https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/c7020bdba26a05d02c103dfbec45b0b8.pdf 43225a993d47b0c55bec4cfb3e5c4fea PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes April 20, 2023 The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Acting Chairman Nielsen. Acting Chairman Nielsen summarized the agenda and stated which applicants that have requested an adjournment to the May 18, 2023, meeting. Present: Benjamin Nielsen, Acting Chairman Erin Carney Kersten Harries Benjamin Sirota Rachelle Gebler Lindsay Krakauer Also Present: Joshua Subin, Village Attorney Steve Lauria, Consulting Engineer James Natarelli, Village Engineer David Smith, Village Planner Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Agenda: 1) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block H, Amended Site Plan and Final ARB Approval - Draft resolution 2) Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan approval - Draft resolution 3) 46 Hudson St., LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval- Continued public hearing 4) Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Architectural Review Approval- Presentation- Requested adjournment 5) Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval- Presentation 6) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit approvalPresentation 7) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block O/P & N Townhomes Phase II, Architectural Review approval – Presentation 8) SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Proposed medical office building, Site Plan and Architectural Review ApprovalPreliminary presentation 9) Approval of minutes, March 23, 2023 1. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 1 (4/20/23) �Block H, Amended Site Plan & Final ARB approval - Draft resolution Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that a draft resolution was prepared for the Amended Site Plan and Final ARB approval and solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. David Smith requested that Sean McCarthy review comments related to the outstanding issue. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant has agreed to work with the Building Department to keep the screening height as low as possible and reduce the width of the access gate openings along the meters on Westwood Drive to allow for landscaping along the Village right-of-way. David Smith that the draft resolution was prepared to address a condition from the February 16, 2023 approval. Mr. Smith suggested the following amendment to the draft resolution. “ The Applicant will work with the Village Building Department to finalize the screening height and the gate width layout based on a service layout plan provided by Con Edison consistent with the discussions and presentation made at the April 20, 2023 meeting.” Mr. Smith read the resolve clauses of the draft resolution. Acting Chairman Nielsen solicited comments from the Board. There were no comments from the Board. Acting Chairman Nielsen made a motion to approve the draft resolution as amended. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Carney Acting Chairman Nielsen - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Erin Carney- yes Kersten Harries - yes Benjamin Sirota - yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 2. Hudson Pines, LLC, 180 Bedford Road, Amended Site Plan approval - Draft resolution Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that there is a draft resolution before the Board for Amended Site Plan approval to add generators on the site. As requested by the Board, the applicant submitted a detailed landscape plan and visualizations of how the generators would be viewed from the public right-of-way. The Board is concerned that the landscaping will achieve the applicants' intentions for screening. Acting Chairman Nielsen requested that David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution. David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution. 2 (4/20/23) �Acting Chairman Nielsen made a motion to approve the draft resolution. Moved: Gebler Seconded: Harries Acting Chairman Nielsen - yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Erin Carney- yes Kersten Harries - yes Benjamin Sirota - yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Vote 6-0 APPROVED 3. 46 Hudson St., LLC, 46 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan approval - Public hearing Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that the applicant received variance approvals from the Zoning Board of Appeals for side yard setbacks and parking in March. The applicant was before the Planning Board last month for the initial public hearing in which comments were received from the public, and there was a review of the proposed site plan and architectural elements. A motion was made to open the public hearing. Moved: Carney Seconded: Harries Vote 6-0 Brian Hopkins stated that he is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Hopkins stated that he received the comments from the Planning Board and that he has submitted proposed changes. The revised submission proposes to drop the building height by one foot. The roofline has been altered to have a gable roof with two shed roofs off of the east side. The proposed changes will put the building in scale with the street line and the taller buildings on Hudson Street. The only change to the proposed floor plan is at the lowest level where it will be dropped by one foot, two inches. One of the bedrooms was removed in the last revision to reduce the required parking variance from four parking spots to three parking spots. