https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/dfaf9c4c2c03244440c6e146447f0735.pdf 7912394f09b26b3b9fa6d1b95eb9b0c1 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes October 22, 2020 The regular meeting was held via Zoom webinar and called to order at 8:00 PM by Chairperson Marjorie Hsu. Residents could not attend in person due to the COVID- 19 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 Matthew Brennan Tom Andruss Ed McCarthy Also Present: Clinton Smith, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Anthony Catalano, Consulting Engineer Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Absent: Lindsay Krakauer Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 199 Beekman Avenue, Phase I waterfront open space, site plan and wetlands permit approval - Continued public hearing 2) Jonathan Villani, 30 Andrews Lane, Proposed townhome development- Continued public hearing 3) 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- Public hearing 4) Sleepy Hollow Residences, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 2 Maxwell Drive, Phase II, Block-F amended site plan - Public hearing 5) GTY NY Leasing Inc., 215 North Broadway, Amended site plan - Public hearing 6) Ivan and Sonia Vukusic, 143 Webber Avenue, Proposed subdivision, Public hearing 7) LL Parcel I LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 102, 203, and 305 Legend Drive, Phase I, Block-I amended site plan approval - Preliminary presentation 8) Approval of minutes - September 17, 2020 Chairperson Hsu read the following statement: 1 (10/22/20) �Tonight's meeting and work session is being convened in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order Number 202.1 issued March 13, 2020 which suspends certain provisions of the New York State Open Meetings Law to allow a municipal board to convene a meeting via videoconferencing. In accordance with the Executive order, the public has been provided with the ability to view tonight's meeting and a transcript will be provided at a later date. I have also confirmed with our Village Clerk that this meeting has been duly noticed by posting a notice on the Villages' bulletin boards, faxing a copy to the Warner Library, faxing a copy to the Journal News and the Hudson Independent newspapers, posting a copy on the Village's website, and listing it on the Villages' Facebook page. Chairperson Hsu polled the Board members for attendance. Chairperson Hsu read the agenda. 1. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 199 Beekman Avenue, Phase I waterfront open space site plan and wetlands permit approval - Continued public hearing Andrew Tung is an associate of Divney Tung Schwalbe LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung stated they have submitted a supplemental submission with revisions made to the engineering drawings to further address the comments received from Woodard & Curran and the Village Architect. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. Tom Andruss suggested that additional rocks or a railing be added to the areas where the rip rap drop exceeds thirty inches. Andrew Tung stated that the code requires a guard rail where there is a thirty inch drop from the walkway to the rip rap. They have revised the detail drawings to raise the rip rap areas to the adjacent surfaces where required by adding either a walkway or a grassy terrace to lessen the g a p. Chairperson Hsu stated that since the September meeting, there have been discussions with the Village Board of Trustees, the Village Public Space Council and the Planning Board members to align the goals of the waterfront space designs and that the safety adjustments made to the designs are appreciated. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: McCarthy Vote 6-0 Chairperson Hsu asked David Smith to read the highlights of the draft resolution. David Smith stated that the draft resolution has been shared with the Planning Board and the applicant. The applicant provided feedback on the draft resolution. Mr. Smith stated that there are a number of conditions that have been carried over from the overall site plan approval. The 2 (10/22/20) �interface between the public space and the rip rap has been addressed in Condition #17 of the resolution to state: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the related work the Applicant shall provide to the Planning Board a final landscape plan which shall address and mitigate any potential visual impact of utilities, including but not limited to the provision of gas and electric service. The Applicant shall also provide additional details addressing the relationship of those specific areas where public access directly abuts the existing rip-rap and where required modify the rip rap design as part of afield condition so that it does not present a building code issue and may include feature stones as part of the design David Smith stated that is was also decided to keep the condition of New York State approval as it relates to the COVID-19 pandemic as follows: If directed by the Village Building Department the Applicant shall acquire approval from the New York State Empire State Development (ESD) for classification of essential construction in order for the proposed Phase 3 construction to move forward. Such approval shall be furnished to the Village Building Department prior to commencing construction. In addition, the provisions for COVID-19 health and safety shall be in compliance with applicable local, State and Federal requirements. David Smith stated that the conditions of the draft resolution are included for the applicant to address the concerns of the Village Consultants and Village Architect in the site plan drawings as follows: Documentation, sufficient in form and substance, for the Village's Engineering Consultant to determine that the list of items outlined in the Village Consulting Engineer's 10/16/20 correspondence have been incorporated onto the site plan drawings Documentation, sufficient in form and substance, for the Village Architect to determine that the list of items outlined in the Village Architect's 9/15/20 correspondence have been incorporated onto the site plan drawings Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: McCarthy Vote 6-0 Motion was made to approve the resolution. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Thomas Andruss - yes Erin Carney - yes 3 (10/22/20) �Matthew Brennan - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 2. Jonathan Villani, 30 Andrews Lane, Proposed townhome development - Continued public hearing Jonathan Villani is the Design Consultant from Annuziata & Villani Design Consultants, Inc. representing 30 Andrews Lane. Mr. Villani stated that the recent submissions address the comments received from Sean McCarthy and James Natarelli. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan Vote 6-0 Chairperson Hsu asked Jonathan Villani to summarize the items addressed as they relate to the concerns of the massing of the buildings, roof pitch, electrical meters for the units, and the water lines. Jonathan Villani shared the site plan drawings and stated that they have been revised to detail the proposed locations of the gas and electrical meters. Mr. Villani stated that the proposed islands have been extended evenly in the court yard. He has addressed the comments received regarding the walkways, garbage and recycling. Native plantings have been added to the revised landscape plan. Mr. Villani shared the elevation drawings and stated that the pitch of the roofing has been revised to reduce the massing of the buildings. Stone has been added to wrap around the building entries as a water table. David Smith asked Jonathan Villani to share the renderings of the proposed buildings. Chairperson Hsu stated that the renderings submitted didn't allow for the Board to assess the massing of the buildings as they would incorporate with the adjacent neighborhood properties. Jonathan Villani stated that in previous submissions they have built structures on top of the existing house to display the height of the proposed buildings and renderings to show the relationship to the neighboring properties. The proposed heights of the buildings have not changed. Jonathan Villani shared the rendering drawings and stated that the public has not objected to the building height in the past. Chairperson solicited comments from the Board or consultants. James Natarelli stated that all of his comments have been addressed including the relocation of the water main into a proper easement that will be dedicated to the Village. Mr. Natarelli asked Mr. Villani to confirm the purpose of the temporary water line shown on the logistics plan. Jonathan Villani shared the logistics plan and stated that the temporary water line will be used for dust prevention, concrete mixing, and the construction activities for the project in lieu of using a water truck service. 4 (10/22/20) �James Natarelli stated that he wanted to confirm that the temporary water line was not intended to feed the trailer since the line terminates behind the structure. James Natarelli asked Jonathan Villani if it was specifically required to have two separate water main taps at the driveway for the hydrant and the new water main. Michael Stein, P.E. is the President of Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. who completed the engineering drawing for the applicant. Mr. Stein stated that the two wain main taps are proposed to avoid crossings with the sanitary sewer line and to reduce the potential of future leaks. James Natarelli asked Michael Stein for the separation distance between the two water main taps. Michael Stein stated that there is at least fifteen or twenty feet between the two water main taps. Tom Andruss suggested that Jonathan Villani consider design enhancements on the south fa9ade of Building A. Chairperson Hsu suggested speaking with the modular company to see if they can improve the visual aesthetics of the building designs when the constructions drawings are finalized. Jonathan Villani stated that modular companies limit the freedom of designs and that any additional costs would need to be approved by the owner. Mr. Villani stated that he has already enhanced the design aspects as they relate to the trim, siding, gable ends, decking, and additional stone work. Chairperson Hsu asked Jonathan Villani if he is an architect or an engineer. Jonathan Villani stated that he is a design consultant and has three companies. Annuziata & Design Consultants, Inc. has been getting projects approved for clients with his partner for twenty five years. Mr. Villani stated that he also owns a construction company and a consulting firm. Clinton Smith stated that the Planning Board could vote to close the public hearing and approve the site plan but include a condition for the construction drawings to be reviewed by the Planning Boards' role as the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Smith also suggested that renderings be prepared to show the view from Andrews Lane. Chairperson Hsu agreed that Clinton Smith's suggestions may be a good way to move forward with the proj ect. David Smith suggested that Jonathan Villani coordinate with Sean McCarthy, as the Village Architect, with the preparation of more detailed fa9ade designs. 5 (10/22/20) �Chairperson Hsu asked Jonathan Villani if he agrees with the contingencies of the proposed site plan approval. Jonathan Villani stated that he will consult with his client and the modular company to see what exterior enhancements can be made. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 6-0 Chairperson Hsu directed the Village Planner to draft a resolution for review at the November 19, 2020 meeting. 3. 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- Public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: McCarthy Vote 6-0 Andrew Tung is an Associate of Divney Tung Schwalbe LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung shared drawings and summarized the details for the twenty proposed townhome units for Block- O/P. Mr. Tung stated that the remainder of Blocks O/P will be submitted for site plan approval in early 2021. Mr. Tung stated that they received the engineering review memo from Woodard & Curran and are working on addressing their comments. Mr. Tung stated that there were several architectural questions related to the proposed units and how they relate to the Block-J townhomes of which their architect will address. Jennifer FitzGibbon is the Senior Job Captain and architect from KTGY Architecture + Planning. Ms. FitzGibbon shared the Block-J Front Elevations drawing and described the "kit of parts" and design style differences between what has been constructed and what is to be constructed based on purchaser selections. Ms. FitzGibbon shared the Block-J Park style unit front elevations and described the "kit of parts" variations used in the unit construction. David Smith stated that these graphics are helpful in understanding how the different type units and variations have been mixed into the construction of Block-J and how it relates to the proposed