https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/5b4b62428818c3e55a3fee539b658934.pdf 31b61622cb3a3dd442d23e7e3589f1f9 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes January 20, 2022 The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson Marjorie Hsu. Present: Marjorie Hsu, Chairperson Kersten Harries Matthew Brennan Edward McCarthy Also Present: Clinton Smith, Village Attorney Joshua Subin, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Present: Via Zoom James Natarelli, Village Engineer Anthony Catalano, Consulting Engineer Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Absent: Erin Carney Lindsay Krakauer Agenda: 1) Phelps Memorial Hospital/Northwell Health, T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, Wireless communications permit, Amended site plan- Draft resolution 2) Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval- Continued public hearing 3) 14 Clinton LLC, 14 Clinton Street, Proposed two-family residence, Site plan approvalcontinued public hearing 4) Cristian Carrion, 72 Beekman Avenue, Proposed addition and alterations- Site plan approval- Public hearing 5) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed new construction of Carriage House, site plan approval- Referred to the ZBA 6) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III, Preliminary Subdivision and Roads & Infrastructure, Proposed concrete processing operations, Amended site plan approval- Preliminary presentation 7) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block O/P Townhomes, Phase II, Preliminary subdivision plat and site plan approvalPresentation and request for height variance 8) LL Parcel I, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 101, 203, 305 Legend Drive (Block-I), Proposed entrance canopy substitutions, Amended site plan approvalPreliminary presentation 1 (1/20/22) �9) LL Parcel E, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 102 Legend Drive (Building E-1), Utility enclosure, Amended site plan approval- Preliminary presentation 10) Approval of minutes, December 16, 2021 Chairperson Hsu listed the members present and stated that there is a quorum. Chairperson Hsu read the agenda. 1. Phelps Memorial Hospital/Northwell Health, T-Mobile Northeast, LLC, Wireless Communications permit, Amended site plan - Draft resolution Daniel Patrick is an associate of the law firm of Cuddy + Feder LLP representing the applicant and offered to answer any outstanding questions. Chairperson Hsu requested that David Smith read the highlights of the draft resolution. David Smith stated that the draft resolution has been shared with Village staff and the applicant and read the resolve clauses. Motion was made to adopt the resolution. Moved: McCarthy Seconded: Brennan Chairperson Hsu - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Kersten Harries- yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 2. Franceso Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Site plan approval-Continued public hearing Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicant has requested an adjournment to the February 17, 2022 meeting but the Board will open the public hearing for comments. Motion was made to reopen the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. Anne White lives at 3301 Kendall Way and stated that she wasn't able to testify at last month's meeting because there wasn't a virtual option. Ms. White stated via Zoom webinar that the comments she submitted for last month's meeting are now posted on the website. Ms. White stated that the proposal submitted does not meet the requirements of the new Zoning Code; specifically, that beyond 80 feet from the edge of the sidewalk, the maximum height of the building is to be 25 feet. She stated that she submitted an illustration to show how the proposed building could be changed to meet the Zoning Code by going up higher in the middle of the building where 55 feet is allowed and then stepping down to 25 feet in the back and eliminate the terrible effects of the big block of a building blocking air, light, and particularly a long shadow at 2 (1/20/22) �sunset. Anne White stated that it would be useful for the Chair, the Village Architect, or the Village Attorney to clarify why their perspective is that the building meets the new requirements of the Zoning Code. (See Exhibit #1) Chairperson Hsu thanked Anne White for her comments and solicited additional comments from the public. There were no other comments from the public. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the February 17, 2022 meeting. Moved: McCarthy Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 3. 14 Clinton LLC, 14 Clinton Street, Proposed two-family residence, Site plan approvalContinued public hearing Motion was made to reopen the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan Vote 4-0 Chairperson Hsu invited the applicant to present the changes made to the proposed building since the last meeting. Yahaira Volquez Colombo is the architect representing the applicant and stated that they have revised the plans to increase the side yard setback to 3.0 feet from the adjoining property where the mechanical shop is located and have reduced the width of the building from 20.0 feet to 19.0 feet. Chairperson Hsu stated that James Natarelli had concerns related to the storm water treatment and requested that the Ms. Columbo confirm if they have been addressed. Ms. Columbo stated that DRPilla Consulting Engineers has consulted with James Natarelli to resolve the comments and have made the changes requested. James Natarelli stated that any outstanding items can be resolved before the Building Permits are issued. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Motion was made to close the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 Chairperson Hsu requested that David Smith read the resolve clauses of the draft resolution. David Smith read the resolve clauses of the draft resolution. Motion was made to adopt the resolution. 3 (1/20/22) �Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: McCarthy Chairperson Hsu - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Kersten Harries- yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 4. Cristian Carrion, 72 Beekman Avenue, Proposed addition and alterations, Site plan approval-Preliminary-Public hearing Motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan Vote 4-0 Michael Tribe is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Tribe stated that the application proposes to continue the existing uses and will have two stores on the first floor and two apartments on the second and third floors. There are no variances required for the proposed renovations. Mr. Tribe stated that he received the review memo from James Natarelli and that their engineer will complete the percolation tests and adjust the cultec system if required. Mr. Tribe stated that renderings were submitted to show how the proposed building will fit in with the neighboring properties and stated that the street facades are similar to other buildings on the Beekman Avenue. One of the distinct elements of the proposed building that differs from other existing buildings is that they are proposing double windows in some of the rooms to bring in more daylight and provide better energy efficiency. Mr. Tribe shared the photographs of the existing conditions, the proposed construction drawings and the streetscape renderings to show how the proposed building will look with the neighboring buildings. Mr. Tribe stated that he has received the written comments that were submitted by members of the public. (See Exhibits #s 2-4) Chairperson Hsu stated that the proposed building is not in keeping with the Village's downtown Design Guidelines and that the proposed building design is more modern and not in character with the surrounding buildings on the street. Mr. Tribe stated that he will look at the design and suggested that adding a deeper cornice design may bring the proposed building in better alignment with the surrounding buildings. Kersten Harries stated that she agrees that a deeper cornice would improve the character of the building design and suggested that adding bay window bump outs may also make the building more proportional to the neighboring buildings. Ms. Harries questioned if they plan to accommodate access to light for the neighbors on the west side and if the windows proposed for the apartments in the front of the building meet the code. Mr. Tribe stated that they are installing two windows that will provide for light. 4 (1/20/22) �Chairperson Hsu stated that she agrees that providing bump outs on the front fa9ade may provide architectural consistency with the neighboring building and that the design may be too modern for the downtown location. Sean McCarthy stated that the proposed exterior fa9ade materials reference stucco for the bump out and siding with masonry sills and lintels, and asked Mr. Tribe if that is a mistake. Mr. Tribe stated that they are proposing to use Hardie Plank fiber cement board siding that will protect the building from fire. Mr. McCarthy stated that the proposed design to use masonry lintels and sills with siding does not go together and suggested that casing can be installed around the windows. Mr. McCarthy questioned if casement windows are proposed. Mr. Tribe stated that he agrees that the use of casing around the windows would allow the windows to be more in context with the neighboring buildings. Mr. Tribe stated that the windows are proposed as casements. Mr. McCarthy stated that the design for the window treatments will need to be confirmed and asked Mr. Tribe to confirm the selected materials for the store front level. Mr. Tribe stated that the store fronts are proposed to be mostly glass with metal cladding to cover the existing brick piers. Mr. McCarthy suggested that Mr. Tribe look at the metal cladding on the neighboring building and suggested that he may want to propose a different material as the metal dents with impact. Chairperson Hsu requested that Mr. Tribe provide more details for the proposed store front lighting. Mr. Tribe stated that he plans on making a separate presentation for lighting and signage and stated that his goal is to get approval to the point where they could begin working with the Building Department for construction. Mr. McCarthy stated that the lighting plan should be included in the architectural designs as part of the building fa9ade and that the signage could be handled separately depending on the tenants for the store front. Chairperson Hsu solicited additional comments from the public. There were no further public comments. Motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the February 17, 2022 meeting. Moved: Harries Seconded: McCarthy Vote 4-0 5. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Proposed new construction of Carriage House Site plan approval - Refered to the ZBA 5 (1/20/22) �Chairperson Hsu stated that the application has been referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals and that there will be a public hearing at the February 17, 2022 meeting pending approval of the requested variances. Motion was made to reset the date of the public hearing for the February 17, 2022 meeting Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan Vote 4-0 6. Lighhouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase III, Preliminary Subdivision, Roads & Infrastructure, Proposed concrete processing operations, Amended site plan approval- Preliminary presentation Craig Tomkins is a Project Manager for Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC and stated that during the 2015 Site Plan approval, the Planning Board identified an area for the concrete crushing operations to occur in 2017-2018. During construction, they have accumulated a tremendous amount of concrete found on the site. It is estimated that in the next 6 months to a year, there will be approximately 500 residents living in the area of the original concrete crushing location so they are proposing to move the processing operations area. It is proposed that concrete crushing machinery will be brought on site during the winter months to process the concrete into smaller pieces that can be recycled on site and used for subbase material for roadways, pipe bedding, and sidewalks. Mr. Tompkins presented an illustration to demonstrate the distance of the buildings currently occupied and projected to be occupied within the next 6 months. Mr. Tomkins stated that they have received comments from Anthony Catalano and stated that they currently have a discharge permit from Westchester County permitting to discharge water into the sanitary system. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Tompkins if they propose to continue to bring the material to this location and complete the process over the winter. Mr. Tompkins stated that it is an expensive operation to bring the machinery on site so they would look to accumulate large amounts of concrete before processing. Sean McCarthy requested that Mr. Tomkins confirm that they will continue to provide monitoring of dust control. Mr. Tompkins stated that they will continue to have on-site environmental personnel to set up the three monitoring stations for site dust control and that the readings are reported to the Department of Environmental Conservation. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Tompkins if additional protection will be required for the areas behind the wall along the pedestrian pathways. Mr. Tompkins stated that there is approximately 300 feet from the temporary pathways and the machinery will not create a noise issue, and will be a quick operation. Chairperson Hsu requested that Mr. Tompkins confirm the daily working hours for the crushing operations. 6 (1/20/22) �Mr. Tompkins stated that they propose to work from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm during the weekdays and 9:00 to 6:00 on weekends; although he doesn't foresee the need to work on a Saturday. Anthony Catalano requested that Mr. Tompkins add the notes to the drawings to address the points that were discussed and added to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as a supplement to confirm that the conditions of the site are accurate. Mr. Tomkins stated that their team completes inspections twice a week, Woodard & Curran is on site once a week, and Sean McCarthy also inspects the site regularly. Peter Chavkin is a Managing Partner of Biddle Real Estate Ventures on behalf of Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC and stated that as per the Special Permit approval, there are prescribed distances from residential buildings for areas where concrete crushing operations are located. David Smith stated that the Special Permit detailed that concrete crushing operations were required to be 500 feet from existing residential buildings and it was intended to protect the residents of Ichabod's Landing. Peter Chavkin stated that the proposed concrete crushing locations are significantly far from any occupied residential buildings and the proposed occupancy of future buildings. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Planning Board is comfortable waiving the public hearing because it has been approved in the past and they are only requesting to move the location. Motion was made to waive a public hearing for the amended site plan approval. Moved: McCarthy Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 Motion was made to approve the application and to direct David Smith to prepare a confirmatory resolution for the February 17, 2022 meeting. Moved: Harries Seconded: Chairperson Hsu Chairperson Hsu - yes Ed McCarthy- yes Matthew Brennan - yes Kersten Harries- yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 7. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block O/P Townhome, Phase II, Preliminary subdivision plat and site plan approvalPresentation and request for height variance Andrew Tung is an associate of DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP representing the applicant and stated that the submissions for this meeting include the presentation made by Bill McGuiness from Sun Homes in regards to the proposed architectural concepts for the O/P Townhomes Two. Mr. Tung stated that they met with the Zoning Board of Appeals at last night's 7 (1/20/22) �meeting and they are seeking comments from the Planning Board for the requested height variance for the Block O/P townhomes to go from 42 feet to 48 feet within the zone west of the railroad tracks in which a 300-foot slot is limited to 42 feet. Similar variances were approved in Block-I, Block-J, Block-E, and in Block O/P Townhomes One. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Tung if these will be the last height variances that will be requested. Mr. Tung stated that there is a possibility that the applicant may request another height variance for the future North Retail Building in Block-A. Motion was made to support the proposed height variance application submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Vote 4-0 Mr. Tung stated that the applicant has made progress with the further development of the site plan to address the comments received from the Planning Board and the consultants. Mr. Tung presented an illustrative site plan and stated that the applicant proposes the addition of Block-N to the Block O/P site plan application site. Block-N is proposed to contain a clubhouse and amenity facilities with an outdoor recreation area for the residents of Block O/P in lieu of its original location. An additional on-grade parking lot with 44 spaces is also proposed to be located in this area to provide additional overall parking spaces for the residents of the Block O/P. Mr. Tung described the changes proposed for the circulation and the layout of the buildings and the road systems to provide better vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, and more open space in between the units. Mr. Tung stated that the revised application also proposes to move one of the units from the central island to Hollows Pass so that all of the units in the island will face onto open spaces. Peter Chavkin stated that a total of two units were removed from the interior park area. One unit was moved to Hollows Pass and one unit was totally removed from the plan. Mr. Chavkin stated that there is a total increase of one unit on the revised site plan because two units were added in the previous location of the amenity building. As a result of the changes to the plan, they will be increasing the diagonal distance between the corners of the units in the interior park area to be between 23-25 feet; and this is a greater in distance than a similar configuration in Block-J. Mr. Chavkin stated than the additional 44 parking spaces in Block-N will allow for the proposed units with shortened driveways to be constructed as four-bedroom units because the residents will have access to the additional overflow parking. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Tung if the Planning Board has received the plan presented. Mr. Tung stated that the plans presented will be submitted before the next meeting along with updated engineering drawings and responses to the received comments. Kersten Harries requested to see a comparison of the proposed site layout. Mr. Tung presented the past and current site plan illustrations to show the proposed changes side by side. 8 (1/20/22) �Kersten Harries asked Mr. Tung to describe what was originally proposed for Block N. Peter Chavkin stated that the development of Block-N wasn't planned because they were waiting on the final plans for the connection bridge from the West Parcel to the East Parcel. Kersten Harries questioned the reason for the proposed increase in the number of units along the northern most border of Hollows Pass. Peter Chavkin stated that the reasoning behind adding the seventh unit and removing the green space was to eliminate views to the adjacent unit driveways and to open up views of the Kingsland Point Park buffer and the use of the internal circulation and parking. Chairperson Hsu asked the applicant if the proposed width ratios of the townhome buildings have changed. Andrew Tung stated that they are working with the builder to confirm the varied widths based on site conditions. Peter Chavkin stated that they will submit a comparison detailing the widths for the February meeting. Kersten Harries requested that Peter Chavkin confirm that he stated that there would be a net gain of one more unit in the revised site plan in addition to the one net gain from the original concept plan for this block. Ms. Harries asked where they are at for the total number of units for the Edge-on-Hudson Development. Mr. Chavkin stated that there is a net gain of one more unit in addition to the one net gain of units from the original concept plan. Mr. Chavkin stated that they will have 1,177 units and that they will try not to be over or under. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Chavkin if they propose to add more units in this block, where do they anticipate subtracting units from other blocks. Mr. Chavkin stated that every time they have processed a site plan, the unit count has shifted from the Riverfront Development Concept Plan ("RDCP"). Block-E has half as many units as the RDCP contemplated, Block-I has more units and Block-J is equivalent. Block-A and BlockB originally anticipated residential units where the DeCicco's building will be. Mr. Chavkin stated that the units proposed in Block O/P would have been in Blocks M, K or Q. They are reallocating the density to the most desirable product they have right now. Kersten Harries requested that the applicant supply a chart for the next meeting that details how the total unit counts have been allocated. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Chavkin if they would be ready for a public hearing in February. Mr. Chavkin stated they can prepare the engineering drawings and responses to questions from the consultants for the February meeting. 9 (1/20/22) �Kersten Harries questioned if the "Kit of Parts" information submitted is intended to represent all of the buildings in the block. Mr. Chavkin stated that the "Kit of Parts" presented by Bill McGuiness is intended to be the "Kit of Parts" for the entire balance of Block-O/P and that Sun Homes is comfortable presenting the composed elevations of each building for review by Building Department to forward to the Architectural Review Board or to come before the ARB for approval if required. Motion was made to set the public hearing for the February 17, 2022 meeting. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Brennan Vote 4-0 8. LL Parcel, I, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 101, 203, 305 Legend Drive (Block-I), Proposed entrance canopy substitutions, Amended site plan approvalPreliminary presentation David Sands is the Director of Development for Toll Brothers Apartment Living and stated that the application proposes a modification of the canopies in front of the entrances to the buildings. Mr. Sands stated that during the process of fabrication and installation, they have found that the current design does not handle snow and wind loads. The proposed design will be a supported structure that will be built back into the building. Although the proposed canopies will look thicker than the previously approved canopies, they will weigh just as much and will not have to be bolted to the building. Chairperson Hsu requested that Mr. Sands present an example of the originally approved canopies and to describe what material was proposed. Mr. Sands stated that the original canopies were metal material and the proposed canopies will be framed out of wood and cladded with a material that will look similar to metal. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Block-I buildings were approved to have an industrial heritage of the General Motors site and that the buildings were supposed to be metal and glass. The proposed canopies appear clunky and out of place. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Sands to explain why the original canopy design cannot be installed into the structure. Mr. Sands stated the original canopy design was a thinner metal that could be bolted onto the building. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Sands if they have consulted with different engineering firms on metal canopy options. Mr. Sands stated that their structural engineer has tracked down every metal manufacturer possible and was unable to come up with a better solution. David Smith asked Mr. Sands how the proposed canopies will be mounted to the building if the originally approved canopies were to be bolted to the building fa9ade. 10 (1/20/22) �Mr. Sands stated that wood 2' x 10's will be installed 4-6 feet into the building and be bolted on the trusses within the structure. David Smith asked Mr. Sands why the originally approved metal canopies can't be installed in the same way. Mr. Sands stated that their architect and structural engineer said that it was not possible. Kersten Harries stated that the roof coverage is not the same in the old drawing verses the new drawing. Ms. Harries requested that Mr. Sands confirm that in the new drawing the coverage is just above the doors and cantilevering out but before it appeared to be over the entire landing. Mr. Sands stated that Ms. Harries is correct in her statement regarding the roof coverage. Ms. Harries questioned if there are section drawings of the approved canopies verses what it proposed and stated that it would help the Board to understand the dimensions and why something closer to the original plan can't be completed. Mr. Sands presented the plans that were originally approved and stated that he doesn't have section drawings. Ryan Tuttle is an associate with Toll Brothers and asked if the Board is requesting that they try and get back to the metal canopies or if they are requesting for them to thin out the profile. Chairperson Hsu stated that the Board is requesting that Toll Brothers keep the aesthetic of the metal and thinner profile that received Site Plan approval. Chairperson Hsu requested that Mr. Sands provide an update on the construction of Block-I and the expected occupancy. Mr. Sands stated that they have been having delays with getting gas into building but they are hoping to have it resolved within the next couple of weeks and hope to get Temporary Certificates of Occupancy with the next two months; and to be able to start occupying the buildings. Ryan Tuttle stated that they will investigate options in order to keep the metal canopy materials. Mr. Sands asked Chairperson Hsu if a public hearing would be necessary for this application. Chairperson Hsu stated that if they revise the application to keep the same design and material, they will not need to amend the Site Plan and would not require a public hearing. Ryan Tuttle asked Chairperson Hsu if they would be required to come back before the Planning Board if they are able to make the approved Site Plan work. 11 (1/20/22) �Chairperson Hsu stated that Toll Brothers would not be required to come back before the Board if they are able to make the approved Site Plan work and can work out the details with the Building Department. Mr. Sands asked Mr. McCarthy if it would be acceptable if changes were made so that the canopy over the door area would be completely covered but the areas that are not above the doors would be open slatted so that the snow load wouldn't carry all the way across. Mr. McCarthy stated that the will need to take into consideration that the purpose of the canopy is to maintain the safe egress in and out of the buildings. If snow and ice is going to accumulate on the platform, they would need to consider extending the canopy roof over to protect the area. No action was taken. 