https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7afe58116da4b989dc455560f14732df.pdf 854820c08107cd339fc9660645e4cba5 PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2024 Chairperson Harries called the regular meeting to order at 7:06 PM and identified the members of the Board present. Chairperson Harries revised the order of the applications on the agenda. Present: Kersten Harries, Chairperson Richard Gross Lindsay Krakauer Caroline Chen Clare Trapasso Also Present: Joshua Subin, Village Attorney James Natarelli, Village Engineer David Smith, Village Planner Anthony Catalano, Consulting Engineer Joseph Kirby, Consulting Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Pamela Kroll, Secretary to the Planning Board Absent: Rachelle Gebler Benjamin Nielsen Agenda: 1) Todd and Wendi Strier, 5 Birch Close, Proposed additions and alterations, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Draft Resolution 2) AECOM, 52-60 Elm Street, Soil vapor extraction and interim remedial measures, Site Plan Approval- Public Hearing 3) SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Proposed medical office building, Site Plan & and Architectural Review ApprovalPublic Hearing 4) LL Parcel E, LLC, Block O/P Townhomes One, Proposed backflow device enclosure, Amended Site Plan Approval- Draft Resolution 5) Lighthouse Landing Communtieis, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase 3, Block Q, Proposed concrete crushing operation- Site Plan Approval - Draft Resolution 6) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II- Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalContinued Public Hearing 7) Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase I, Block A, Sanitary sewer easement, Amended Site Plan Approval- Discussion 1 (3/21/24) �8) Rock of Salvation Church, 135 Cortlandt Street, Proposed parking lot, Site Plan Approval-Presentation 9) Marcelo Poguio, 80 Depeyster Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation 10) Approval of minutes, December 21, 2023, February 22, 2024 1. Todd and Wendi Strier, 5 Birch Close, Proposed additions and alterations, Site Plan Approval - Draft Resolution Jennifer Gray stated that she is an attorney with the law firm Keane & Beane P.C. representing the applicants. Ms. Gray stated that they reviewed the draft resolution and requested that the Board act on the approval. David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution. Lindsay Krakauer moved to approve the resolution. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Trapasso Chairperson Harries- yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Caroline Chen- yes Richard Gross- yes Clare Trapasso Vote 5-0 2. AECOM, 52-60 Elm Street, Soil vapor extraction interim remedial measures, Site Plan Approval- Public Hearing Chairperson Harries read the public notice. Lindsay Krakauer moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Chen Vote 5-0 Michael Doherty is an engineer with AECOM who is representing the Gillette Company. He described the history of the remediation work performed at the site and the proposed soil vapor extraction project, including the treatment structure, system operation process, and proposed restoration measures. Lindsay Krakauer asked if the treatment structure exhaust pipe could be moved further toward the parking lot side. Mr. Doherty stated that the exhaust stack extends from the top of the equipment trailer, and they may have room to move a foot or two in either direction. Caroline Chen suggested that the applicant could install a curved exhaust pipe, and asked Mr. Doherty to describe what exhausts from the pipe. 2 (3/21/24) �Mr. Doherty stated that treated and tested air would be vented through the exhaust system. There was a discussion regarding the plans for tree restoration. Clare Trappasso asked if the Gillette Company approved having art on the treatment trailer. Mr. Doherty stated that the Gillette Company approves of the Village adding art to the treatment trailer. Chairperson Harries solicited comments from the public. Adam Labode stated that he lives at 209 Palisades Blvd and requested that the applicant be sensitive to the treatment center's location and its proximity to the Senior Center. Richard Gross requested that the applicant maintain the plantings along the last house on the lefthand side of Elm Street, which blocks the house from the parking lot. Chairperson Harries moved to close the public hearing. Moved: Harries Seconded: Gross Vote 5-0 David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution. Richard Gross moved to approve the resolution. Moved: Gross Seconded: Trapasso Chairperson Harries- yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Caroline Chen- yes Richard Gross- yes Clare Trapasso Vote 5-0 3. SDC Lighthouse Landing Realty LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Block A proposed medical office building, Site Plan and Architectural Review ApprovalPublic