construction for Blocks O/P. Peter Chavkin is the Managing Partner of Biddle Real Estate Ventures and stated that they prepared this presentation to show how the "kit of parts" has been implemented in Block-J so that it makes sense to consider the "kits of parts" for Blocks O/P. Mr. Chavkin stated that there are four basic unit model types that have different elevation frontages as well as variations and diversity within the interior construction based on purchaser selections. Jennifer FitzGibbon described the different floor plan options that would affect the exterior fa9ade depending on the unit type. 6 (10/22/20) �James FitzPatrick is the Division President of the New York Region for Toll Brothers Inc., and stated that their business model is that they are a production custom luxury home builder. They have pre-programmed the options for the Edge-on-Hudson Development in which there are restrictions for plan type, elevations types, and exterior colors for the townhomes, but the deposit foundation plans allow for customized interior floor plans based on how the home buyer wishes to use the first, second, and third floor spaces. Jennifer FitzGibbon shared drawings and renderings and stated that they want to make sure that Block O/P has some unique features while still blending in with the Block-J units across the street. Material upgrades are proposed by using cultured stone in lieu of brick for the exterior facades. Similar siding and panel materials will be used with color variations at the different levels to keep some similarity with the Block-J townhomes. Ms. FitzGibbon summarized the proposed materials for the Block O/P townhomes and presented two color scheme options for the exterior facades. Chairperson Hsu asked Ms. FitzGibbon if the proposed exterior facades are pre-programmed selections or if they allow for the "kit of parts' variations. Jennifer FitzGibbon stated that they propose to keep this overall look as the primary element exterior facades of Block O/P. They will have controlled elevations at the high visibility units. Ms. FitzGibbon stated that as part of the "kit of parts" features, purchasers will be permitted to customize floor plans that may result in variations on the second and third floor facades. Peter Chavkin stated that they requested that KTGY and Toll Brothers Inc. create the designs for proposed twenty units of Block O/P to be similar, not dissonant, and to include enhancements to show the evolution of the development from the already constructed Block-J townhome units. David Smith stated that Peter Chavkin's comment about Disney World is something that the Village thought about when they prepared the Waterfront Linkage Study which helped in forming the Design Guidelines. The term that came out of the study was "planned eclectisism" and it is a theme that has been running since the inception of the project, at least from when the Village contemplated the redevelopment of the site to say that the architectural issues may be addressed as part of the site plan. Chairperson Hsu suggested that the designs for Block O/P provide more rear exterior elevations then the Block-J units. James FitzPatrick stated that Block-J units were sold before the models were built and that purchasers didn't see the value of the bump outs on paper. The need for the bump out on the third floor is based on the floor plan chosen and desired bedroom count. In the future, a rear bump out will be pre-preselected for a unit with three bedrooms on the third level. Jennifer FitzGibbon shared a proposed base floor plan drawing and described the interior components and the configuration options for the four levels of Block O/P townhome units. Ms. FitzGibbon shared the typical lot diagram that includes the rear bump out. 7 (10/22/20) �Chairperson Hsu stated that Block-J was granted a variance for increased building heights and stated that there should be variability for the heights of the proposed Block O/P townhomes. Peter Chavkin stated that there was a height variance approved for the Block-J townhomes that covered the first buildings along Legend Drive. Mr. Chavkin stated that he will review with his team to determine if there are height restrictions that will require a variance for the proposed Block O/P townhomes. David Smith stated that variations of three and four-story building heights along Hollows Pass were an issue that was in the original 2007 Environmental Findings, and where there needs to be some variation in building height, and probably part of a subsequent phase of evaluation when the part of the site plan for the balance of Block- O/P comes in, and that it extends to part of Block-P, lot two; any of the townhome units that front along Hollows Pass which fronts on the buffer area that runs along Kingsland Point Park. Peter Chavkin stated that the proposed Block O/P units that require height variations will be covered by a subsequent site plan application. Chairperson Hsu stated that there should also be variability in the townhome width for the subsequent site plan application for the balance of the townhomes in Block O/P and perhaps in the future Block-Q and that all of the units in this current application are 20 foot-wide. Peter Chavkin stated that the widths of the twenty proposed townhomes for Block O/P are 20 foot-wide and 22 foot-wide to mirror what has been built in the adjacent Block-J buildings. Mr. Chavkin stated that they are still working through the design for the balance of the Block O/P buildings to decide on widths of the units. Andrew Tung stated they are also seeking approval for a preliminary subdivision to create four parcels within each of the proposed townhome groups of the twenty units. Subsequent subdivision applications will be proposed for the balance of the Block O/P site plan applications. Chairperson Hsu asked Andrew Tung to share the submitted figure that outlines the proposed building shapes. Andrew Tung shared Figure No. 2 and stated that each building group of townhomes is proposed to be their own sub parcel. Peter Chavkin stated that Figure No. 2 represents a concept design plan for the balance of the Block O/P to illustrate how it could be laid out and that it does not represent the definitive dimensions of the buildings. Mr. Chavkin stated that it is definitive that the balance of BlockO/P will be townhomes but that the final layout will need to be decided for the final widths, the view corridors, and the circulation in order to determine what the private drives and alley ways will look like. David Smith asked Andrew Tung to confirm that the intersection bend in Palisades Boulevard at Sleepers Haven will not present any issues in visual traffic circulation. 