9. LL Parcel, E, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 102 Legend Drive, (Building-E-1), Utility enclosure, Amended site plan approval-Preliminary presentation Andrew Tung is an associate of DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Tung presented a photograph of the northern face of the building to show that the gas regulator and piping equipment is exposed. The applicant previously came before the Board to obtain amended site plan approval for the screen walls in front of the locations of the outdoor gas meters and regulator equipment. The equipment was not installed in compliance with the Site Plan and further extended out into the public sidewalk just over the property line. Mr. Tung stated that as per Con Edison's determination there is not sufficient room to install the gas regulator within the screen wall. The applicant proposes for Con Edison to remove the exposed piping and reinstall it flat against the building so that it will all be behind the property line. Toll Brothers will install an ornamental metal screen wall in front of the piping that will extend the length of the brick line and still allow for air ventilation. Mr. Tung presented the proposed gas regulator enclosure plan and an example of the metal screen wall that will be used. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Tung what part of the gas equipment requires the air circulation. Robert Dowd is the Assistant Vice President of Toll Brothers, New York Division, and stated that the screening is proposed to provide screening from the road and provide Con Edison access for service. Sean McCarthy stated that the gas equipment is required to be open to the air for ventilation in case it leaks and so that gas will not build up in a confined space. The gas regulator is permitted to be located inside the building but it would then need a ventilated pipe connected to it. Chairperson Hsu asked if the applicant can move the regulator and the piping inside the building. Mr. Dowd stated that there is not enough room inside the building or inside the screen wall. Mr. McCarthy stated that in addition to providing aesthetics from the road, because of the proximity to the public way, they want to avoid people climbing on it and getting hurt, or from vehicles going over the curb and hitting it. 12 (1/20/22) �Kersten Harries asked if clearances would allow them to continue the brick screen wall. Mr. Tung stated that the required clearances would not allow them to consider the continuance of the brick screen wall. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Tung to confirm if they are confident that the metal screening will provide enough safety and if they anticipate having the same problem in the other two E buildings. Mr. Tung stated that the E-2 building has a larger screen wall area that they believe they can work with or have room to move the wall a foot or two. The E-3 building has a similar size to the E-1 building and they are working with Con-Edison to see how it can be addressed. Chairperson Hsu asked if the E-3 building is also situated near the street and the pedestrian sidewalk. Mr. Tung stated that the E-3 building location has even less room than the E-1 building and the corner of the building and the screen wall are right on the boundary and will have to be solved in a different way because there will not be a building wall to hang the equipment on. Ms. Harries suggested that the applicant consider the options of putting the gas equipment inside the E-3 building. Robert Dowd stated that they will look into the solutions for the E-3 building. Ms. Harries asked Mr. Tung if the metal wall would protect the gas piping equipment from vehicle damage. Mr. Tung stated that the metal screening would be decorative and not designed to withstand the impact of a car. The area is located in front of a parking space and across the sidewalk. Ms. Harries stated that she is amendable to the circumstance of this building and finding a panel that will work but wants to make sure that the applicant resolves the situation and avoids coming before the Board for the other E-Buildings. Robert Dowd stated that he agrees. Ed McCarthy stated that he agrees that the equipment should be moved up against the wall and screened in on the building so that they get the heat on. Chairperson Hsu asked if the heat is the only barrier preventing occupancy of the building. Mr. Dowd stated that Con-Edison needs to turn the heat on, deal with the piping issue, and install the (17) gas meters for the units and (1) gas meter in the common area. After the water is turned on, they can request the fire suppression inspections. They will then request inspections from the Building Department for Certificate of Occupancies. The top floor is pretty much done and they 13 (1/20/22) �are wrapping up the first floor. The elevators are 90% done. The units are carpeted and painted. The exterior landscaping is completed. They have gone over the fence security with Sean McCarthy so that when they start construction on Building E-3, the surrounding area will enclosed and safe. Chairperson Hsu asked Mr. Dowd for an estimated occupancy date for Building E-1. Mr. Dowd estimated that the building will be ready for occupancy by the end of February. Mr. Dowd stated that the proposed custom metal screening material fabrication is on back order and will not be available for delivery for 10-12 weeks and asked if temporary screening could be installed as a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. Chairperson Hsu solicited comments from Sean McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy stated that temporary screening could be a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy and suggested that they contact an ornamental iron worker that may be able to provide a quicker fabrication date. Mr. McCarthy asked Mr. Dowd if the design pattern is confirmed. Robert Dowd stated that the illustration provided is the proposed design pattern of the metal screening and will be painted to match the building. Sean McCarthy asked the Board if they would prefer the metal screening to be painted grey to match the building or painted to match the brick screen wall. Mr. McCarthy also suggested a more simple design pattern may be preferable. Kersten Harries suggested that a more simple design and matching the brick would draw less attention to the screening. Chairperson Hsu stated that the applicant is encouraged to not require screening solutions for the other E buildings. Motion was made to waive the public hearing, approve the application subject to approval by the Building Department for the final design of the metal screening, and to direct David Smith to draft a confirmatory resolution for the February 17, 2022 meeting. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harries Chairperson Hsu - yes Ed McCarthy - yes Matthew Brennan - yes Kersten Harries- yes Vote 4-0 APPROVED 10. Approval of minutes- December 16, 2021 Motion was made to table the minutes to the February 17, 2022 meeting. 14 (1/20/22) �Motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 PM. Moved: Chairperson Hsu Seconded: Harris Vote 4-0 Respectfully submitted, PaJvLaJa- /K'uzM Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 15 (1/20/22) �EXHIBIT #1 Current Proposed Design Doesn't meet height requirements for the Lower Beekman Avenue Floating Zone. At 80 feet back from the sidewalk edge, the building height must be limited to 25 feet. Requires a zoning variance. 45 feet tall ) 135 feet deep Anne White Testimony 1/20/2022 Visuals to illustrate comments made at Planning Board Public Hearing on Proposed Development Plan for 135 Beekman Avenue. 55 feet tall allowed Luxury apartmts, great views Alternative Design Meets the zoning code. Space for 14 or 15 apartments. Taller in the middle, but allows more light and air for houses to the east. Limits areas in shadow at sunset. i ) At 80 feet back from the sidewalk edge, steps down to 25 ft. 25 feet tall �EXHIBIT #2 To: Subject: 72 Beekman Avenue- Public Comments Received f r o m Owner of 92 Pocantico Street Date: Thursday, January 20, 2022 4:29:24 PM Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 3:54 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: 72 Beekman Dear Mr. McCarthy and Planning Board Members, I reside at 92 Pocantico Street. Please accept my comments on the 72 Beekman application. My neighbor Rachael Ricker has also written and I echo her concerns about the appearance of the proposed facade. The proposed facade at 72 Beekman does not fit that block. All due respect to the applicant and their architect - the facade lacks character. You could find that building literally anywhere in the country. This is a Rivertown and there is a distinctive, historical architectural character to these towns. The importance of the design of 72 Beekman is only amplified because that block, with its placement across the street from Morse School, is the center of downtown Sleepy Hollow. Moreover, I urge the board to consider that the aesthetic of this building is critical since it is the first major development on that block in recent history. Its only a matter of time before the lot at 66 Beekman is developed. What happens with this building will set the precedent for the development that will eventually happen there. I respectfully propose that the the facade of 72 Beekman follow the aesthetic guidelines that have been proposed for the Lower Beekman Design Standards Overlay District. https://www.sleepyhollowny.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif3816/f/events/2021-0630_sleepyhollow_zoningcodeupdates_draft.pdf Those design standards, in my humble opinion, fit the character of the Rivertowns, a character that I think many of us moved here for. I urge the board - Keep Sleepy Hollow distinct. Kind regards, Matthew Presseau 92 Pocantico Street �EXHIBIT #3 Subject: 72 Beekman Avenue - Comments Received from 287 North Washington Street From: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 8:54 AM To: Pamela Kroll <pkroll@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: FW: 72 Beekman application Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 6:01 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: 72 Beekman application Dear Planning Board Committee MembersI am writing to express concern for the application for alterations to 72 Beekman. This project has come to my attention and the renderings show a building that is both out of character with the village and more importantly has eliminated all existing charm on the building. I believe that with some modifications, the facade can fit nicely onto beekman. Sincerely, Benjamin Sirota 287 N Washington St �EXHIBIT #4 Subject: Public Comments Received from 255 N Washington Street Date: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:57:01 PM From: rachael ricker Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 2:17 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Planning Board Comments re: 72 Beekman Dear Planning Board Committee Members, I'm writing as a neighbor to 72 Beekman Ave out of concern that the application for alterations to 72 Beekman results in a building that is out of context with the rest of the block. The architectural style pictured is more modern than anything that currently exists on Beekman Avenue and does not look cohesive with our Sleepy Hollow neighborhood. The current application is an improvement over the rendering that was posted on the applicant's instagram page last June, but still does not suit its surroundings. I hope some modifications to the facade can be made so that we end up with a building that looks like it was always a part of Sleepy Hollow. Sincerely, Rachael Ricker 255 N Washington St � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_PLAN_2022-01-20_Approved Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2022 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2022 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text