https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/0e55593c24441ab01c82a225776ac102.pdf 39452d47072d5e8e26ff8abbaec04d57 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes November 18, 2021 The regular meeting was called to order at 7:04 PM by Chairperson Marjorie Hsu. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Erin Carney Matthew Brennan Kersten Harries Edward McCarthy Lindsay Krakauer Also Present: Clinton Smith, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II, Block-H, Amended site plan approval- Draft resolution 2) Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Public hearing 3) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed swimming pool, Site plan approval extension- Presentation 4) Phelps Memorial Hospital/Northwell Health, T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, Wireless communications permit, Amended site plan, Preliminary presentation 5) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block OP Townhomes Phase II, Preliminary subdivision plat and site plan approvalPresentation 6) Approval of minutes, October 21, 2021 Chairperson Hsu announced that all of the Planning Board members in attendance and stated there is a quorum. Chairperson Hsu read the agenda. 1. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II, Block-H, Amended site plan approval - Draft resolution Peter Chavkin is the Managing Partner of Biddle Real Estate Ventures. Mr. Chavkin stated that they have reviewed the draft resolution that was circulated to the Board and thanked David Smith for sharing the draft resolution with him. Mr. Chavkin stated they are comfortable with the all the conditions, with the exception of condition #18, and requested that the Board take action at this meeting. 1 (11/18/21) �Chairperson Hsu requested that David Smith review the conditions of the draft resolution. David Smith summarized the resolve clauses and read the conditions of the draft resolution. Motion was made to adopt the resolution. Moved: McCarthy Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Kersten Harries - yes Edward McCarthy- yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 2. Franceso Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Harries Seconded: McCarthy Vote 6-0 Christopher Barbargli is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Barbargli stated that the existing structure is a three-story three-family house on an 80 x 300 foot lot with two garages in the back and a gravel parking lot. The application proposes a four-story building with a partial cellar and (14) residential apartments that will consist of (12) two-bedroom units and (2) onebedroom units on the first floor, including (3) accessible units. Bicycle storage will be provided in the basement and at the exterior of the building. A communal open space will be provided for the residents. Each floor will have a trash room, a laundry room, and a fitness area for the residents. All of the apartments will be a generous size and include balconies. Mr. Barbargli presented renderings of the proposed building and stated that they propose to match the size of the existing house by utilizing a mansard roof. Revisions made since the last presentation include moving the proposed building back away from the street by 2 feet, shortening the building on the second and third floors to add balconies, and widening the building. The proposed building is compliant with the required setbacks. Balconies were added to the rear along the second floor and the rear of the building has been stepped back. As requested the landscape plan will include planting of taller trees on all sides of the building. Kersten Harries requested that the architect provide the dimensions for the proposed changes to the setback from the sidewalk and how they compare to the neighboring houses. Mr. Barbargli presented the tax map and stated that the existing building is further back from the neighboring houses. The proposed front setback of the building is 12 feet from the sidewalk and is comparable with the houses on the right. 2 (11/18/21) �Sal Alesci is the son of the property owner and stated that there will be 17 feet on the left side of the building from the neighboring property and 12 feet on the right side of the building from the neighboring property. Chairperson Hsu questioned if the building will now be more in line with the neighboring properties. Mr. Barbargli stated the setback from the sidewalk was originally proposed at 10 feet and has been moved back 2 feet to align with the neighboring properties. Edward McCarthy asked Mr. Barbargli if the building could be shifted to the right to give the neighbor on the left more distance from their driveway. Mr. Barbargli stated that they had originally proposed a narrower driveway with more landscaping but that it wouldn't allow for larger vehicle access. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board has not received engineering and stormwater management plans. Mr. Barbargli stated that they were waiting on approval of the size and location of the building before further developing the engineering plans. Chairperson Hsu stated that they have advanced their plans very substantially in the past several months and requested that they recommence the engineering drawings. Chairperson Hsu expressed her satisfaction with the improvements proposed for more mature landscaping and stated that there has been good overall progress on the proposed project. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the consultants and the Board members. Kersten Harries requested that the applicants add a tree at the green island in the parking lot to provide more greenery to the rear of the property and also provide shade for the parked cars. Sal Alesci stated that they will agree to planting additional trees as suggested by the Board. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board has received multiple comment letters from the public and there are several members of the community in attendance. (See attached Exhibit #s 1-7) Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public and requested that those who wish to speak provide their name and address and speak into a microphone. Shannon Pitts is the owner of 18 Fremont Road and questioned if there will be a Spanish language interpretation of the meeting available now or after the meeting and suggested that it is something that should be provided considering the population of Spanish speaking residents. Ms. Pitts questioned if the new proposed unit rents will be comparable to the price of the three units in the existing building. Ms. Pitts stated that according to the recently adopted Village Comprehensive Plan, she is concerned about the Sky Exposure Plane and stated that for the first 15 feet from the sidewalk, the building can be no higher than 36 feet; from 15 feet to 80 feet the 3 (11/18/21) �building can be no higher than 55 feet; but then from 80 feet and back the building can be no higher than 25 feet. As the building is currently planned, the 80 foot mark is about half way through the garage entrance on the western side and that past that