8 (10/22/20) �Andrew Tung stated that they do not anticipate that the intersection bend in Palisades Boulevard at Sleepers Haven will present issues in traffic circulation as the site distance is adequate in both directions and the speed limit will be 20 miles per hour within the development. David Smith asked if Sleepers Haven will be a public street. Andrew Tung stated that Sleepers Haven will be a cut through in that location but it will be determined and coordinated with the Village on whether or not it will be a public street. David Smith stated as of the last Riverfront Concept Development Plan reviewed by the Village Board, they wanted to keep Sleepers Haven as a public road. Peter Chavkin stated that if the subsequent plans for the balance of Block O/P find a reason for Sleepers Haven to not be a public street, they will make a request to the Village Board. Chairperson Hsu asked Andrew Tung when the proposed final layouts of the balance of Blocks O/P will be ready for submission. Peter Chavkin stated that they expect to have the proposed layouts for the balance of Blocks O/P ready for submission by the first quarter of next year. Chairperson Hsu stated that it will be more realistic for the Planning Board to evaluate a site plan as a whole instead of piece meal. Peter Chavkin stated that this partial site plan approval is being requested in order to keep up with the sales efforts of Toll Brothers and allow them to continue to have product to sell. Development of engineering and architectural drawings on a larger scale cannot be completed quickly enough to meet the base of the sales efforts. Chairperson Hsu asked if they could prepare an overall site layout of the proposed buildings locations without completing the full engineering and architectural drawing details. Peter Chavkin stated that there are too many decisions to be made to complete a separate site layout for the remainder of Block O/P buildings. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. Kersten Harries stated it would be helpful to see a more developed site plan for the remainder of Block-P in order to get a better sense of the amount of green space verses pavement area and to be able to weigh in on the possibilities if the partial site plan for Block-O was approved. Peter Chavkin stated that he can say for certain that Block-P will include residential units that will front Palisades Boulevard and that they will explore several options for the interior of the Block-P. The amount of green space verses impervious surface will be proposed and delivered within the conditions of the Special Permit approval and doesn't think there will be issues with 9 (10/22/20) �the amount of green space but that they will take her comments into consideration when designing Block-P. David Smith stated that he is in agreement with Kersten Harries and that the Riverfront Development Concept Plan originally showed a green space in Block-P and showed a larger green space than what is now proposed in Block-O. Each townhome block previously contained its' own interior green space as a separate park type area. Mr. Smith stated that not having the site plans fully developed poses a risk for issues and concerns from the Planning Board; for example will there be outdoor parking for the townhome block that front on the last portion of the Tappan Zee Park or will a parking variance be required because of the lack of space to provide the required parking spaces. David Smith stated that the applicant is being put on notice to think about the other components as part of their evaluation. The Planning Board is aware of the need and desire to help in response to the market demands, but that it shouldn't adversely impact the balance of the site plan development. Peter Chavkin stated that they will be having a conversation with the Village Board about parking requirements inside the townhome blocks. The concept plan submitted and shared at this meeting does not presume that they have been granted a request that they intend to make but if it did, and they don't get the request granted, they realize that it is entirely their risk and that no one is obligated to give them any discretionary approval that back doored into this. Mr. Chavkin stated that he doesn't believe they are taking a risk but that they recognize that they would be at risk if someone doesn't want to give them a waiver. Kersten Harries asked if the buyer would be given an option for the installation of an elevator and if it has been contemplated where it would go in the floor plan. James Fitzpatrick stated that options for elevators can be accommodated in the Block-J Park elevation homes that face either the Central Park or the central green space. Mr. Fitzpatrick estimated that 75 percent of the Block-J townhomes could accommodate an elevator. They have sold four elevator unit plans to date. The market trend has been much younger in the past four months or so and that they are not seeing the same interest from the traditional downsizers and those that are interested in an elevator option are gravitating towards the single level living loft units. Peter Chavkin stated that the proposed twenty townhome units can't offer elevator options. James Fitzpatrick stated that due to the flood elevation and the washington wall that runs along the perimeter, the lead walk is an average of three steps to the front door. Peter Chavkin stated that in order for an elevator to be installed, the front door must be handicapped accessible and because of the difference of the street elevation and the elevation of the buildings' finished floor necessary for the FEMA flood plain issues there is not enough room for a ramp to the front door. The units that face a street can't offer an elevator but the units that will be in the interior of the Block or face Tappan Zee Park could have that option. 