https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/39d23b713aed3f1f0d3632c6a9730c7a.pdf c82f0c3d958b544504ec5341156e8842 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Meeting January 17, 2019 The regular meeting was called to order at 8:15 PM by Chairperson Marjorie Hsu. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Ed McCarthy Tom Andruss Matthew Brennan Lindsay Krakauer Erin Carney Also Present: Clinton Smith, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Joseph P. Paiva, Zoning Inspector Pamela Pengelski, Secretary to the Planning Board Absent: Kersten Harries Sean McCarthy, Village Architect Agenda: 1) Mark Vaughn and Jill Parrella, 1 Ridge Street, Proposed one family residence- Public hearing 2) Jonathan Villani, 30 Andrews Lane, Proposed townhome development - Discussion 3) Approval of minutes- December 20, 2018 1. Mark Vaughn and Jill Parrella, 1 Ridge Street, Proposed one-family residencePublic hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: McCarthy Seconded: Andruss Vote 6-0 Christina Griffin is the Architect representing the applicant. Ms. Griffin stated that they are proposing to construct a two-story, (3) bedroom, 2.5 bath single family residence at the corner of Ridge Street and Gorey Brook Road. Ms. Griffin presented photographs to show the neighboring property lots at 3 Ridge Street and Gorey Brook Road. Ms. Griffin stated that the site plan proposes a driveway with an entrance off of Ridge Street to enter a two car garage. The driveway meets the code for a slope that goes from 10% to a 5% slope at a parking area in front of the garage. The entrance to the home will be from the side. A patio is proposed at the north western corner of the house. The plan is designed to balance cut and fill, to minimize the interruption of the hillside, and to keep the height of the retaining walls down. Ms. Griffin presented the tree plan and stated that there are (9) existing trees in the proposed construction area and that they are planning to remove (4) of the trees. Ms. Griffin stated that the home will �be a slab on grade and a total size of 2,030 square feet. There will be (3) bedrooms and (2) bathrooms on the second floor. The space in the roof above the garage will be used as storage space for the home since there will be no basement. Ms. Griffin stated that the proposed exterior finishes will consist of a combination of prefinished Hardie Plank board and batten and lap siding and reclaimed wood siding at the walls of the garage. She presented the proposed color scheme plan for the exterior finishes and distributed physical samples to the Board members for review. Ms. Griffin presented an artist rendering of the proposed house on the site. Ms. Griffin stated that most of the comments from the Village Engineer have been addressed but that they still need to submit some information to the Building Department. Chairperson Hsu asked Ms. Griffin for an estimated time to have all the requests fulfilled and submitted back to the Building Department. Christina Griffin stated that they could have all the requests addressed within one week. Chairperson Hsu asked Ms. Griffin if a rendering of the back side of the house has been prepared. Christina Griffin stated that only a rendering of the front view has been prepared as this is the view you mostly see from the street. Ed McCarthy asked for the height of the proposed house. Christina Griffin stated that the height is 30 feet, 5.5 inches from the curb to the midpoint of the roof and that the maximum allowable height is 35 feet. Chairperson Hsu solicited additional comments from the Board. There were no additional comments from the Board. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. Donald Stever is an attorney representing Peter and Gina Gasperini from 3 Ridge Street. Mr. Stever stated that the construction plan submitted is inadequate and the stormwater management plan is incomplete. Mr. Stever referenced the Architects drawings and stated that the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the Gasperini house is not shown in any of the drawings and that it is very close. Mr. Stever stated that the prior owners of the property designed a house that was properly sited and that did not intrude on the Zegarellis' property to the extent that this house will. The prior owners designed an appropriate retaining wall to set the house down into the side yard, into the side slope so that it would have a relatively flat driveway out onto Gorey Brook Road. The metal roofing proposed would infringe on the view from the Zegarellis' house. Mr. Stever stated that there are safety problems with the 10% slope on the driveway. Mr. Stever expressed concerns about the 40 foot high chimney proposed for a recreational fireplace and stated that the smoke will affect the air intake of the Zegarellis' house. Mr. Stever stated there has been no perc test. Mr. Stever stated that the previous owners, who had a different design, had a perc test performed at a different location. Mr. Stever stated that the perc test is significant �from the stand point of stormwater run-off. Mr. Stever recommended they could lower the house by a few feet and it could take care of the impact on the Zegarelli's house. Peter Gasperini is the owner of 3 Ridge Street. Mr. Gasperini noticed some issues with the stormwater plan. Mr. Gasperini read a letter, which he submitted to the Board for the