the building can only be two stories high. There is enough room for the building to be another story high on top for a fifth floor but the building would have to be significantly rearranged to meet the current Zoning Code. In response to Ms. Pitts concerns, Chairperson Hsu stated that they currently do not provide a Spanish interpretation of the meeting. In response to Ms. Pitts question, Sal Alesci stated that the rents for the proposed apartment units will be comparable to the rents for the existing three units. Patrick Munroe is the owner of 63 New Broadway and stated that he offers three prayers to the village officers that are here at the meeting or involved in the decision to grant the variance for 135 Beekman Avenue or any project like it in the future. Mr. Munroe read aloud the letter that was previously submitted to the members of the Board received on 11/18/21 and entered into the public record. (see attached Exhibit # 6 ) Freddy Polanco lives a 15 Kendall Avenue and stated that they purchased their house in 2006 because of the views and sunshine that they saw from the back porch. When developers and architects look at land they only see squares, rectangle, and numbers. They don't think about the people that live around the area. The proposed building will block the views in their backyard, limit sunlight, and there will be more noise and light from the 14 apartments. Alex Horelick is the owner of 14 Andrews Lane. Mr. Horelick asked the Planning Board if the proposed work is as of right and compliant with the current Zoning Code and if they will require a variance. Mr. Horelick described where his property lot is located and stated that although the proposed building will not directly block his views, it is a large commercial lot that goes deep back into an area where there is all residential lots. He is concerned about the sense of privacy and noise issues that will come with the construction of a 4-story building with balconies that will look into his backyard. Mr. Horelick requested that the applicants plant taller trees and more landscaping to block the lighting and noise from the car headlights. Mr. Horelick questioned if the existing vinyl fencing with remain. In response to Mr. Horelick's questions, the applicants stated that they are in full compliance with the current Zoning Code and do not require a variance. They need to examine the condition of the existing vinyl fencing and will determine if it needs to be replaced. Ellen McDonough lives at 23 Kendall Avenue and stated that last year she was inundated with the problem on 32 Andrews Lane where there will be 9 condo units there that will border her backyard. If the proposed units on Beekman Avenue are approved, she will boxed in and it will be worse than New York City. Ms. McDonough stated that she will not have any privacy or a place to breathe and her whole world is going into pieces and doesn't understand why her little bit of property in what used to be the Village of North Tarrytown is so precious and why it is being filled with big buildings where she can't see the river anymore. Ms. McDonough suggested that the Board think how they would feel it if it was their property. 4 (11/18/21) �Maria Martins lives at 11 Kendall Avenue and stated that the proposed box of a building will block the amount of sunlight that she will get in her rear yard and effect the garden that she grows vegetables and fruit in, and that it will cause her heating bills to increase. When the Comprehensive Plans were updated, it was requested that the Village update the Zoning to protect the character of lower Beekman Avenue. Ms. Martin stated that the proposed building does not go with the rest of the houses on Beekman Avenue. The project she saw posted on the Village's website is a very large box and doesn't fit within the character of the neighborhood. She stated that her main concern is related to fire. The proposed tall wood frame building will limit the Fire Departments ability to prevent falling ambers and fires spreading to the rest of the property and questioned if the fire trucks will be able to get to the back of the box and keep fires from spreading to neighboring properties. Lauren Connell is the owner of 5 Pleasant Street and asked for confirmation that every element of the proposed plan complies with the existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code and that the Planning Board and Village Consultants agree. Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicants have worked quite a lot to bring the project into conformance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan, Design Overlay, and the Zoning Code and that the proposed project is in compliance with the Village Codes. Lindsay Krakauer stated that based on their understanding the Board is in agreement. Lauren Connell stated that based on her reading of the Codes, she doesn't think that the proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and she is uncomfortable with the objective disagreement and that it feels like this applicant is the first person asking to ignore it. She stated that the applicants can still make money without giving up the historic character of the neighborhood. Mellissa Loheman-Wild lives at 145 Beekman Avenue and stated that her house is two houses over from the proposed development. The proposed plan will reduce the value of the houses and properties on Kendall Avenue and it will be the tallest building in the neighborhood. Chairperson Hsu stated that the proposed drawings are available for review and that the existing building is also taller than the neighboring buildings as it is today. Provided by translation, Frederica Polcanco stated that her parents live at 15 Kendall Avenue. The reason they decided to purchase the house was for the views. She is concerned about privacy issues and asked the Board to consider how they would feel if the change was happening in their neighborhood. Ann White lives at 3301 Kendall Way and stated that she is not directly affected by the proposed project but that she is affected by the way this will change the quality of the Village in the area. Ms. White stated that she was very excited when the Village Board passed the Design Guidelines for properties facing on Beekman Avenue but unfortunately they did not deal with a massive bulk of a building going back and blocking the entire view, air, and privacy for the houses nearby. Ms. White questioned if there is a requirement to step down toward the back of a building on the property. 