https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ed1520308f23438a5296c3c2c9c74c8e.pdf 9f4a5710788973969341615376c9285f PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Meeting May 16, 2019 The regular meeting was called to order at 8:04 PM by Chairperson Marjorie Hsu. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Kersten Harries Tom Andruss Lindsay Krakauer Erin Carney Also Present: Clinton Smith, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Pamela Pengelski, Secretary to the Planning Board Absent: Matthew Brennan Ed McCarthy Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) KWD Realty, Inc., 315 North Broadway, Amended site plan- Draft resolution Landrock LLC, 231 Webber Avenue, Proposed subdivision- Continued public hearing Daniel De Roo, 140 Hunter Avenue, Tree removals appeal- Discussion Katarzyna Arencibia, 160 Harwood Avenue, Tree removal appeal - Presentation Approval of minutes - April 25, 2019 Chairperson Hsu read the agenda. 1. KWD Realty, Inc., 315 North Broadway, Amended site plan- Draft resolution Karl Dibble is the owner of the property located at 311-315 North Broadway. Mr. Dibble stated that the plans were revised to confirm the cubic yard capacities of the storage bins, the locations of the bins, and the different uses for storage and recycling. Mr. Dibble stated there will be only four of the seven bins utilized at one time in different locations depending on the use needed during each season and weather conditions. Mr. Dibble stated that receiving the draft resolutions on the day of the meetings did not allow him time to properly prepare responses or to resolve the concerns of the Board and the Consultants. Mr. Dibble stated that the Site Plan General Notes always included recycling. Mr. Dibble stated that materials will be contained in the designated bins or the Village Code Enforcer will issue a violation. 1 (5/16/19) �Discussion ensued on the business operations illustrated on the site plans submitted and what details were not included in the oral presentation by the applicant, and the consistency of what is being requested on the revised site plan submission dated April 30, 2019. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Dibble if the submitted plan includes his final requests. Mr. Dibble stated that the plan submitted, dated April 30, 2019 is the plan that he would like the approval and the resolution to reflect. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. Kersten Harries stated that she wants to clarify that the resolution the Board is approving will be consistent with the corresponding drawing and the details requested by the Applicant. Mr. Dibble stated that the plan includes all of the proposed operation changes requested for approval. The Board discussed the resolve clauses and conditions that need to be included in an amended resolution. Motion was made to approve the resolution as amended. Moved: Andruss Seconded: Harries Chairperson Marjorie Hsu - yes Tom Andruss - yes Erin Carney -yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Kersten Harries- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED 2. Landrock LLC, 231 Webber Avenue, Proposed subdivision - Public hearing Kristen Motel is an associate from Cuddy and Feder LLP and stated that Landrock LLC proposes to subdivide the 35 acre parcel into three lots of approximately 10-13 acres each. Ms. Motel stated that they propose to utilize and modify the existing driveway entrance on Webber Avenue to create one shared driveway to access all three lots. Ms. Motel stated that the shared driveway concept addresses the Villages' Green Infrastructure Planning Schedule by preserving open space, minimizing impervious surfaces, and keeping the natural topography of the landscape. Mark J. Shorgren is a professional engineer from Divney Tung Schwalbe. Mr. Shorgren stated that they propose to use the existing driveway and pathways in order to preserve the wooded areas and propose building the houses in the meadow areas. Mr. Shorgen stated that the proposed driveway will be 12 feet wide and will include 100 foot long by 20 foot wide pull off areas constructed every 500 feet along the driveway to allow for emergency vehicle and resident passing access. There will be a common easement in the shared driveway road to provide access to all three lots. Mr. Shorgen stated that there will be six stormwater infiltration practices to 2 (5/16/19) �include one for each lot and three along the shared driveway. The stormwater systems will be sized to accommodate the increase in impervious surfaces and designed to infiltrate into the ground so that at the peak rate of runoff and total runoff volume for a 100-year storm will decrease. Mr. Shorgen stated that the proposed plan satisfies three of the goals of the Villages' Green Infrastructure Planning Practices. Tom Andruss asked if Landrock intends to gate the access to the private driveway at Webber Avenue which would restrict the public from using it to gain access to the park. Kristen Motel stated that they intend to keep the driveway private but is not aware of any plans for the entrance to be gated at this time. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no comments from the public. Motion was made to adjourn and continue the public hearing at the June 20, 2019 meeting. Moved: Andruss Seconded: Krakauer Vote 5-0 3. Daniel DeRoo, 140 Hunter Avenue, Tree removals appeal - Discussion Chairperson stated that Mr. DeRoo is not present and asked Sean McCarthy if there was a proposed resolution. Sean McCarthy asked if the Board would consider allowing the applicant to remove one of the two trees proposed for removal and wait to see if the health of the other tree improves or if it needs to be reconsidered for removal at a future date. Motion was made to allow the removal of (1) Blue Spruce tree on the front left side of the property. Moved: Andruss Seconded: Harries Vote 5-0 4. Katarzyna Arencibia, 160 Harwood Avenue, Tree removal appeal -Presentation Katarzyna Arencibia is the owner of 160 Harwood Avenue. Ms. Arencibia stated that she has been a resident at 160 Harwood Avenue for ten years and has made significant improvements to the home and the landscaping. Ms. Arencibia stated that she is a certified landscape designer. Mr. Arencibia stated that the River Birch tree she is requesting to remove is approximately 50 years old, 60 feet tall, and located 16 feet from the house structure, with the crown of the tree leaning over the house. Ms. Arencibia stated that the River Birch tree is a healthy tree but does not have any landscape value, is located on the side of her property in between the two houses, and that with a northern wind the tree could fall and destroy her house. Ms. Arencibia stated that River Birch trees grow 3-4 feet