, but not necessary limited to lighting, gas, electric, telephone, and cable. In addition, the Village will require from the Applicant for their review and approval prior to issuance of a Building Permit a Utilities Work Sequence Plan which details the sequence of work to support the coordination among utilities companies and to avoid conflicts in the field. 14. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the Village, a construction logistics plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Building Department indicating the location of construction trailers, temporary toilet facilities, material storage, employee vehicle Page 10 of 12 �parking, temporary fencing, means for temporary water, means for temporary power, fuel storage and other equipment as appropriate. 15. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by the Village, the location of all above ground utility equipment shall be approved by the Planning Board prior to installation. 16. Consistent with the Environmental Findings and the Special Use Permit the Applicant will observe and fully comply with all of the requirements of the Site Management Plan (SMP) and the Excavation Work Plan (EWP) (Appendix A of the SMP on file with the Village) as required by New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) under the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). The Applicant will copy the Village on all submittals to the NYS DEC that are required as part of the SMP and the EWP. 17. All conditions identified in the Village Board's June 7, 2011 Special Permit shall remain in full force and effect. Page 11 of 12 �18. If directed by the Village B u i l d i n g D e p a r t m e n t the A p p l i c a n t shall acquire approval f r o m the N e w York State E m p i r e State D e v e l o p m e n t ( E S D ) for classification of essential construction in order for the P r o p o s e d Action to m o v e f o r w a r d . Such approval shall be furnished to the Village Building Department prior to commencing c o n s t r u c t i o n . In addition, the p r o v i s i o n s for C O V I D - 1 9 health and safety shall be in c o m p l i a n c e with a p p l i c a b l e local, State and Federal r e q u i r e m e n t s . PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Marjorie(Hsu, G e r m a n Date «4* " I. QQ£L £i fry j the undersigned Ctefk^eputTcie^d true copy of an extract duly adopted by the Board of Tiustees/ftann^ the Village of Sleepy Hollow, on the _day of 2 0 ^ L and of the whole thereof, and I further certify that the same was entered into the minutes of the meeting of said Board of Trustees/Piann^Zoning held on said date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this .day of 2 t Q L A lert^eputyClerk Page 12 of 12 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2021-01-07_EOHBlockOPPreliminarySbdv-Townhome_OneApprovedRes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2021 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2021 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/fe1cc2e54616e88235e1c1ea838bb4e6.pdf d870b925a239874deabcdb79f3a30d8c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2026-05-14_5-14-26 Approved Planning Board Work Session Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2026 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2026 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text