record, as follows: The drywell system in the back of the house is not designed properly. The system has a catch basin to collect all the storm water from the roof leaders and patio drain and convey them to the drywell system. The inlet drain piping from the roof leaders and patio drain enter the catch basin at an elevation of 172.5' and 173. The underground outlet piping from the catch basin to the drywell is at an elevation of 174.5'. That is 2' higher than the inlet piping form the roof and patio drain piping. The underground piping from the catch basin to the roof leaders and patio drain will be filled with water all the time. This is not right and I have never seen a system designed this way. Inlet piping to a catch basin is always higher than the outlet piping so that there is no standing water left in the drainage piping after a rain event. The problem is twofold: 1.) in the summer standing water will breed mosquitos causing infectious diseases and, 2.) clog up with debris and in the winter the piping will freeze solid and crack, which will make the piping useless. The only way I can see this working is to drop the catch basin at least 2' lower and also drop the drywell system 2' lower. This would put the bottom of the drywell at 164' instead of 166' and the perc test hole at 163.5. The excavation hole for the drywell, if done perfectly with no cave ins, will be 12' wide x 21' long x 13' deep. This is a massive hole and will almost surely cave in around the perimeter. The issues here are: • • • • How will the large tulip tree be protected with the excavation into its root system? How will it affect the driveway adj acent to it? How will it affect the tulip tree long term? Where will the overflow pipe be placed? Even if the system is installed as designed, the excavation would only be 2' less in height and have the same issues. This system was poorly thought out and poorly designed. However, I would not put all the blame on the engineer because he did not have any good options, given the placement of the house and the elevation of the driveway, garage and first floor. If the house was placed at the proper elevation, which would require a retaining wall along the east side, the drywell system could be in the front of the house where the grade is lower and all the underground storm water drainage piping could be properly pitched. This is exactly what we did at our house and it worked out perfectly. Other issues include: C-101.00 Proposed soil stockpile is less than 50' from the Gelb/Domanski driveway and adjacent to the rear drywells. C- 200.00 Note 7 in the engineered plans states that stockpiles are not to be located within 50' of a roadway or drainage facility. How will they protect our new trees that are planted on the property line between 3 Ridge and 1 Ridge? �Michael Gelb, who lives a 120 Gorey Brook Road, stated that the placement of the house is going to affect their current views. Mr. Gelb stated that he is concerned that the missing view in the plan is the one that they will see. Mr. Gelb stated that he is concerned about the smoke from the proposed fireplace, not just for the neighbor's well-being but also for their own. Mr. Gelb stated that he is concerned about water draining onto his driveway. Mr. Gelb stated that he is concerned about the effects the construction will have on the roots of the large Tulip tree that is at the bottom of their property, very close to the 1 Ridge Street property. Mr. Gelb stated there are a bunch of trees just past his property that are not in good shape and he is concerned about them falling down if more water comes down. Mr. Gelb stated that they would like to be able to visualize the staging plan for construction and is concerned how construction vehicles will get in and out without blocking their driveway access. Mr. Gelb stated concerns about the view he has from their sunroom. Mr. Gelb stated that Peter Zegarelli, who lives at 21 Ridge Street, is concerned that putting the house on a slab is going to bring down property values. Chairperson Hsu stated that there is a lot of work in progress and there has been correspondence between the applicant, the Building Department, James Natarelli and David Smith. Chairperson Hsu asked if there were any comments from David Smith or James Natarelli. James Natarelli stated that the Architect stated that revised plans will be coming next week. Mr. Natarelli stated that he will see if they respond to the comments from the last memos in their upcoming submissions. Peter Gasperini asked if a percolation test was done or when will they be doing a perc test for the drainage system and stormwater. James Natarelli stated that the latest percolation test that was completed for this site was done for the previous application for this property in the last year or so. Mr. Natarelli stated that another percolation test needs to be completed around the Building Permit stage to confirm the measurement used in the previous report. Mr. Gasperini stated that the problem is if the perc test is not completed before the Building permit, there is no way to know if the stormwater drainage system will work the way it is designed. The previous perc test was not completed deep enough or in the same location that this application proposes to use for the new drywell system. Clinton Smith requested that the applicant explore and address the possibilities of lowering the grade at the driveway