5 (11/18/21) �Chairperson Hsu stated the proposed building is in conformance with the code for lower Beekman Avenue. Shannon Pitts stated that as per the Lower Beekman Avenue Design Standards Overlay District Regulation Booklet that comes with the Comprehensive Design Plan, it states on page #16, under Setbacks and Sky Exposure Plane; a sky exposure plane is intended to preserve equitable access to light and air to the front yard and rear yard areas. Massing must meet the following front and rear yard setback requirements which are indicated as height limits as 0 feet to 18 feet from the sidewalk edge; 36 feet, meaning the building cannot be higher than 36 feet within that space. Ms. Pitts stated she thinks there is a typo but stated that from 15 feet to 80 feet the building can be up to 55 feet tall. After 80 feet down the back of this lot, the building must be no higher than 25 feet tall. This is where she gets the information saying that the proposed plan does not currently meet the standards because the 80 foot mark on the building is about three quarters of the way back and stretches about 135 feet and the building is the same height all the way across, 45 feet. Ellen McDonough suggested that she is the middle of what is going to happen at 32 Andrews Lane and what is proposed on Beekman and suggested that the Board come into her backyard and realize what is going to happen to her little piece of property. Lauren Connell stated that the code citation read by Shannon Pitts says that the project doesn't meet the codes and asked who's responsibility is it to say whether it does or doesn't. Chairman Hsu requested that Sean McCarthy explain the provisions of the code. Sean McCarthy stated that the provision for stepping the building elevation back at the referenced 8 foot mark applies when a multi-family dwelling is abutting a residential district. This area is abutting a commercial district therefore the requirement doesn't apply until it abuts the residential portion of that district. As it abuts the residential district, where it changes from commercial to residential, the proposed building elevation does step back. Mr. McCarthy requested that the architect indicate on the top portion of the site plan where the commercial district ends. Mr. Barbargli presented the proposed site plan and stated that on the west side of 135 Beekman Avenue, the first 135 feet going back is located in the C-2 Zoning District. Mr. McCarthy stated that the first 135 feet on the west side of the 135 Beekman Avenue property is located in the C-2 Zone. The gentleman's property located at 14 Andrews Lane is the first residential property that abuts the 135 Beekman Avenue property on the west side. Mr. Barbargli stated that on the east side of the property, lots 27 and 22 on Kendall Avenue, are the first two lots located in the C-2 Zoning District and then the residential zoning districts start. Mr. McCarthy stated that there is a diagonal line drawn through the site plan from the east to the west side indicating where the commercial district is and where the residential district is. The portion of the proposed building within the residential district has been stepped down to comply with the height regulation. 6 (11/18/21) �Melissa Lohman-Wild requested that Sean McCarthy clarify what a commercial district is. Sean McCarthy stated that the districts in the Village are organized on the Village Zoning Map. This area on Beekman Avenue is commercial C-2 Zoning. The areas on Andrews Lane and Kendall Avenue are primarily in the residential R-5 Zoning District. There is an official Zoning Map in the Village that designates what those different areas are and can be used for. Chairperson Hsu stated that according to the Zoning Maps for the Village, the applicants have complied with the Zoning Code as it relates to the property. Sean McCarthy stated that this is why it was requested for the architect to indicate it on the site plan so that everyone can see where the Zoning Districts are located. Mr. Polanco questioned why there is a commercial Zoning District is an area where there is mostly residential properties and how far the commercial zone extends back from Beekman Avenue. Chairman Hsu stated that the architect has described how far the commercial C-2 zone extends on both the left and right side of the property. Mr. Barbargli stated that the commercial zone extends 135 feet on the west side and approximately 150 feet on the east side. Kersten Harries requested that the architect indicate where the back of proposed building will end. The plan proposes to have a building that is fully occupied in the front, has parking on the ground floor in the back half, and a building above it. Half of the back of the lot will be open air parking. Ms. Harries stated that if the members of the public see where the limit of the back of the building is proposed, a vast majority of residents on Andrews Lane and Kendall Avenue will understand that they will not have any building behind them and that only one lot on Kendall Avenue will be impacted. Mr. Barbargli indicated on the site plan where the proposed back of the building will end. Chairperson Hsu asked the applicants to confirm that half of the lot is essentially a parking lot. Sal Alesci stated the proposed back of the building will only block the views from one neighbor on Kendall Avenue that is not facing Beekman Avenue and a portion of one property on Andrews Lane. Erin Carney requested that the architect also indicate that the back section is an open parking area that will have open air flow on the ground floor plane where there is a roofed parking area. Sal Alesci stated that the open parking area exists currently will not be changed or be extended. 7 (11/18/21) �Kersten Harries requested that the architect present the comparison of the existing site plan and proposed site plan for the back parking areas and open spaces in order to show members of the public that the back of the proposed building will be where the existing rows of shrubs are now. Chairperson Hsu stated that when you look at the existing structures and site plan verses the proposed site plan, there will more open green space in the back of the property where the two existing sheds are located and that it will provide a buffer in terms of the parking lot and additional green space for the neighboring properties. The owner of 14 Andrews Lane stated that the view from his backyard will include windows and balconies looking down on him and requested that tall trees are planted to provide some privacy in the landscape buffer. Shannon Pitts requested where she could find the citation that states that the Design Overlay only applies to residential areas and not to the commercial district in the Beekman Overlay district. Chairperson Hsu stated that she cannot quote a citation. Lauren Connell asked if it has been resolved that the proposed building is in compliance with the Village Codes and asked if codes are supposed to be interpreted for the benefit of the existing village residents, and requested that the Board not move forward with an approval until it is resolved. Chairperson Hsu stated that their job as the Planning Board is to make decisions that benefit the entire community and is not based on longevity and tenure. They also want to spur development in the Village because there is a lack of housing stock across the entire range of market values and that there are people looking to invest in the community and develop additional housing stock. Mr. Alesci has confirmed that the rents will be comparable to the existing 3 units. They have to be even handed in how they treat applicants before the Planning Board and cannot be discriminating in favor of someone