per year so it is costly to maintain it. Ms. Arencibia stated that that her insurance premium has increased as a result her renovation project and the proximity of the tree to the addition. Ms. Arencibia stated that the shade that the tree provides has caused mold on her house. Ms. Arencibia stated that she has already planted 30 new trees on her 3 (5/16/19) �property and is unable to plant more trees because the River Birch tree kills everything within 20-30 feet from its location. Tom Andruss asked if the tree would live another ten years. Katarzyna Arencibia stated that is it a healthy tree that may live for another twenty years. Ms. Arencibia stated that the value of trees should be determined by the improvements it creates to the landscape. Tom Andruss stated that he agrees that if a replacement tree planted will grow for twenty years, that it is a fair trade for the removal. Chairperson Hsu asked if the main goal for the tree removal is for aesthetics. Katarzyna Arencibia stated that she wants to remove the tree for both safety and aesthetics as the tree is close to her house and drops branches on her roof. Ms. Arencibia stated that trees should not just be valued by their longevity properties; it should be based on what kind of outdoor space they create. Lindsay Krakauer asked Ms. Arencibia is she was willing plant a replacement tree. Kartarzyna Arencibia stated that she has already planted 30-40 trees on her property and will continue to do so to improve her backyard. Chairperson Hsu asked Ms. Arencibia if she has had conversations with the Tree Commission since they have denied the application. Katarzyna Arencibia stated that she was advised by the Tree Committee to submit the application stating that the tree was dead and that they would follow up with her to tell her she can remove the tree during the winter. The Tree Committee did not follow up on their promise and it is why she is in front of the Board today. Chairperson Hsu asked Ms. Arencibia if she misrepresented the health of the tree in her initial application. Kartarzyna Arencibia stated that this is her third or fourth application request for the same tree and that the others were denied. Ms. Arencibia stated that as per the suggestion from the Tree Committee, she mislabeled the tree on this application. Ms. Arencibia stated that the Tree Committee did not come back to her and they did not approve it. Chairperson Hsu stated that since there have been multiple attempts to remove the tree, there must have been some conversations with the Tree Commission. Katarzyna Arencibia stated that her experience with the Tree Committee has been very unpleasant. Upon submission of the application, it could took 2-3 months to get responses and there was no communication as to when they are coming to the house. After feedback was 4 (5/16/19) �provided, if she approached members of the Tree Committee, they blamed the others members for the decision, and it was not a constructive dialogue. Chairperson Hsu stated that she has driven by the house twice to look at the tree and that it looks healthy. Following the Tree Code, the Board approved the prior appeal because documentation was received from two Arborists stating that the trees were diseased. Katarzyna Arencibia asked what value the residents get from keeping the tree. Ms. Arencibia stated that no one other than her and her immediate neighbor see the tree in their view and it is not producing air for other residents. Mr. Arencibia does not understand why the opinion of her and her neighbor are not prioritized. Chairperson Hsu stated that it is based on different personal opinions. Kartarzyna Arencibia stated that the tree is on her property and that the homeowner should have an influence on what is growing on their properties. Chairperson Hsu asked Sean McCarthy for his suggestions for moving forward. Sean McCarthy asked for the proximity of the tree to the house since the renovation was completed. Kartarzyna Arencibia stated that the tree trunk is located 16 feet from the house but the crown of the tree is hanging over the house. Sean McCarthy stated that the tree is leaning towards the house and has the potential to grow to 70 feet. Mr. McCarthy stated that the applicant has completed an extensive amount of renovations to the home. Mr. McCarthy suggested that the members visit the site to see the quality of the tree. Mr. McCarthy suggested that Ms. Arencibia contact the adjoining neighbor and ask them to express, in writing, their approval for the removal of the tree. Tom Andruss asked if the "10 foot" tree distance provision in the code is for safety reasons. Sean McCarthy stated that he believes it was added as a revision to the Code in 2013 for safety reasons. Tom Andruss stated that perhaps the rule should extend to the entire height of the tree. Lindsay Krakauer suggested the code be viewed based on the percentage of a tree that is 10 feet away verses how much of the tree is hanging over the house. Kersten Harries stated that she has driven by the house and appreciates what has been completed on the property, but that they also have to look at the provisions of the Code. Kartarzyna Arencibia stated the Tree Committee is policing the trees instead of encouraging and educating homeowners on planting trees. Many homeowners are frustrated with getting approval 5 (5/16/19) �to remove trees or they are requested to rearrange their landscape designs around preserving an existing tree that is not landscape desirable, and then having to spend additional money to redo if the tree is lost in the future. Ms. Arencibia stated that the culture in the Village regarding the trees is negative and suggests the Board review the functions and impact the Tree Committee decisions will have on the residents into the future. Motion to adjourn and continue the discussion at the June 20, 2019 meeting. Moved: Andruss Seconded: Krakauer Vote 5-0 5. Approval of minutes- April 25, 2019 Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board on the April 25, 2019 minutes. There were no comments from the Board. Motion was made to approve the April 25, 2019 minutes. Moved: Andruss Seconded: Harries Chairperson Marjorie Hsu - yes Tom Andruss - yes Erin Carney -yes Lindsay Krakauer - yes Kersten Harries- yes Vote 5-0 APPROVED Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 PM. Moved: Carney Seconded: Andruss Vote 5-0 Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Pengelski Secretary to the Planning Board 6 (5/16/19) � 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-2019 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_2019-05-16 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2019 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2019 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