10 (10/22/20) �Kersten Harries asked if the market trend for younger buyers has influenced the components that are are being provided in the site plan than previously planned. James Fitzpatrick stated that he has not found any instances where they have been unable to provide the home space that buyers are looking for. Kersten Harries asked Peter Chavkin if the younger market trend may allow them to propose play structures within the Edge-on-Hudson development. Peter Chavkin stated that there will be a play scape area included in the Waterfront Open Space towards the Hudson Plaza. They do not have any plans to add jungle gyms into any of the private townhome block green spaces but perhaps the Palisades Green section of the Waterfront Open Space could include a plan for a play structure and they could discuss it with the Open Space Council. David Smith stated that they may be an option at the third portion of the Tappan Zee Park since it has not been programmed yet. Chairperson Hsu suggested that seating areas be added to the front of the larger townhome units that front Hollows Pass. Peter Chavkin stated that they will make a note to consider incorporating the suggestion into the future site plan application. Mr. Chavkin stated that they are working to finalize the concerns from Woodard & Curran and requested that the Planning Board consider closing the public hearing and vote on an action at the next meeting. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board members have expressed their interest to see more visibility into the overall layout of Blocks O/P so there is a gap in what the Board would like to see and what has been prepared. Peter Chavkin asked if the Planning Board will not act until they see what is contemplated for the balance of Block-O and Block-P. Chairperson Hsu stated it is her strong preference and that Kersten Harries has expressed her interest in seeing more of the overall plan. Mark P. Weingarten, Esq. is a partner in the law firm of Delbello Donnellen Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Weingarten stated that he disagrees with the comment about maximizing the number of units. If you look at the site plan, there is so much open space and it is well thought out. The request is market driven for a very small number of units and no one has suggested that any of the issues discussed at this meeting don't need to be dealt with and that they will be dealt with. There will be flexibility to shift a unit that is preventing parking and plenty of area within the site to do so in future applications. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to hyperactive activity and it is why they are proposing a smaller portion of the Block O/P. Mr. Weingarten stated that the Planning Board will get all the information they are looking for but the submission will not be ready for several months. He 11 (10/22/20) �urged the Planning Board to reconsider closing the public hearing and accommodating the approval for the twenty units. Tom Andruss asked Clinton Smith if the same conditions could apply to this application similar to the decision for 30 Andrews Lane by moving forward with the understanding that the Board will still want to see an understanding of the whole site plan design for the remainder of Blocks O/P. Clinton Smith stated that the 30 Andrews Lane application is different as the requested information is for the review by the Planning Board as the Architectural Review Board. In this instance the Board is requesting site plan information on the balance of Block O/ P that will not be available for some time. Mr. Smith asked David Smith if closing the public hearing would start the clock running for the approval of the resolution. David Smith stated that the Planning Board could keep the public hearing open and direct staff to prepare a draft resolution for the next meeting. If we close the public hearing tonight, the clock on the site plan approval starts. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant has been put on notice that the Planning Board has concerns about the balance of the layout for Blocks O and P and that that it will be given very critical review when the next application is submitted. Mr. Smith stated that Toll Brothers may not be the developer for the balance of Blocks O and P and that different developers may have the opportunity to come up with design concepts as part of the "planned eclecticism " Chairperson Hsu stated that they are open to creative approaches to fulfill the applicants request while still being able to live up to the obligations of the Planning Board and support the consultants and Building Department. Chairperson Hsu requested input from Sean McCarthy. Sean McCarthy suggested that the applicant submit a simple concept plan to illustrate how the balance of the development of Blocks O and P could be laid out to show that they will keep the same number of units and roughly the same amount of green space. The engineering drawings and detailed dimensions could be submitted with the future site plan application. Providing an overlay drawing showing how the balance of the units can be placed on the two blocks should allow the Planning Board to feel comfortable moving forward. Anthony Catalano is the Village's consulting engineer from Woodard & Curran and stated that there are concerns that need to be addressed in regards to water and sewer, and stormwater management. Mr. Catalano asked Peter Chavkin for the timing of when the engineering drawings could be updated to address the concerns. Andrew Tung stated that the detailed engineering follows the setting of the footprints and the roadways. Overall engineering has been completed for the entire site. Phase III included the infrastructure of the roads that surround Blocks O and P and they have a great level of confidence that they will be able to connect to those systems. Once the final designs for the layout of the units and roadways are determined, they can complete the final engineering. 12 (10/22/20) �Peter Chavkin stated that in response to Sean McCarthy's suggestion on a preparation of an architectural site plan, they can put together a conceptual layout for the balance of Block O and P but they are reluctant to submit details to the Planning Board when they are not confident on what they want to propose. They have not determined what the market will call for as it relates to the width for the balance of the units. Mr. Chavkin stated that they could provide a concept plan with the assumption that the units will be the 20 foot-wide and 22 foot-wide units in order to show that the required number or units will fit on the site but that he is not confident submitting a concept plan that may not represent what they will propose in the future site plan applications. Sean McCarthy stated that they would not be asking for the site plans to be finalized based on the submission of a concept plan. The Planning Board wants confidence that in fact that if the pattern of layout is continued, the entire site will be a workable project. They are not requesting to see details on the concept plan. The approved Riverfront Development Concept plan has changed several times during the site plan approval for Block-J and site plans for Blocks O/P can be fine-tuned during the subsequent applications. Peter Chavkin agreed to provide a concept plan for the layout of the balance of Blocks O and P with the understanding that it will be a concept plan and it will change. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant is only asking for the approval for two blocks and that the Planning Board is just requesting to see an overall site plan in context. Peter Chavkin stated that they will submit a concept plan for the balance of Blocks O and P by the submission deadline for the next meeting. Chairperson Hsu asked Peter Chavkin to provide more details on why they are so reluctant to determine the market concerns for the balance of the Block O and P development. Peter Chavkin stated that significant analysis is completed every time they want to introduce a new product to determine not just what fits in a three dimension plan but also what consumers want to buy and what home builders want to build. James Fitzpatrick stated that this is one of the reasons why they programmed for as much customer selected variability in the first phase of the project. Discussion ensued on procedures for closing the public hearing and time frame for resolution approval. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the November 19, 2020 meeting and to direct staff to prepare a draft resolution. Moved: Harries Seconded: McCarthy Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Tom Andruss- yes Erin Carney - yes 13 (10/22/20) �Matthew Brennan - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 4. Sleepy Hollow Residences, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 2 Maxwell Drive, Phase II, Block-F, Amended site plan - Public hearing Mark P. Weingarten, Esq. is a partner in the law firm of Delbello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Weingarten stated that the original site plan approval for Block-F permitted (426) parking spaces in the garage. Upon preparation of the construction drawings, it was determined that the Zoning Code actually required (1) more parking space; bringing the total to (427) parking spaces. It was determined that the current size of the garage could accommodate an additional (50) parking spaces; providing a total of (477) spaces. The surplus parking spaces will be used to satisfy the deficit of the (1) parking space for Block-F and the balance of the parking spaces will be used to be used for the future commercial uses of Block-H. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: McCarthy Vote 6-0 Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Chairperson Hsu asked David Smith to read the draft resolution. David Smith stated that a draft resolution has been prepared, circulated to the Planning Board, and reviewed by the applicant. Mr. Smith read the last resolved clause and the conditions on the resolution. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Andruss Vote 6-0 Motion was made to approve the draft resolution. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Tom Andruss - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Ed McCarthy - yes 14 (10/22/20) �Vote 6-0 APPROVED 5. GYT Leasing Inc., 215 North Broadway, Amended site plan - Presentation Grace Gruseskas is the graphic designer for Gloede Neon Signs representing the Chestnut Market for a proposed site plan amendment and stated that they are requesting approval to install one sign on the front fa9ade and one sign on the road side of the building. Ms. Gruseskas referenced the comments received and stated that although it is a Mobil Mart, the lettering proposed for the signs is designed to portray a more upscale image in order to be in keeping with the architectural design of the building and the neighboring properties. They followed the size guideline for the signs that states that no sign should be larger than 24 inches and that the designed the trademarked logo that is more of a triangular shape. They propose that the front fa9ade sign will include the Chestnut squirrel at two foot-high with letters to include a 16 inch letter C that would equal a total width of 10 feet or a total width of 12 feet 6 inches if you include the width of the squirrel. The same size logo and letters are proposed for the road side sign in a justified right version since it is closer to the intersection. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Carney Vote 6-0 Chairperson Hsu stated that comments were prepared by David Smith to detail the specific sign design guidelines and to request that the proposed signage be adjusted to comply with the Village's Zoning Code. A supplemental submission has not be received to indicate that the signage sizes have been reduced. Chairperson Hsu stated that she is referring the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply for a variance for signage at the proposed dimensions. Grace Gruseskas asked David Smith if the proposed logo on top of the letters is considered in the entire height. David Smith stated that the code says that the maximum vertical dimension of any signage against a building should be 24 inches. When you look at the fa9ade design the logo and the lettering seem to exceed 24 inches. The code also states that for circular, oval, square, or nonrectangular signs, the total sign area shall not exceed 9 square feet. Mr. Smith stated that his comments illustrated how he made the calculations but that he didn't receive a response to confirm if his methodology was correct. The application is being referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals in order for them to clarify the allowable sign dimensions and to decide if the application requires a variance. If a variance is required and granted, the application can then come back before the Planning Board for amended site plan approval. Motion was made to refer the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Vote 6-0 Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the November 19, 2020 meeting. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 6-0 Chairperson Hsu - yes 15 (10/22/20) �Kersten Harries - yes Tom Andruss - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 6. Ivan and Sonia Vukusic, 143 Webber Avenue, Proposes subdivision - Presentation Michael Stein, P.E., is the President of Hudson Engineering & Consulting, P.C. representing the applicant. Mr. Stein presented the proposed three-lot subdivision site plan and stated that they propose to subdivide the property to create (2) additional lots along the frontage of Webber Avenue. The existing three-family house will remain as Lot #1 with 17,087 square feet. Lot #2 is proposed to have 5,763 square feet and Lot #3 is proposed to have 5,869 square feet. Mr. Stein stated that he received the review memo prepared by David Smith stating that a 50 foot frontage is required for the proposed lots and that the application will be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. Mr. Stein stated that there are provisions in the code and that the Planning Board has the discretion to adjust requirements but that he does not object to the referral because they will also be required to get approval for a three-family non-conforming use within the zoning district. Mr. Stein stated that as per the request of James Natarelli, they contracted a wetlands soil scientist to confirm the presence of wetlands and have submitted a letter from William Kenny Associates LLC. The recent memo received from James Natarelli requested that they investigate a property off site. Mr. Stein stated that they do not have the right to go on someone's private property and if this was required, it should have been requested at the last meeting to avoid the applicant paying the soil scientist a second time. They are not sure they can get access to the other property and can't confirm if they will be able to comply with the request. Mr. Stein stated that they have submitted the required documents to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to request a determination on the potential presence of wetlands at the site. Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Andruss Vote 6-0 Michael Stein stated that they will submit documents supporting the easement and that they do not propose to increase any use of the easement area and it currently serves the existing property to the rear. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. Phil Zegarelli stated that he and his wife own 141 Webber Avenue. Mr. Zegarelli stated that he appreciates that the application has been referred to the Zoning Board. Mr. Zegarelli requested that the Planning Board schedule a site visit so they can see that the application submission and the presentation does not indicate the magnitude of putting two additional houses on the property. Mr. Zegarelli requested that a Code 53 be issued to make sure that all of the utilities are properly located. Mr. Zegarelli described the concerns they have regarding the 16 (10/22/20) �encroachment, the use of the proposed flag lot entrance, the accessibility of the existing stone bridge, and the seasonal stream. A letter prepared by Phil Zegarelli was also send to the Planning Board to submit as public comments- (See attached Exhibit #1) There were no further comments from the public. Motion was made to refer the application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Andruss Vote 6-0 James Natarelli asked Sean McCarthy who owns the adjacent property south of the bridge. Michael Stein stated that Phil Zegarelli owns the adjacent property. James Natarelli asked if it was appropriate to ask Mr. Zegarelli for permission to access his property tonight to investigate the presence of the intermittent stream. Phil Zegarelli stated that he has no objections to granting access to his property. Michael Stein stated that he will get his contact information from Sean McCarthy and contact him to schedule a visit. James Natarelli stated that as per his memo, Michael Stein will need to submit the requested information so that he may continue his review. Phil Zegarelli stated that he has a GPS survey completed by TC Merritts that he is willing to share the thumb drive of the original. Michael Stein stated that he will ask TC Merritts for the map and prepare an overall map. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the November 19, 2020 meeting. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: McCarthy Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Vote 6-0 Vote 6-0 APPROVED 7. LL Parcel I, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 101, 203, and 30 Legend Drive, Phase I, Block-I amended site plan approval- Preliminary presentation 17 (10/22/20) �Andrew Tung is an Associate of Divney Tung Schwalbe LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung shared aerial photographs and stated that Block-I is located parallel to the Metro North tracks on the eastern side of the development. The three buildings are located on 4.6 acres with a total of 188 apartments and received amended site plan approval in September of 2019. Mr. Tung shared drawing SP-0.1 and stated that they are proposing refinements to the swimming pool and its' adjoining amenity areas and utility connections. They propose to add a second transformer between the I-2 building and the I-3 building and to relocate one parking space behind the I-3 building as necessary for the transformer installation. Additional grading changes are proposed along the frontage of the I-2 building and the frontage and north side of the I-1 building. Mr. Tung shared an illustrative drawing of the pool area and stated that they propose to shift the location of the pool and add a pool pump house at the east end. Decorative paving is proposed to be added around the pool area and at the two amenity spaces at the I-1 and I-2 buildings. Additional landscaping is proposed at the front of the pool and along the fenced areas. The proposed pump house building will include a room for the pool equipment, two restrooms, and a dog wash room with an entrance from the parking area only. Mr. Tung shared a drawing and summarized the architectural materials proposed for the pool pump house. Mr. Tung shared a drawing and described where the proposed transformer will be located and how it will be screened with landscaping. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. James Natarelli asked Andrew Tung if the box labeled TEL at the I-2 building can be moved off of the existing water main or out of the easement. Andrew Tung stated that he will verify if it can be moved and that they intend to propose an easement for the water main to the Village that would permit additional utilities to be located within the easement if the utilities were not to interfere with the operation of the water main. James Natarelli stated that there appears to be outdoor heating units inside the easement left of the I-2 building. Andrew Tung stated that the structure is a gas powered fire pit and it can be relocated if necessary. James Natarelli asked Andrew Tung to confirm if the water feed for pool pump house is from the I-2 building and if all of the outdoor pool areas are served by the pool pump house. Andrew Tung stated that he believes that water feed comes from the I-1 building but he will check with his associate and confirm James Natarelli stated that if the water feed has the ability to come from the I-1 building, he would suggest that all of the utility connections and fixtures stay on one parcel. 