because they got squatting rights on a particular block. Clinton Smith stated that the Village Architect, who is the principle resource for the Planning Board, has reviewed the law and issued his opinion that the proposed project is in compliance. That should settle this for this group. If someone reads it differently or wants to see the basis for it, they can appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation of his ruling. That is the system that the State of New York has set up. Chairperson Hsu stated the Board members here this evening are all in agreement that the application is conforming to the existing code for both the Design Overlay as well as the residential and commercial districts of Beekman Avenue. It has been an investment of time and effort for the applicant to bring the project in line with the Zoning Code, and to their credit, they started the application process before the Design Overlay process was even initiated so they have had to transition their site plan and their design to adapt to a code that changed mid-application and this should be acknowledged. Chairperson Hsu solicited the advice from Clinton Smith on whether or not they should adjourn the public hearing and hold the record open given the amount of comments received. 8 (11/18/21) �Clinton Smith stated it makes sense to hold the public record open for a month and that there will be some more design input. Chairperson Hsu stated that they will request a separate Architectural Review Board approval for exterior fa9ade designs of the property but that she realizes that the applicants are eager to move forward with the site plan approval. Chairperson Hsu solicited additional comments from the Board members. Lindsay Krakauer asked Mr. Alesci if there are any adjustments that come to mind after hearing the comments from the public. Mr. Alesci stated that the public was misinformed as far as what the proposed building will be blocking and may be misinterpreting how far back the building is proposed and misinterpreting the proposed height of the building. The building will be big but the property is zoned for the proposed size and they want to create a building that people want to live in. Lauren Connell stated that the applicants should consider the historical character of the neighborhood and that they can still make tons of money. Sonia Munroe lives at 63 New Broadway and stated that it is in fact a residential neighborhood and people live here in their private houses and questioned why commercial zoning rules are being applied to a residential neighborhood. Changes should be made to the Zoning rules where it is a fact that these properties are residences and not commercial properties. David Smith requested that if the Board keeps the public hearing open, that the applicant come back with a graphic rendering that better illustrates the proposed building on the lot in relation to the neighboring properties. Sal Alesci requested that the Board close the public hearing because although he understands some of the public comments, the fact is that the 135 Beekman Avenue lot is zoned for this property and they are not asking for a variance. Chairperson Hsu asked Clinton Smith if they are permitted to close the public hearing and leave the public record open for written comments. Clinton Smith stated that the Board may close the public hearing for oral comments and keep the record open for written comments for a time determined by the Board. Chairperson Hsu polled the Board members on whether or not they wish to keep the public hearing open. Kersten Harries stated that she is in favor of keeping the public hearing open. Ed McCarthy stated he is in favor of keeping the public hearing open for another month. 9 (11/18/21) �Ann White requested that if the public hearing is continued, they provide a Spanish translator. Lindsay Krakauer stated that she is also in favor of keeping the public hearing open. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to December 16, 2021. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Vote 6-0 3. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed swimming pool, Site plan approval extension- Presentation Kimberly Martelli is the architect representing the applicant and stated that there are a number of residential and accessory structures on the site. Since the approval was granted by the Planning Board, they have exceeded the time frame for the issuance of Building Permits due to COVID-19 and materials delays. They have received permits for the Carriage House and the building has just commenced construction. Permits still need to be obtained for the approved additions to the Main House conservatory, the one-story pool house, and the outdoor swimming pool. They are requesting an extension of the Site Plan approval and intend to begin the permitting process as soon as possible. Chairperson Hsu requested that Ms. Martelli confirm if there are any proposed amendments to the Site Plan or just a request for an extension and that delays are being caused by building material delays. Kimberly Martelli stated that they requesting an extension of the approved site plan and that there are no proposed amendments. The delays have been caused by material delays, costs and other COVID related delays. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board and consultants. James Natarelli stated that Ms. Martelli stated that there are no changes proposed to the portion of site plan work that they are seeking an extension for and asked if there are proposed changes to the Carriage House portion of the property. Ms. Martelli stated that since the approvals and permitting, there have been no proposed changes to the Carriage House. They obtained permits for the same application that the Planning Board approved and it will be constructed as approved. Motion was made to grant a one year extension for the Site Plan approval. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Krakauer Chairperson Hsu - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Kersten Harries - yes Edward McCarthy- yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 10 (11/18/21) �Chairperson Hsu stated that a resolution will be drafted for the December 16, 2021 meeting. 4. Phelps Memorial Hospital/Northwell Health, T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, Wireless Communications permit, Amended site plan - Preliminary presentation Daniel Patrick is an associate of the law firm of Cuddy + Feder LLP representing T-Mobile. Mr. Patrick stated that T-Mobile is proposing to replace the equipment on the existing wireless facility. The height of the existing monopole pole is 106 feet tall with a 4-foot mount attachment on top of it. T-Mobile is proposing to replace the 4-foot mount with new antennas. Three of the proposed new antennas will extend 2 feet above the top line height of the facility. Mr. Patrick stated that it is standard to replace wireless equipment every 3 to 5 years in order to keep up with the technology. Mr. Patrick stated that the additional 2 feet is not significant and will not be noticeable. Kersten Harries questioned if there is a way to hang the new equipment so it will not exceed the current height of the existing equipment. Mr. Patrick stated that the equipment requires to have a separation from the other wireless carriers' equipment and that the proposed heights are situated as to not interfere with other services and frequencies. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick how many carriers have antennas mounted on the monopole. Mr. Patrick stated that AT&T and Verizon have antennas mounted on the same monopole. David Smith requested that Mr. Patrick show the plan of the monopole. Mr. Patrick presented a drawing that shows the monopole. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Village has a Wireless Communications Facility Plan that was prepared in 2004 that sets the height limit at 80 feet. The existing height already exceeds the limit and the application is proposing to extend the height further. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick why he stated that the proposed additional 2 feet in height is not significant. Mr. Patrick stated that the existing facility is at a max height of 110 feet with the mount attachment. Pursuant to Federal Law, they have determined that extensions up to 20 feet are deemed not substantial as of right and as of law. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick if the Federal Law allows them to install extensions up to 20 feet in height each time. Mr. Patrick stated that they are only permitted to increase the height up to 20 feet once. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick if he has aerial views from the Kykuit view shed showing the antennas and stated that it would be useful for the Planning Board to see. 11 (11/18/21) �Daniel Patrick stated that they do not prepare photo views for analysis because of the Federal Law approval process and the significance of the minor modifications that this application constitutes. Kersten Harries requested an explanation of the proposed increase from 6 to 9 radio frequencies and what impact it will have. Daniel Patrick stated that they submitted a radio frequencies emission report which looks at the total emissions of all carriers at the facility and it has been determined that the emissions from all 3 carriers will not exceed 14% of the maximum permitted, and it is more than 5 times less than the standard that has been confirmed by the FCC as safe and not harmful. Chairperson Hsu asked Daniel Patrick who completes the radio frequency compliance assessments. Daniel Patrick stated that an electrical engineer prepares the compliance assessments. Chairperson Hsu asked if the electrical engineer is a licensed professional engineer. Daniel Patrick stated that he not a professional licensed engineer because the radio frequency reports are not structural related. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick if a structure assessment of the monopole been completed by a professional engineer. Daniel Patrick stated that the structural assessment of the monopole was submitted with the application and completed by a professional engineer. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick to describe the technology evolution that provides a reason why they need to increase the array by 50%. Mr. Patrick stated that he does not know the details but stated that technology is ever growing and that there is always a need for more wireless capacity. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick to quantify what the improvements will be in terms to coverage and capacity. Mr. Patrick stated that he does not have the information on how the proposed application will improve coverage and capacities but stated for this kind of application, the Federal Law is pretty clear that they do not have to demonstrate the need or the coverage and capacity changes given the minor nature of the proposed modifications. Mr. Patrick stated that the Federal Government wants to advance the telecommunications capabilities of the country in order to ensure the public safety and to make sure the first responders have wireless capabilities in an emergency. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Patrick if they will be improving the first responder network at the same time the improvements are being made to the commercial network. 12 (11/18/21) �Mr. Patrick stated that T-Mobile has a service that provides priority access to their communications to first responders in the event of an emergency. Chairperson Hsu stated that the first responders have a distinct network on a different part of the spectrum that keeps their channel of communications open for priority over the commercial uses. Chairperson Hsu requested that T-Mobile provide metrics that detail the improved capacity and coverage that will result based on the proposed application. Mr. Patrick stated that he is not sure T-Mobile will provide that information because they may not want to set a standard in other municipalities and it would be very costly for them to prepare the reports in a way that would be digestible to him to explain to the Boards. Kersten Harries asked Clinton Smith if requirements in the Village Code supersede the Federal Laws. Clinton Smith stated that in this instance, the Federal Law supersedes the local code and preamps the issues with coverage and also sets a sixty day deadline in which the Board needs to make a decision. The applicant can agree to extend the deadline and request that T-Mobile supply the requested reports. David Smith stated that the Planning Board and the public will need to have the information regarding the improvements in order to make an informed decision. Mr. Smith stated that the reports should be prepared in order for the Board to understand the technical data. The Village has an adopted Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") that is also adopted by the New York Department of State. This particular location is within the Kykuit view shed and in a National Historic Trust property. Due to the significant policy issues, it would be helpful for the Board to have the applicant illustrate where the monopole is in relation to the Kykuit view shed in order to determine if the impact is perceptible. There have been issues with the monopole in the past and the Board has been insistent on its' visual impacts given its relationship with the LWRP and the Kykuit. Daniel Patrick stated that T-Mobile is not the owner of the monopole. They are a lessee of space on the monopole and at the ground facility. Mr. Patrick stated that the initial application is sufficient to satisfy the legal standards to determine that this location and facility is required to provide wireless service. Mr. Patrick stated that he doesn't think the Board needs the additional information to determine the needs because they are demonstrated in the application. Chairperson Hsu stated that requested reports are for the Boards compliance assessments and that the application does not provide information detailing the coverage or capacity gaps and what this application proposes to solve. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board is requesting the coverage and capacity reports and the views from Kykuit. Daniel Patrick stated again that that the Federal Law that governs this type of application has determined that this proposed application is not a substantial modification and the level of information requested is typically not required. 13 (11/18/21) �Clinton Smith stated that the Board is requesting that the applicant provide a level of additional information and it is for the Board to decide. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Patrick if he is saying that he is not going to do what the Board has requested. Mr. Patrick stated that he will submit the request to his client but it is his experience that they do not want provide the requested information. Mr. Patrick requested that a resolution be prepared for next month's meeting given the 60 day time limit. Clinton Smith stated that a public hearing will be required and asked the Board if they want to schedule if for the next meeting. Motion was made to schedule a public for the December 16, 2021 meeting. Moved: Carney Seconded: McCarthy 5. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block OP Townhomes Phase II, Preliminary subdivision plat and site plan approval Chairsperson Hsu stated that the application has been deferred to the December 16, 2021 meeting. 6. Approval of minutes- October 21, 2021 Motion was made to approve the minutes from the October 21, 2021 meeting. Moved: Brennan Seconded: Chairperson Hsu Chairperson Hsu - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Kersten Harries - yes Edward McCarthy - yes Lindsay Krakauer- abstained Vote 5-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 PM. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 6-0 Respectfully submitted, PaJouiAv A'l&M Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 14 (11/18/21) �Exhibit #1 NOTICE from your Neighborhood Dear Neighbor, Developers are planning a very large, 14-unit apartment building of luxury housing at 135 Beekman Avenue. The existing Victorian house there will be demolished and replaced with a large box structure extending deep into the lot, deeper and taller than the other buildings and homes that exist along Beekman Avenue and between Kendall Avenue and Andrews Lane. The Village completed its Comprehensive Plan update in 2019. The Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments effort included hundreds of hours of volunteer, government, and consultant work and hundreds of residents attended various public outreach meetings. The people of this community strongly encouraged Village Hall to adopt new zoning codes that help to preserve the architectural character of Lower Beekman Avenue from Kendal! Avenue to the railroad tracks. Thankfully, the Village Board of Trustees and Mayor adopted new zoning measures that would do just that. Unfortunately, the project planned for 135 Beekman does not follow this updated zoning code due to the failure of the developer to review the law. ! am very concerned the Village's Planning Board will refer this developer to the Zoning Board of Appeals and allow the developer to ignore our new zoning code. This would overrule the community's request to encourage development that respects our unique character. The developer is able to make simple changes to his plans to conform to the new zoning code. The Planning Board should hear our opposition to this non-conforming plan and encourage the developer to conform. I hope you can attend the Planning Board Hearing at Village Hail, 28 Beekman Avenue on November 18, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. There, you can express your concerns about this project. You may also mail or email your concerns to Chairperson Hsu, c/o Village of Sleepy Hollow, Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 or by email to smccarthy@villageofsleepyhollow.org Please see the attached information about how this project does not comply with our new zoning code and why it should be made to conform with our new code. Your Neighbor, Jared Rodriguez 1 �AVISO de su vecindario Estimado vecino: Unos promotores inmobiliarios estan planificando construir un gran edificio de apartamentos con l * unidades de apartamentos lujosos, en e! 135 de !a Avenida Beekman. La casa existente, de estilo victoriano, sera demolida y reemplazada por una estructura en forma de cajon, que se extendera en toda ia profundidad del solar, mucho mas profunda y mas alta que todos los edificios y casas que existen en la Avenida Beekman, entre la Avenida Kendall y Andrews Lane, La localidad complete la actualization de su Plan Integral en el 2019. El Plan Integral y las Enmiendas de Zonificacion incluyeron el esfuerzo de cientos de horas de voluntarios, personal del gobierno y trabajos de consulta y cientos de residentes que asistieron a las reuniones de extensiones publicas, La gent* de esta comunidad motivo fuertemente a la Alcaldfa para que adoptara nuevos codigos de zonificacion que ayuden a preservar el caracter arquitectonico de la parte de abajo de la Avenida Beekman, desde la Avenida Kendall hasta las vias de! ferrocarril. Afortunadamente, el Consejo de Administration y el Alcalde de la comunidad adoptaron nuevas medidas de zonificacion que harian precisamente eso. Lamentablemente, el proyecto planificado para el 135 de la Avenida Beekman no sigue la actualizacion del codigo de zonificacion, debido a una falla del promoter inmobiliario en revisar la ley. Me preocupa que el consejo de planificacion del pueblo pueda referir este promotor inmobiliario al consejo de apelacion de zonificacion, para ignorar nuestro nuevo codigo de zonificacion. Esto anularia los requerimientos de la comunidad para fomentar desarrolios inmobiliarios que respeten nuestro muy unico caracter arquitectonico. El promotor inmobiliario puede hacer simples cambios a sus pianos que vayan en conformidad con el nuevo codigo de zonificacion. El Consejo de Planificacion deberfa escuchar nuestra oposicion a este plan no correspondiente, y motivar al promotor inmobiliario a estar en conformidad con las nuevas leyes. Espero que tu asistas a la Audiencia dei Consejo de Planificacion en PI ayuntamiento del PUPHLN noviembre del ano 2021. a la* 7-np de la noche Ahf podras expresar tus inquietudes acerca de este proyecto. Tamblen puedes expresar tus preocupaciones enviando una correspondencia a la Chairperson Hsu, % Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 o eiectronicamente a smccarthv@villageofsleepvhollnw n r . Su vecino, Jared Rodriguez 2 �A New Zoning Code That Protects Lower Beekman Avenue You can find more information about our newly adopted zoning code including our Lower Beekman Overlay District Design Guidelines at the link beiow or by scanning the QR code to the left, which will bring you to a PDF of the new code. The project at 135 Beekman does not meet the new code for a few reasons, including the size and placement of windows and the "sky exposure plane" condition, which requires the developer to construct a building that matches the general pattern of development that already exists along Lower Beekman Avenue, 0 entitled zoning.pdf |aw , ampnHi 5 M •• How the Developer's Plan Does Not Meet Our Zoning Code Please find the developer's application and plans at the link below or scan the QR code to see the plans. The developer could amend their plan for a 14-unit luxury apartment building by changing the shape of the proposed building. If the building meets the "sky exposure plane" and other setback requirements, the developer's project would be approved. This is, however, not the case and the developer must be compelled to change their design. The sky exposure plane definition requires new buildings to generally fit within the footprint of the existing buildings along Lower Beekman Avenue, meaning the tallest part of the building can be sited on Beekman Avenue and then the building would step down toward the back of the property reflecting the existing pattern of development and preserving light and air for surrounding residents. https://www.sleepyhollownv.eov/sites/g/files/vvhiif3816/f/uploads/m-721 135 beekman combined submittal.odf Reasons to Not Grant a Variance from Our New Zoning Rules A variance would allow the developer to disregard our new zoning rules, This is not acceptable The State of New York statute found in the Consolidated Laws Chapter 21, Article 5A, Section 81B describes the reasons why a variance from zoning regulations should or should not be granted I've included the text from the law below in bold and my response (in italics) as to why the allowance does not apply is included below each section or subsection. 4 Area variances, fa) The zoning board of appeals sbaii have the power, upon an appeal from a decision or determination of the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such ordinance or local law, to grant area variances as defined herein. (b) In making Its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the board shall also consider; 3 �(i) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; The project as proposed does not conform with the intent of the zoning ordinance nor the Comprehensive Plan, which advised the creation of such ordinance. The project is deeply out of character with other existing buildings, would impact equitable access to light and air; would negatively impact the ability to tend to nearby gardens which are light-dependent, and would pose a danger to surrounding properties due to fire risk stemming from blowing embers should the proposed wood frame structure ignite. ('') whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; The applicant is seeking to include 12 two-bedroom and 2 one-bedroom luxury apartment units in the project. The applicant can rearrange the bulk of the building; conform with the zoning ordinance, and fit the same number of two- and one-bedroom units. There is no material need for a variance. There is a significant need for the applicant and his architect to understand the new zoning ordinance. (Hi) whether the requested area variance is substantial; The area variance, should it be requested, would be quite substantial and would significantly violate the intent of the zoning ordinance, specifically the "sky exposure plane" requirement intended to provide equitable access to light and air to surrounding properties and especially residential properties. (Iw| whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and The project as proposed casts significant shadow on surrounding rear yards in a neighborhood where rear yards are residents' only access to green space and planting areas. The surrounding residential blocks contain no front yards, so equitable access to light and air is imperative surrounding the project parcel in question. The project does not conform with the architectural requirements indicated in the Design Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The Design Guidelines are intended to ensure new construction fits the historic architectural vernacular of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Projects that significantly alter the architectural integrity of the neighborhood pose significant risks to home values and to nearby small business viability. (v) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting ©f the area variance, 4 variance from the zoning ordinance, if requested, is due to a condition that is self-created. The applicant/developer failed to work with his architect to understand the zoning ordinance and is thereby proposing a project which is non-conforming. The applicant can make a design modification to the project, meet his own economic objectives and avoid the need for a variance. M The board of appeals, in the granting of area variances, shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community, At minimum, a variance might include allowing reduced off-street parking requirement, which may be desirous to increase the green space and permeable surfaces allotted within the parcel in question. 4 �Exhibit #2 R l cai* \/'E0 NOV 1 2 2021 Subject: Date: 135 Beekman Comment Received from Jeff Raderstrong 11-12-21 BUILDIiNG DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 10:45 A M J e f f Raderstrong <jraderst|-ongffi,gmaiLcom> wrote: Hello! I cannot attend the planning board hearing on Nov 18. but I wanted to express my opposition to the non-conforming luxury housing proposed for 135 Beekman ave. The developer should alter its plans to conform to the zoning code. Thank you! Jeff �Exhibit #3 I appreciate this opportunity to provide input on the proposed demolition of the three-family residence at 135 Beekman and the construction of a 14-unit multifamily residence. Lower Beekman is j u s t a quick walk up the hill from m y home. It is part of my larger neighborhood and w h e r e you will regularly find me walking m y little dog. Pumpkin. I applaud the recent passage of the Lower Beekman A v e n u e Design Standards Overlay District zoning. M y understanding is that zoning is n o w law in our village. I agree with the l a w ' s acknowledgement that preservation of the Lower Beekman neighborhood streetscape is important. The law accurately describes the neighborhood as being "large, generally well-maintained h o m e s set back from the sidewalk with small front yards, porches or stoops, and m a n y mature street trees. S o m e of these h o m e s have been converted to two- or three-family homes. The overall effect is to establish an attractive, walkable neighborhood that serves as a link between the downtown and the waterfront and can take advantage of both portions of the Village." Passing these design standards a f e w months ago w a s an important achievement by our Village's elected and appointed officials. The passage shows that the history and character of our diverse downtown, h o m e to most of Sleepy H o l l o w ' s Hispanic/Latino residents, is visible and important to Village officials. Research shows that 135 Beekman likely dates to the entrepreneurial Charles Smith family (Charles Smith Brickyard) from the third or fourth quarter of the 19th century. The house is a dominant feature in the visual integrity of the Lower Beekman neighborhood streetscape. It is also important to note that the location is