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Hopkins if reducing the building height and roof line change causes a reduction at all floor elevations. Mr. Hopkins stated that the entire building's height dropped by one foot and the first-floor elevation by one foot, two inches due to the gable roof plane and required ceiling heights. Ms. Harries asked Mr. Hopkins if the unit layouts would change. Mr. Hopkins stated that the unit layouts have not changed. Sean McCarthy asked Mr. Hopkins if the upper floor plan changes with the new roof configuration. Mr. Hopkins stated that the upper floor plan would not change because of the incorporation of the shed roofs. 3 (4/20/23) �Ms. Harries asked if the ceiling height of the upper floor would change. Mr. Hopkins stated there would be some angling in the ceiling, but it will not be substantial. Ms. Harries asked if additional windows were added to the south elevation. Mr. Hopkins stated that windows were added to the north elevation when the side yard setback was increased to three feet. Mr. Hopkins stated that additional windows were added to the southern elevation when the building location was shifted. Mr. Hopkins presented comparison renderings from the previous and current building design and renderings to show the previously existing building compared to the proposed building. Mr. Harries stated that the change in the roof ridge line is a good improvement. Action Chairman Nielsen solicited comments from the Board. Ms. Harries asked Mr. Hopkins to confirm the proposed exterior building materials and if there have been considerations for solar roof panels. Mr. Hopkins stated that Hardie Board siding and Azek trim are proposed for the entire building. Mr. Hopkins stated that solar panels had not been considered and that it would be up to his client. Electric heat pumps are proposed for heating and cooling. Acting Chairman Nielsen asked Pamela Kroll if the Building Department has received any comments. Pamela Kroll stated that a letter was received from Clara Teagle and was submitted to the Board. (See Exhibit #1) Acting Chairman Nielsen solicited comments from the public. Clara Teagle is the owner of 38 Hudson Street. Ms. Teagle stated that she has an issue with the three-foot north-side setback. Ms. Teagle stated that the Zoning Code requires a minimum of five feet and that the five-foot setback should be enforced. Although the applicant can put the driveway on either side, there was originally more room between the 46 and 48 Hudson Street buildings. If the building design is approved, the five-foot required setback should be enforced. Three feet will not allow enough room for a ladder to be used. The proposed building will impact the owners of 48 Hudson Street. William White stated that he is a resident of 48 Hudson Street. Mr. White stated that he concurs with Ms. Teagles' objection to the three-foot north setback. Mr. White stated that the Zoning Board gave no reason as to why they accepted the three-foot setback between the buildings. Five feet is the Zoning Ordinance, and it should be enforced. The impact on 48 Hudson Street will be substantial. Mr. White asked the Planning Board to reject the Zoning Board’s approval. Jeff White stated that he is the owner of 42 Hudson Street. Mr. White stated that he expects that there will be problems in the future as the development of Hudson Street continues because the 4 (4/20/23) �houses are so close together and often with little to no setbacks. Mr. White stated that he is unsure of the solution because he, too, would not want a building so close to his property. Joshua Subin stated that certain things are in the purview of the Planning Board, and there are certain things which a Zoning Board may constrain the Planning Board when it relates to approved variances. The Planning Board does not have the authority to overrule the variances granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Harries asked Mr. Hopkins for the width of the lot. Mr. Hopkins stated that the width of the lot is thirty-five feet. Ms. Harries stated that the comments had been acknowledged. Ms. Harries stated that the existing conditions are tight on Hudson Street and that the restrictions of the Zoning Code are difficult to balance with the width of the lots and the desire to provide parking on the site. David Smith stated that as part of the evaluation, the zoning makes sense because the area was re-zoned from district R-4A to R-5, which allows for greater density in an area that is already constrained. Mr. Smith suggested an alternative to the R-5 designation may be appropriate given the existing conditions and constraints on the lot width and parking. Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that the Planning Board is deciding on granting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals completed a review of the variances. Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that the architectural components of the proposed building had come a long way and requested that David Smith draft a resolution. Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that the Board will keep the public hearing open until the May meeting and continue to accept public comments. Clara Teagle asked if the five-foot minimum side yard setback is required in the R-5 Zoning district or if it was required for the R-4A district. Ms. Harries stated that the R-5 district requires a five-foot side yard setback, but the R-4A district required a three-foot side yard setback. Joshua Subin stated that the area variances granted by the Zoning Board are a judicial act that changed the side yard setback for the property to be three feet. Clara Teagle stated that she had provided suggestions to the Zoning Board that they didn’t follow. Ms. Teagle asked what options the owners of 48 Hudson have to change the decision. Joshua Subin stated that variances approvals are not before the Planning Board. Mr. Subin stated that he represents the Village and that the owners of 48 Hudson may seek advice from an attorney. A motion was made to adjourn the public hearing to the May 18, 2023, Planning Board meeting and to direct staff to draft a resolution. Moved: Harries Seconded: Gebler Vote 6-0 5 (4/20/23) �4. Francesco Alesci, 135 Beekman Avenue, Proposed multi-family building, Architectural Review approval - Presentation Acting Chairperson Nieslen stated that the applicant requested an adjournment until the May 18, 2023 meeting. The application was adjourned to the May 18, 2023, Planning Board meeting. No action was taken. 5. Gabe Realty Corp., 305 North Washington Street, Proposed three-family residence Site Plan approval- Presentation The application was adjourned to the May 18, 2023 Planning Board meeting. No action was taken. 6. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II –Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalPresentation The applicants have requested an adjournment to the May 18, 2023 meeting. The application was adjourned to the May 18, 2023 Planning Board meeting. No action was taken. 7. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Block O/P & N Townhomes Phase II, Architectural Review approval- Presentation Peter Chavkin is a Managing Member of Biddle Real Estate Ventures. Mr. Chavkin stated that modifications for the proposed building design and architecture were submitted to the Board. Mr. Chavkin stated that they received the questions from the Building Department and requested that the Board provide any additional concerns. Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that this would be the first building in the Kingsland buffer and that the Board is interested in what is planned on a broader scale and how the buildings will comply with the requirements of the previous approvals as they relate to the variations for threestory and four-story buildings and open space. Mr. Chavkin stated that the proposed design complies with the findings for a variation of three and four-story townhomes because while there are no units entirely at three stories, the proposed buildings articulate between three and four stories. Mr. Chavkin stated that the intent of the requirements 2011 SEQR findings for the buildings along Hollows Pass was to prevent a monolithic look or have people in the Kingsland Point Park buffer area feel separated. Mr. Chavkin stated that although habitable square footage is proposed on the fourth floor on the end cap 28’ foot wide units, a substantial setback is proposed between the second and third floors to break down the building façade. Mr. Chavkin stated that in response to the questions regarding 6 (4/20/23) �open space from the Riverfront Concept Development Plan, the orientation of the space was discussed with the Village Board and was part of the Site Plan approved by the Planning Board. Kersten Harries stated that although there are variations proposed to break up the façade design for the four townhomes, the elevations read as one single mirrored rectangular building. Ms. Harries stated that she is concerned that if the future blocks are similarly designed, they will be repetitive and feel more monolithic. Rachelle Gebler stated that the Board is not holding the applicant to the full design of the Riverfront Concept Development Plan but that an articulation of the roof lines would provide a more broken-out feeling. It is important to consider how the building will interact with its proximity to Kingsland Point Park. Lindsay Krakauer requested that Bill McGuiness present the view from the north elevation. Mr. Krakauer stated that when seen from far away, she agrees the building looks monolithic. Mr. Chavkin stated they will consider design alternatives and requested that the Planning Board schedule a Work Session before the next meeting to review the revised submission and keep the progress moving. Ms. Harries suggested that the applicant provide renderings that provide a view from inside Kingsland Point Park looking across the development. Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that the Board is concerned about the overall intent for the other blocks of buildings and their interpretation of the articulation of the difference between three and four stories. Bill McGuiness is the designer for Sun Homes. Mr. McGuiness requested that he be permitted to start with one building and then work together with the Board to vary the buildings in the other blocks. Mr. McGuiness asked if the Board is looking for a submission that details intentions that will provide visual satisfaction to show that there will be enough variation proposed for future building designs. Mr. McGuiness stated that the next submission would also address the Board’s concerns regarding the current proposed building. Mr. Chavkin stated that they would revisit the design and contact Sean McCarthy to schedule a working group session. Acting Chairman Nielsen asked Mr. McGuiness if he wanted to address the recent comments. Mr. McGuiness stated that he would prefer not to debate issues that may or may not be a part of the ultimate submission but stated that he had prepared responses to the twelve comments received. Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that the responses could be discussed during the Work Session. Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that this is an important block in the development because of the interaction there will be with public open spaces. 7 (4/20/23) �Mr. McGuiness stated that he understands the importance of the elevation along the street. Mr. McGuiness said he takes it seriously and wants the Board to be happy with the design. Mr. Chavkin stated that he had explained his rationale for why the design complies with the requirements for the three and four-story buildings. Mr. Chavkin requested that if the Board disagrees with the characterization, they consult Village Council and send them to the Board of Trustees for approval. David Smith asked Sean McCarthy if what is proposed for the end units constitutes a building story as defined in the Code. Sean McCarthy stated that the upper level is considered a building story. David Smith stated that the applicants are presenting a four-story building as a three-story building which is not compliant with the code definition. This approach should go to the Village Board for their consideration. Acting Chairperson Nielsen asked Mr. McGuiness if this approach was intended for the other buildings. Mr. McGuiness stated that they hadn’t designed the other buildings. This is their design for this building. The design proposes stepping back four to three stories within ten feet of the end of the building and three to two stories across the front of the end unit. The massing relief comes in more than one step back. The massing steps back six feet from the front and ten feet from the end of the building, creating a two to three to four-story variation. Mr. Chavkin demonstrated the stepping details on the elevation drawing and stated that the intention was to break down the scale of the buildings while preserving the amount of square footage needed to attract buyers. Rachelle Gebler stated that if the intent is to design the buildings with four stories as described, then the Board of Trustees should decide if they want to see actual three-story and four-story buildings. There was a discussion between the Board and applicants regarding the open green space detailed in the Riverfront Concept Design Plan and the Approved Site Plan for Blocks O/P & N, and the intentions of the Concept Plan as they relate to variations of the building stories along Hollows Pass. There was a discussion between Bill McGuiness and the Board on suggestions for the interior unit bay and façade designs. There was a discussion with the Board and the Consultants as to whether or not the Board of Trustees needs to make a decision relating to the three and four-story variations for the designs of the blocks on Hollows Pass. No action was taken. 8 (4/20/23) �8. SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block A, Proposed medical office building, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval - Preliminary presentation Janet Giris stated that she is a partner with DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP representing the applicant. Ms. Giris stated that Site Plan for Block A was initially approved in March of 2021 to include the 34,000-square-foot DeCicco’s Market, and 1,800square-foot liquor store, a 9,500-square-foot retail building, and a land area for a North Retail building with related parking. The applicant is seeking approval to construct a 37,500-squarefoot four-story medical office building in lieu of the north retail building. Megan Guy is the Senior Vice President of Development at Simone Development Companies. Ms. Guy provided a summary of the company’s portfolio and stated that they are very excited to present the plans for the proposed medical building. Mark Gratz is an Engineer with DTS Provident Design Engineering, LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Gratz stated that the 9,200-square-foot north retail building was removed from the approved Site Plan in March of 2021. Mr. Gratz stated that there are existing conditions and development constraints that impact the proposed site plan. The Westchester County trunk sewer forces the proposed building to have a hard-defined edge. Mr. Gratz presented the approved Site Plan and stated that the North Retail building was removed and labeled as a grassed area for future development. Mr. Gratz stated that the proposed medical office building would share a common driveway with DeCicco’s Market. The approved Site Plan included 274 surface parking spaces. The proposed plan increases the number of parking spaces from 274 to 349 parking spaces with the addition of a two-story