Hearing Chairperson Harries read the public notice. Lindsay Krakauer moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Trapasso Vote 5-0 Janet Giris stated that she is a Partner with DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP representing the applicant. Ms. Giris stated that the 2011 Special Permit Approval for Block A included a four-story building in the location of the proposed medical office building containing a market on the lower level, 35,000 square feet of office space above it, and two-level structured parking from end to end above the surface parking. Ms. Giris stated that the plan for the property was later modified to include 70,000 square feet of retail space along with 35,000 square feet of office space and related parking. Modifications to the Block A Site Plan were 3 (3/21/24) �approved in 2021 to include a 40,000-square-foot DeCicco’s Market, a 9,000-square-foot adjacent retail building and a 9,200-square-foot North Retail Building. After the office space was removed in 2021, there were discussions on how to get office users at the Block A location. The Master Developer negotiated with Simone Development to develop a medical office building on the property. The Village Board modified the Zoning Ordinance to permit medical offices on the first floor instead of just the upper floors. Simone Development has been negotiating with the most successful medical provider in New York State to provide medical care to the Village and the Edge-on-Hudson Development. Ms. Giris stated that the design has been revised since the application was submitted in April of 2023 based on comments from the Planning Board. Ms. Giris stated that the current plan proposes a 43,212 square foot medical office building with 378 parking spaces to serve the DeCicco’s and medical office buildings. The Village Board approved and encouraged shared parking in all Edge-on-Hudson Development blocks as part of the 2011 Special Permit approval. The submitted shared parking analysis demonstrates that the proposed parking is adequate for all uses on Block A. Umberto Annunziata is the Development Manager for Simone Development Companies. Mr. Annuziata stated that the proposed building is 43,212 square feet with a three-story 186-space parking garage and 192 on-grade parking spaces. He presented the ground floor plan and described the location for the patient drop-off area, the entrance to the parking garage, the trash area, and the generator location. He presented the second-floor and third-floor plans and stated that each floor would be similar and have 15,000 square feet. He presented the roof plan, which proposes a mechanical penthouse and a garage turnaround area. Mr. Annuniziata presented the elevation drawings and stated that the roof line is proposed at the maximum permitted height of 42 feet, and is the same height as the DeCicco’s building. He presented a site section and rendering to show that the proposed building would not impact river views from Barnhart Park. Mr. Annuziatta presented rendering views of the proposed medical office building from different locations within the development. Anthony Stark is an architect from Perkins Eastman who is representing the applicant. Mr. Stark presented material samples and described the materials for the exterior brick façade, window mullions, trim, and louvers. Mr. Stark described the proposed garage façade and screening. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Stark for details of the impressions proposed for the east-facing garage concrete facing Barnhart Park. Mr. Stark said the concrete garage wall design plan has not been developed. Richard Gross asked Mr. Stark to provide the proposed garage entrance and floor-to-floor heights. Mr. Stark said the garage entrance height is 9 feet. The ground floor will be 12 feet from floor to floor to allow accessible vans to enter. The upper garage would have a clearance of 7 feet, 6 inches for vehicles with 10 feet from floor to floor. Mr. Gross asked if electric vehicle charging stations are proposed in the garage. Mr. Start said they have not developed that level of detail. 4 (3/21/24) �Mr. Gross suggested that charging stations be limited to outside or on the garage's top floor to allow the Fire Department to extinguish fires caused by electric vehicles. Chairperson Harries requested the applicant describe the changes to the crosswalks. Mark Gratz is an engineer with DTS Provident Design Engineering who represents the applicant. Mr. Gratz stated that the crosswalks were intentionally located on the site plan as a traffic calming measure. The crosswalks are designed to allow patrons to walk to and from different buildings. Mr. Gratz stated that a crosswalk was added to the site plan. Lindsay Krakauer suggested creating one-way roadways to the rear of the site to reduce traffic congestion coming in and out at a five-directional intersection. Mr. Gratz stated that he would consider Ms. Krakauer's suggestion. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Gratz to describe the minimum number of spaces they need to utilize for the loading zone. Mr. Gratz stated that the Block I buildings have at least two spaces for drop-offs and deliveries. The nature of the medical office building requires more spaces along Legend Drive to allow for temporary parking of delivery trucks and vehicles dropping off or picking up patients. Chairperson Harries asked how many parking spots the Zoning Code requires for the proposed use. Mr. Gratz stated that they have calculated the parking requirements as 378 to 517 spaces depending on the standard applied. The site was originally designed as office space, which requires one parking space per 250 square feet. Medical offices require one space per 150 square feet. Mr. Gratz stated that the shared parking analysis was based on square footage and national standards for the land uses of the three on-site uses. They deducted the square footage of the lobby areas. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Gratz for a comparable square footage per parking spot ratio for the calculations, and asked if they had completed a traffic study or modeling to anticipate the number of cars coming in and out of the site. Mr. Gratz stated that a traffic study was not completed for this site. However, the traffic studies completed in 2011 studied 37 intersections throughout Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown. The improvements completed were designed to handle the approved larger development project, which included more residential units and retail space. Block A proposes to build the approved 72,000 square feet of retail space. In 2021, the applicant was asked to remove the 9,000-squarefoot retail facility shown on the site plan because the Village wanted to explore better opportunities to use the space. Chairperson Harries asked what parking ratio would be required for retail use. Mr. Gratz said the retail parking ratio is based on one parking space per 200 square feet. 5 (3/21/24) �Chairperson Harries asked if the traffic studies completed in 2011 included areas within the site. Mr. Gratz stated that the traffic studies were based on the broader external network. Ms. Giris stated that the community was designed to accommodate the traffic generated by all the land uses approved at the time. Because of the construction, some roadways are temporarily one-way, where they are designed to be two-way. Chairperson Harries requested that the applicant model the internal traffic at the site's intersection. Mr. Gratz stated they could prepare a theoretical study based on estimates of the fully built-out site. Clare Trapasso asked for the proposed tenant and operation hours of the medical office building. Mr. Annunziata said they can't disclose a tenant program because they do not have a signed lease. The hours of operation would be 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays and limited hours on Saturdays. Chairperson Harries stated that the Board received correspondence from members of the public before the meeting, which has been added to the Village website. (See Exhibits #s1-9) Chairperson Harries solicited comments from the public. Christopher Peuler lives at 100 Legend Drive. He stated that the medical office building would face his backyard. He is concerned about the noise and traffic generated by having one entrance into the site. He questioned why the medical office building isn’t proposed towards the back of the site instead of abutting Legend Drive. The proposed loading zone will eliminate parking spaces for visitors and potentially have delivery trucks idling on the road. Chairperson Harries stated that the Planning Board encouraged the applicant to site the building to keep a street presence and to put the parking garage towards the rear of the site to hide the parking and buffer the sound from the railroad tracks. Ted Lai stated he lives at 102 Legend Drive. He requested that the Board restrict or modify the proposed signage sizes, designs, locations, and requested that the Board deny the applicants request for the fourth sign. Mr. Lai requested that the parking garage be modified to include solid walls so that vehicles are not visible from Legend Drive. Mr. Lai stated that the proposed loading zone on Legend Drive should be denied because it would allow constant idling and parking of delivery trucks, medical waste litter, disruption of the pedestrian traffic flow along the sidewalk, and create a dangerous traffic pattern on a private street that should not be used for commercial use. The parking spots should remain public for the use of the residents. He suggested the loading zone be relocated on-site in the parking garage. Mr. Lai expressed concerns about traffic from Beekman Avenue and the anticipated volume of cars entering the Block A site. He suggested that a second egress bridge be constructed