walkable to the train station, neighborhood stores and village attractions. I live in a dense, multi-family building in the neighborhood. I and my neighbors enjoy the opportunity to w a l k . . . and those a little more fit than m e to b i k e . . . to the train, stores, and restaurants, reducing the Village's carbon footprint. Thoughtful, managed density is important to battling climate change and supporting local environmental justice. The challenge, because nothing important is ever easy, is to find the appropriate balance with maintaining the streetscape integrity of residential neighborhoods and preserving districts with important historical character. An ideal world would see an appropriately dense development, taking advantage of the depth of this large lot, that incorporates, rather than demolishes, the current building. If it is not legally possible to preserve the entire building, I would ask that the Planning Board not grant any variance f r o m the newly passed law that will alter the existing neighborhood streetscape. M a n y villages and cities have been smart about preserving the street-facing facade of existing buildings while permitting development " b e h i n d " the facade that does not alter the streetscape. I k n o w that our mayor, trustees, and Planning Board m e m b e r s care about the Lower Beekman neighborhood, the people for w h o m that neighborhood is home, and the visual importance of the neighborhood as a gateway from our riverfront into the more commercially developed Upper Beekman area. I hope you will find a way to preserve the visual role that the existing building at 135 Beekman plays in setting the tone for the overall L o w e r B e e k m a n neighborhood while allowing an appropriately dense development on the lot. Char Weigel 11 River Street Sleepy Hollow, N Y 10591 RECEIVED NOV 1 5 2021 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW �Exhibit #4 From: Patrick Munroe <pjjmunroe@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 2:25 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: criterion for approval Dear Sean, Does the 135 Beekman developer propose a rectangular building to replace it, one like Edge-on-Hudson? That would destroy the character of the neighborhood. I shot the photo on Sunday -- Legend House in Arlington, Massachusetts. They're condos in a style that blends with the character of that part of Beekman Avenue. The Village (1) Can suggest that the developer adopt that style instead; (2) Should approve no site plan that further deteriorates the old Rivertown character of Sleepy Hollow. Pat Munroe 631-2983 ��Exhibit #5 RECEIVED NOV 1 8 2021 BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW From: Karin Lane <karinlane@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 3:18 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollownv.org> Subject: Planning Board Hearing for 135 Beekman Hi Mr McCarthy, I'm not able to make the meeting tonight, but wanted to submit comments on the 135 Beekman proposal. 1 understand the developer is asking for several variances from the zoning rules. Our village has worked hard on the comprehensive plan and zoning rules. Please hold the developer to these. They were put in place for a reason, by the residents and representatives of the village. To ignore them would be deeply unfair the process, and all those w h o have spent time working on this vision. Surely the developer can find a way to follow the rules, as everyone else must. Thank you, Karin Lane 24 Continental Street �Exhibit #6 Three prayers for the Planning Board, deliberating on the developer's request for a variance to replace the Victorian house at 135 Beekman Avenue (11/15/21) This Land Is Your Land There were tents and longhouses — what century? Then imported styles made their entry. They don't have to look nice: Now it's all about price And the bottom line for the gentry. Pave It, Don't Save It Was your childhood mellow or harsh? Were the cops all Husky and Starch? Then the frogs all stopped peeping, For the Hollow was sleeping When GM paved over the marsh. You Own It, You Name It Beekman says nothing today. We want relevance, wouldn't you say? "Those were great pizzas!" "And where's St. Teresa's?" Down there on Toll Brothers Way. RECEIVED NOV 1 8 Z021 BUILDING DEPT. $ J U A G E OF SLEEPY HOLLOW �Exhibit #7 RECEIVED NOV 1 8 Z021 Original M e s s a g e - — F r o m : David Bedel! < k o n i s h i r o k u @ g m m l . c o m > BUILDING DEPT. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Sent: T h u r s d a y , N o v e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 2 1 1:21 PM T o : Sean M c C a r t h y < s m c c a r t h y @ s l e e p y h o l l o w n y . o r g > ; A n t h o n y Giaccio < a g i a c c i o @ s l e e p y l i o l l o w n y . o r g > Subject: Please forward to the Planning Board: 135 B e e k m a n . Hi, Sean and A n t h o n y — C a n you please forward this mail to the P l a n n i n g B o a r d ? 1 u n d e r s t a n d there is a hearing on this proposed d e v e l o p m e n t tonight and I w o u l d like my c o m m e n t s to be c o n s i d e r e d . 1 learned about the proposal to redevelop 135 B e e k m a n via the W e b b e r Park email list. 1 understand the developer w i s h e s to build a large structure with 14 units with 2 b e d r o o m s each and that the d e v e l o p m e n t is fully market rate — no a f f o r d a b l e housing. I have also seen a rendering of h o w the building w o u l d look f r o m the street. F r o m what I h a v e s e e n , the proposal is not at all in c h a r a c t e r for this part o f Sleepy H o l l o w . T h e sheer size o f the building, h o w it o v e r s h a d o w s its neighbors, and the unpleasant way the architecture tries to disguise its bulk frankly r e m i n d s m e o f a H a m p t o n Inn. I m a g i n e other similar projects being built if this o n e is a p p r o v e d : T h e overall e f f e c t wouldn't be to m a k e our river town m o r e beautiful and m o r e engaging — but to m a k e it r e s e m b l e an Interstate f r o n t a g e road. We'd only be m i s s i n g a C r a c k c r Barrel with its big y e l l o w sign on a 60 foot pole. T h e r e f o r e , please require the d e v e l o p e r to redesign the p r o p o s e d structure so it f o l l o w s all Village laws about the size and s h a p e o f buildings and their architectural details. I k n o w the Village j u s t produced a C o m p r e h e n s i v e Plan and also s o m e m o r e local rules for B e e k m a n . T o retain the character o f B e e k m a n for all Village residents, please follow through with those e f f o r t s by a p p l y i n g t h e m fairly to all p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t . 1 fully trust this will result in a better Village for all residents, especially as w e are only j u s t b e g i n n i n g to feel the a f f e c t s of the d e v e l o p m e n t of the G M site. T h a n k you for c o n s i d e r i n g my c o m m e n t s , David Bedell 122 Van Tassel A v e n u e � 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_2021-11-18_Approved 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