parking garage. The proposed medical building is a twostory building atop the garage. Mr. Gratz stated that an entry circle had been designed at the lobby entrance fronting Legend Drive to facilitate patient drop-offs. The entrance to the garage is designed as a one-way entry with the intent that after dropping someone off at the circle, the vehicle would continue into the garage. The garage exit will be located at the back of the site. The Metro-North access easement has been moved south without affecting the access to the railroad tracks. In 2022 the site was turned into three commercial condominium lots, including one lot for DeCicco’s Market, the second lot for the Retail building, and the third lot encompasses the medical office building and the balance of the site. Mr. Gratz presented the drainage plan and stated that they haven’t made any changes to the previously approved plan for DeCicco’s Market but they are planning on tieing into it so that everything will drain down to the main access drive and extend down Maxwell Drive and out. Mr. Gratz stated that Legend Drive is the main access through the development. In 2016 water and sewer services were extended right across from Maxwell Drive. They intend for all of the connections for Block A to take advantage of the service stubs. There were comments received suggesting the possibility of extending the lines and connecting to the street. Since the sanitary sewer line runs right down the middle of Legend Drive, the applicant believes any work involving connections to the sewer would disrupt the residents living there now and future marketing. Mr. Gratz presented the landscape plan and stated that the low garden Washington Wall along Legend Drive would mimic the walls constructed in front of the townhomes and the Block I apartment buildings. Mr. Gratz presented the emergency service vehicle maneuvering plan and stated that the proposed plan could accommodate emergency vehicles throughout the site. Mark Gratz stated that based on the Zoning calculations, 373 parking spaces are required. The proposed plan includes 349 9 (4/20/23) �parking spaces. Based on their shared parking analysis during peak hours, medical office rates, and retail uses, they calculated that 349 parking spaces would be sufficient. Anthony Stark stated that he is an architect with Perkins Eastman. Mr. Stark stated that the proposed building would be located against the sewer easement, the edge of the adjacent residential parking, the entry drive from Maxwell Drive, and the existing parking that was planned for the space. Mr. Stark stated that their studies show that the drop-off circle will work best for traffic flow. Mr. Stark provided renderings to show different views from the site. The parking garage levels will be screened, and there will be a water table knee around the perimeter similar to other areas and will match the adjacent wall on the DeCicco’s property. Mr. Stark stated that a dark Ironspot brick is proposed for the building exterior, and there would be wood texture vertical fins to provide screening for the parking garage. The entry tower and elevator lobby will be the only part of the building that touches the street frontage. Since they do not have tenants, they have not completed the interior fit-out drawings. Each floor will be a little over 17,000 square feet. Mr. Stark stated that the drop-off circle provides two car lengths under the canopy to allow for short-term deliveries. Mr. Stark described the proposed façade materials. Kersten Harries asked Mr. Stark for the permitted building height and the proposed height of the medical office building. Mr. Stark stated that the permitted building height is 42 feet and the proposed building height is 53 feet. Lindsay Krakauer asked if the term medical offices include only healthcare professional offices, patient exam rooms, and waiting rooms or if it can possibly be an ambulatory site where scans and imaging are offered. Janet Kiris stated that the building could be occupied by ambulatory services that offer scans and imaging. Ms. Krakauer asked if they had considered how imaging equipment would be brought into the building. Ms. Guy stated that they are experienced with healthcare facility development and that as the program for a tenant is finalized, they will coordinate the build-outs accordingly. Ms. Krakauer stated that a two-car drop-off canopy is not enough and will create traffic issues. Ms. Krakauer suggested that they consider valet parking services. Ms. Krakauer stated that the building design with the mirrored windows reads like a corporate park and doesn’t seem to fit in with the community. Rachelle Gebler agreed with Ms. Krakauer. Erin Carney stated that when looking down on the building from the Beekman Avenue approach, it looks very uniform. Mr. Stark stated that they feel the building design is appropriate for a medical office building. 