18 (10/22/20) �Chairperson Hsu asked David Smith to explain the approval process permitted for this application. David Smith stated that the Planning Board has the discretion to approve a minor site plan amendments without the formal process. As directed by the Planning Board, a draft resolution has been prepared. Mr. Smith read the last resolve clauses of the draft resolution. Motion was made approve the draft resolution. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: McCarthy Chairperson Hsu - yes Kersten Harries - yes Tom Andruss - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 10. Approval of minutes- September 17, 2020 Motion was made to approve the September 17, 2020 minutes. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Thomas Andruss - abstained Kersten Harries - yes Erin Carney - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Vote 5-0-1 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:16 PM. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Vote 6-0 19 (10/22/20) Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board �EXHIBIT #1 DECEIVED OCT 1 3 2020 B U I L D I N G DEPT, VILLAGE OF SLEEPY H O L L O W To the Chairperson and Members of the Village of Sleepy hollow Planning Board. The owner's house (unlike ours) has a 3-family (maybe even a 4 family) non-conforming house in a one family zone (R-3). The Vukusic application indicates that he has a one family. Their property currently has 28,719 sq feet and with the 2 family carve-out that leaves him 17,087 sq feet: the 2 new lots would have 5,869 and 5,763 square feet for each, respectively. This makes his current 3 family house even more of a non-conforming parcel. Of course, zoning provides that an existing non-conformity should not be increased absent a ZBA application. Our "141" residence is a one family conforming residence and utilities water are on the north side. Note that the postal addresses for this location are 143,145A and 145B: three separate designations. We believe that the aforementioned appears to be a significant flaw to their application and that any hearing be discharged until rectified. We note that Vukusic told both my wife and me that he was going for only one new lot. We told him that we could understand one new lot but that, among other issues, the stone bridge that my wife and I own had to have a sizable no-build conveyance on the north side in the event that our bridge (which he has only an easement over) for access when it might require work or repair. We understand and believe that utilities to 143 and 141 both transit the our property. We believe a full "code 53" mark out should be done before any hearing. With this subdivision application, We believe that Vukusic would now require at least a 20 foot frontage on Webber Avenue. His application indicates he has 14 feet but I assume by his application Vukusic has added our own 6.21 feet north of our bridge to get to his required 20 feet. This leaves him with a bogus flag lot. He has also inferred that his easement over our bridge is added to his for the application process, which is impermissible, as he is not the fee owner of the bridge, we are. Please see a copy of our deed and survey attached. The �easement was recorded in the Westchester County Clerk's Office, Division of Land Records, on January 22, 2002, at Control Number 420140206, and reported in our title (please see attached recorded easement agreement, which could be invalidated as to Vukusic as the Easement provides that it is contingent as "provided that the buildings and improvements on Parcel 1 are limited to their present use (pg. 1, first "1"))- Accordingly, if the present use and improvements of this Parcel 1 are changed or modified by this application, it could result in the Vukusic property losing the non-exclusive access and egress easement across our property off of Webber Avenue. The easement was tagged to allowing me to cross his property to get to a portion of ours some 40 years ago. At his request and our expressed desire, we re-did our road and do not require his easement now. Yet he enjoys/has our easement on the application (front page) and is taking advantage of it. The only obligation that Vukusic has to us is to pay 50% for repairs, which he hasn't. As I stated before, we own the bridge, we pay taxes on the bridge and we insure the bridge. As per above, if this application is approved, this easement in favor of Vukusic should be removed and Vukusic should now build his own road access to his 3-family house. Another problem is surface and natural drainage. Vukusic claims no wet lands yet we have at the least a seasonal stream that starts on his property. With virtually all ground cover gone for the 2 new houses, we will have additional runoff: with the water ending up into the Hudson River via the Pocantico River. I believe for this reason and because of the unique history and topography of the site and surrounding properties, this application merits a full and thorough environmental review. We note that the proposed new lot closest to the Kringas family will have power lines over the future home: we question the safety and legality since this would require the pole to be moved (at whose cost?). As an FYI, this is the current source of both electric power to Vukusic and Zegarelli's own residential power. In regard to this and other matters regarding utilities, we ask that the VSH request a "code 53" be called out to visualize the locations of all utilities and services. We look for reconfirmation that the hearing is to be held: kindly forward �"Zoom" codes and numbers. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If there are any questions or the need for additional information, please contact me. We leave open our opportunity to provide additional concerns and commentary as the occasion may arise. Sincerely, Philip and Barbara Zegarelli � 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-2020 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_2020-10-22 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2020 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2020 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