to create a gentler slope and lowering the grade of the house for the next public hearing. Mr. Smith also requested that the applicant provide a rendering of the proposed house and the neighboring houses. Chairperson Hsu asked Christina Griffin to confirm that she acknowledges both points of feedback and that she will be prepared to address them at the next continued public hearing. Christina Griffin stated that she acknowledges the requests. �Chairperson Hsu asked Christina Griffin if excavation had been considered in order to construct the house on a more level site. Christina Griffin stated that a lot of thought was considered on how to grade the site and to what the first floor elevation would be. Because the slope is going up in two directions, on this end of the site, if the house is lowered, they would have to increase the height of the retaining wall. She prefers a gentle change in the landscape rather than high retaining walls. If the wall is higher, the windows on the first floor and patio space will be darker as it will be shaded from the natural light. Christina Griffin stated that they proposed to push the house as far towards the west in order to provide more open space between the properties and stated that it is not located right up to the setback. The patio is not deep. The height of the first floor allows them to keep the height of the retaining wall down and allows light into the windows. Ed McCarthy asked for the height and size of the retaining wall. Christina Griffin stated that the retaining wall is proposed to be 3 feet at the highest point and tapers down. The retaining wall on the garage side is 18 inches at the highest point and then tapers down. Donald Stever reiterated that the prior owners of the property had an Architect who designed a house that was properly sited for the lot with a larger retaining wall and that a design was previously engineered for the site of which the proposed house would not adversely affect the neighboring properties. It was well designed with a flat driveway and an entrance from Gorey Brook Road. Peter Gasperini stated that his property at 3 Ridge Street has a 3% grade driveway. Mr. Gasperini stated that they completed serious excavation along with a serious retaining wall which enabled the house to be perfectly level from right to left with a 3% grade to the road. The prior owners of 1 Ridge Street had plans that proposed a 4% grade to the road for their driveway. Mr. Gasperini stated that he believes that lowering the house will not be an issue for water. Mr. Gasperini is concerned on where the 10% slope exists on the driveway and how a car will transition to the road. Chairperson Hsu asked Christina Griffin how the remaining pitched attic space is intended for use. Josefa Mulaire, from Christina Griffin's office, stated that there will be HVAC duct work located in the attic above the children's bedroom and that the master bedroom will have cathedral ceilings utilizing the attic space. Chairperson Hsu solicited additional comments from the Board. There was no additional comments from the Board. �Motion was made to continue the public hearing to the February 21, 2019 meeting. Moved: Andruss Seconded: McCarthy Vote 6-0 2. Jonathan Villani, 30 Andrews Lane, Proposed townhome development- Discussion Jonathan Villani of Annunziata & Villani Design Consultants, Inc. is representing the owner of 30 Andrews Lane. Mr. Villani stated that they are proposing to construct (11) for purchase townhomes on a ^ acre lot. The units will range in size from 1,400 to 2,387 square feet and will be 4 stories tall. The project will include site alterations, site improvements, and upgrades in utilities. Each unit will have its own open space. There will be 22 parking spaces. The units will consist of two bedrooms with an additional bonus room in the attic and a mechanical room and garage at the basement level. Mr. Villani stated that the exterior finishes will include Hardie Plank siding, aluminum coated and asphalt roofing, white Azek trim, fiberglass front doors, and white trimmed windows. They will stay within the earth tone pallet as requested. Mr. Villani presented a rendering of the rear of the buildings viewed from the parking lot across from Andrews Lane. This rendering has not be submitted to the Building Department or the Planning Board. Mr. Villani stated that the landscape plan was submitted to address the open space for each townhome. Unit numbers 1-4, located in the front on Andrews Lane, will have the open spaces in the front. Unit 5 and Unit 6 will have the open spaces on the side. Units 7 through 11 will have the open spaces in the rear of the townhomes. The Landscape plan includes a plant schedule. Mr. Villani presented the floor plans for the proposed units. The buildings will have sprinkler systems. The ridge is approximately 37 feet high. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Villani to elaborate on the intentions of the bonus room on the fourth floor as it is proposed as a very large open space. Ms. Hsu asked how he envisions the owners using that space. Mr. Villani stated that he doesn't envision them using the space as a bedroom because it is a long way to go on the fourth floor. The attic space is more for storage use since there is no storage available on the ground level. The space will have sprinklers but cannot be deemed a bedroom because if does not have egress windows. Joe Paiva asked if the attic is considered habitable space and if there will be any mechanical equipment located in that space. Mr. Villani stated that it is considered habitable space, some duct work may be located in the space, but it cannot be considered a bedroom since there will be no egress windows. Matthew Brennan stated that although legally the attic space may not permitted to be used as a bedroom, if someone wanted to utilize the space as a bedroom they could. What could the Village do to enforce the permitted use? Joe Paiva stated that the Village does not have a way enforcing how the space is used once it is built, unless regularly inspecting the spaces. Matthew Brennan stated that there is a risk that the owners can use the space as a bedroom. �Jonathan Villani stated that there are stipulations that could be put into place to deem the space as inhabitable space. They could install collar ties lower so that it could function as only a storage space. Joe Paiva stated that if the space is heated and includes finished floor and wall finishes then the room can be used for any purpose of a habitable space. Jonathan Villani stated that the bonus room adds additional square footage and is more appealing for the buyer but if it is a problem, it can be easily addressed during construction. Ed McCarthy stated that the attic space should be addressed now during the site plan approval. Jonathan Villani stated that the intent of this project is to be a higher end project. Mr. Villani stated that the price point for the townhomes will be not where the buyers will be looking to have multiple residents or will be renting it out. Joseph Paiva stated that the price point of the project has nothing to do with how the owner uses the space. Marjorie Hsu asked if some of units exceed the permitted lot coverage area. Jonathan Villani stated that he thought the maximum coverage was 30%. According to Sean McCarthy the maximum building coverage for a residential development is 20%. There is a discrepancy. Marjorie Hsu stated that he will need to address that discrepancy. Jonathan Villani stated that at this point they have been reviewed twice by David Smith, Dolph Rotfeld, and Sean McCarthy. Mr. Villani stated that any open items are technical in nature and are not design orientated. Mr. Villani stated that he thinks that most of the open items should be addressed in the construction document phase, after the public hearing. Joseph Paiva stated that the most recent review letter from Sean McCarthy was revised on January 16, 2019 and asked Jonathan Villani to confirm receipt. Mr. Villani confirmed receipt of the revised review memo from Sean McCarthy and stated that there are only three open comments left and some of them refer to the Village Engineers review. Joseph Paiva stated that there are more than three open comments to address. David Smith stated that the main open item is to whether or not a Zoning variance is required as this would affect the site plan and the layout. This will need to be clarified through the Building Department. Mr. Smith stated that the applicant must provide some sense of the massing of the proposed buildings prior to a public hearing. �Ed McCarthy asked if access for the fire and garbage trucks has been addressed. Mr. Villani stated he is working with his Civil Engineers to address the comments raised by the Board. Clinton Smith stated that there has not been a drawing provided to show the fire truck access to the B-Building. Mr. Villani stated that a meeting with the Fire Department and his Civil Engineers is necessary to determine how the B-Building will be accessed by the fire trucks. Clinton Smith asked if any more thought was given to central dumpsters and how the garbage will be picked up. Discussion ensued on ideas and alternate locations for garbage collections in lieu of central dumpsters. Tom Andruss asked how the procedure for setting up the balloon/massing test would work in relation to the timing of the public hearing and weather conditions. David Smith stated that the length of time that the massing test is viewable to the public is at the discretion of the Board but that it is typically set up 3 days to a week before the date of the public hearing. David Smith stated that the variance issue should be resolved before scheduling a public hearing. No action was taken. 4. Approval of minutes- December 20, 2018 Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Pamela Pengelski stated that an email request was received by Kersten Harries to include a statement she made in reference to the Phase II buildings site plan application. Motion was made to adjourn approval the December 20, 2018 minutes to the February 21, 2019 meeting. Discussion ensued on scheduling a work session for the Board to discuss the Village Comprehensive plan. It was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 7:30 PM. Discussion ensued on scheduling a meeting with an environment engineering consultant to discuss the possibility of a wireless plan and small cell technology that could possibly be incorporated into the Village Comprehensive Plan. �Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 PM. Moved: McCarthy Respectfully Submitted, Pamela Pengelski Secretary to the Planning Board Seconded: Andruss Vote 6-0 � 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_2019-01-17 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