from the Edge-on-Hudson development to Continental Street and that the applicant obtain funding from New York State. Mr. Lai stated that 6 (3/21/24) �the internal drop-off circle and the four-way crosswalk will cause a backload of cars on Legend Drive. He suggested that the generator be fueled by natural gas instead of diesel to be better for the environment and have less noise pollution. He expressed his concern about tenants being non-profit and tax-exempt. (See Exhibit #9 for further comments) Chairperson Harries suggested that Mr. Lai submit his written comments. Chairperson Harries requested the applicant address the anticipated operating hours and illumination of signage for the building. Ms. Giris stated that the medical office building hours would be 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 12:30-1:00 PM on Saturdays. The applicant has not determined the proposed signage illumination times. She will discuss with the applicant and provide the intentions to the Board. Jen Saul stated that she lives at 2 Maxwell Drive and is purchasing a unit at 201 Horseman Boulevard. When making the big investment, she was promised a luxury home that included the waterfront, markets, shopping, dining, boutique hotel, and lots of walking, biking, and hiking. Having a medical office building outside her front door is not what she signed up for when she decided to move from New York City. She would not have purchased a home here if she knew a medical office building was planned. A medical office building will drive the price of homes down. Robyn Beavers lives at 314 Horseman Boulevard. She suggested that the decision to approve the medical office building should wait until the DeCicco’s market is up and running to conduct a traffic study that includes internal community use and the external patrons coming to the grocery store. Using pedestrians as traffic calming measures is dangerous. The national parking average for healthcare facilities should be based on a semi-urban dense development, and she requested that the applicant provide more details on the averages used to determine if they are outdated or irrelevant. Brian Palmer lives at 201 Palisades Boulevard. Mr. Palmer stated that he also concerned about traffic and wonders if there is a need for a traffic light at the corner of Maxwell Drive and Legend Drive. Mr. Palmer suggested that the Board request examples from the applicant where a medical office building has been constructed in community similar to the Edge-on-Hudson development. The office buildings that Simone Development has constructed in Westchester, the Bronx, and Long Island are in massive commercial spaces without a residential presence. Rene Hernandez lives at 25 Barnhart Avenue and asked who the tenant would be and what kind of medical services would be offered. Mr. Hernandez suggested that the medical office building be reduced to a two-story building. Chairperson Harries stated that the applicant has not provided details regarding the potential tenant and services. The Planning Board has worked with the applicant to reduce the proposed building height. Cara Fulva lives at 100 Legend Drive. She requested that the Board review the documents from 2007 and 2011 referenced by the applicant and consider whether the proposed medical building 7 (3/21/24) �aligns with the development's goals of being transit and pedestrian-oriented and providing waterfront open space access and recreation. She questioned whether a community need study was conducted regarding a healthcare facility and how the Board can determine if a need exists without a confirmed tenant and services. Although a plan was developed and approved twenty years ago, the plan should be adjusted for the moment. Long-term efforts are not a reason for approval. Adam Labode lives at 209 Palisades Boulevard. Mr. Labode stated that the people who live in the Edge-on-Hudson development do not want a medical office building and are hostile. He asked what the Planning Board is supposed to do when the residents oppose the proposal. Josh Subin stated that the Planning Board reviews applications based on approved uses and what is zoned for the area. Community pressure is not in the Planning Board’s purview. Problems concerning the Zoning Code are a Village Board issue. Mr. Labode stated it is a use issue, not a Zoning issue. If the Planning Board dodges the question of what Board is responsible for addressing the community's concerns, it will become a civic issue. Lee Ann Slinkard lives at 214 Legend Drive. Ms. Slinkard stated that she views the proposed medical office building as adding more conflict to a small space. Adding more congestion to the site will be dangerous and cause residents to move out. Chairperson Harries proposed to keep the public hearing open. Chairperson Harries moved to adjourn the public hearing to the April 18, 2024 meeting. Moved: Harries Seconded: Krakauer Vote 5-0 4. LL Parcel