10 (4/20/23) �Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that the DeCicco’s building speaks to past industrial use of the site while the proposed building is very modern. Acting Chairman Neilsen asked Mr. Stark if other designs were considered for configuring the building and the parking garage on the pedestrian level. Mr. Stark stated that the only part of that building that interfaces with the street front is the lobby area. Ms. Guy stated that if they were to backload the parking, more ramps would be needed, and the parking would become inefficient. Benjamin Sirota asked Mr. Start if they anticipate ambulances accessing the one-way street. Mr. Start stated that ambulances would not be a daily occurrence. Ms. Harries asked Mr. Stark for the width of the building. Mr. Start stated that the proposed building is sixty feet wide. Ms. Harries asked Mr. Stark if they considered landscape screening methods to minimize the view of the parking garage from Beekman Avenue. Ms. Harries requested that they provide a rendering of the view from Barnhart Park. Peter Chavkin stated that Lighthouse Landing Communities is the seller of this property. Mr. Chavkin stated that as part of the original Block A approval, the area was proposed as a 10,000square-foot single-story retail building. At that time, the Board expressed that it was an underutilization of the site. Mr. Chavkin stated that prior to this submission, he discussed the parking situation with them, and they determined that the site constraints drove the proposed design. Janet Giris stated that the proposed building height is fifty-three feet and is located in the reduced height zone. Although the applicant has been before the Zoning Board three or four times for a variance, the reason the reduced height zone restriction was imposed no longer exists because what was initially proposed for the East Parcel development has changed. Ms. Giris stated that site constraints do not allow for them to locate the building where the height is permitted to be sixty-five feet. Ms. Giris requested that the Board refer them to the Zoning Board of Appeals while they work to address the comments received from the engineers. Ms. Carney requested that they evaluate and consider the impact the building will have on Barnhart Park. David Smith stated that the Village’s revised Local Waterfront Revitalization Program designates Barnhart Park as an important view shed. Mr. Smith suggested that the applicant complete an evaluation. Mr. Sirota asked if the zoning height requirements are calculated from the main body of the roof. Mr. McCarthy stated that the height is based on the main roof deck. 11 (4/20/23) �Mr. Sirota stated that the proposed height would be sixty feet in certain areas of the building. Ms. Harries asked if below-grade parking is not possible due to site constraints. Mr. Chavkin stated that below-grade parking is not possible. There was a discussion between the Board and the applicants’ team on alternate configurations for the drop-off circle location, the building façade, and traffic circulation. James Natarelli stated that it might be helpful for the Board to see a traffic circulation study. Mr. Natarelli asked how long it would take to connect to the street from Legend Drive and how the electric, gas, and communication utilities would be brought to the site. Mr. Gratz stated that it would take approximately a week and that a trench across the street would have a significant impact on the residents. Craig Tomkins is the Construction Manager for Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, and stated that water and sewer connections were stubbed in 2017. At the time, electricity was run across the street from Tappan Zee Park. They have one gas service line tapped for the site. Mr. Tompkins asked James Natarelli which utilities he would suggest cutting into Legend Drive. Mr. Natarelli suggested running all of the utilities through Legend Drive. The Village would be liable for any extensions to the main on private property. There was a discussion with James Natarelli and Mr. Gratz about what utility connections will need extensions for private services and the options for making new connections along Legend Drive. There was a discussion with Mr. Natarelli and Mr. Tompkins about mitigating the stormwater erosion issue on Beekman Avenue. Ms. Carney requested that the applicant consider community solar overhead awnings for the south side of the building. Ms. Harries requested that the applicant consider a vegetation system to screen the parking garage. Mr. Gratz stated that they will present the landscape plan in more detail at the next meeting. Acting Chairman Nielsen stated that the Board wants to confirm the view shed requirements from Barhardt Park before referring the applicant to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Acting Chairman Nielsen requested that the applicant prepare an evaluation and renderings detailing the view impacts of adjacent properties with the requirements of the Villages’ revised Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. No action was taken. 12 (4/20/23) �9. Approval of minutes- March 23, 2023 A motion was made to approve the minutes from the March 23, 2023, meeting as amended. Moved: Gebler Seconded: Harries Acting Chairman Nielsen - yes Erin Carney - yes Kersten Harries- yes Rachelle Gebler - yes Benjamin Sirota - yes Lindsay Krakauer - abstained Vote 5-0-1 APPROVED The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 13 (4/20/23) �Exhibit #1 � 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-2023 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_2023-04-20_Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2023 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 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