E, LLC, Block O/P Townhomes One, Proposed backflow device enclosureAmended Site Plan Approval - Draft Resolution Chairperson Harries stated that the revised drawing shows that the backflow enclosure was moved closer to the building. Mark Gratz is an engineer with DTS Provident Design Engineering LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Gratz stated that they moved the enclosure closer to the building while still allowing room for the lid to flip over when opening. Chairperson Harries requested that future site plan applications anticipate the need for backflow enclosures, be included on the initial site plans, and, when possible, be located underground. David Smith read the condition of the draft resolution. Chairperson Harries moved to approve the resolution. Moved: Harries Seconded: Gross Chairperson Harries- yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes 8 (3/21/24) �Caroline Chen- yes Richard Gross- yes Clare Trapasso- yes Vote 5-0 5. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Phase III, Block Q, Proposed concrete Crushing operation, Amended Site Plan Approval –Draft Resolution Craig Tompkins stated that he received the draft resolution and has no objections. David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution. Richard Gross moved to approve the resolution. Moved: Gross Seconded: Chen Chairperson Harries- yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Caroline Chen- yes Richard Gross- yes Clare Trapasso- yes Vote 5-0 6. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, Phase II Waterfront Open Space, Site Plan & Wetlands Watercourse Permit ApprovalContinued Public Hearing Craig Tompkins stated that correspondence has been circulating with staff, and they are working to address additional work and questions posed by Woodard & Curran. They agree to adjourn the public hearing. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Tompkins for updates regarding the approved piers work. Mr. Tompkins stated that the DEC requires the construction of the fishing pier and the boat dock during September and October. They are putting the project to bid in April and plan to submit for Building Permits and be ready to start on September 1, 2024. They expect to have the piles in the ground during September and October, finish the tops in November, and be completed by the end of the year. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Tompkins when the design for the balance of the Phase II Waterfront Space will be submitted. Mr. Tompkins stated that he can't provide a submission date yet, but the design team is working on it. Chairperson Harries moved to adjourn the public hearing to the April 18, 2024, meeting. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Trapasso Vote 5-0 7. Lighthouse Landing Communities, LLC, Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development, 9 (3/21/24) �Phase I, Block A, Sanitary sewer easement and maintenance agreement- Amended Site Plan Approval - Discussion David Smith read the conditions of the draft resolution. Craig Tompkins questioned the condition of the Certificate of Occupancy and asked Sean McCarthy to confirm the easement dedication process. Sean McCarthy stated that the condition relates to the offer of dedication, not the acceptance of the easement. Richard Gross moved to approve the resolution. Moved: Gross Seconded: Harries Chairperson Harries- yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Caroline Chen- yes Richard Gross- yes Clare Trapasso- yes Vote 5-0 Mr. Tompkins stated that DeCicco’s Market is set to open in the first quarter of 2025, so they are rushing to install the utilities. Lindsay Krakauer asked Mr. Tompkins if the staircase on Beekman Avenue would be installed before the DeCicco buildings opened. Mr. Tompkins stated that the staircase will be installed before the openings at DeCicco’s. 8. Rock of Salvation Church, 135 Cortlandt Street, Proposed parking lot, Site Plan Approval- Presentation Jorge B. Hernandez is the architect representing the applicant. Mr. Hernandez presented revised site plans and stated that percolation tests were completed, and they started developing the stormwater plans. The prior approval for the parking lot contained more spaces. The revised plan proposes 17 parking spaces, including 1 ADA space. They submitted title documents to show that the property never had an easement. There is no intention to create an easement between the two properties. The plans show the landscaping locations and the nearby fire hydrants. The property has proper ingress and egress for cars to turn around, and they plan to use the existing curbcut. Chairperson Harries suggested that Mr. Hernandez reduce the two-way traffic to one-way at the right corner and provide a continuous sidewalk and curb. Ms. Harries also suggested that a gate be installed for patrons to access the green space on the back left corner of the property, increase the green buffer, and reduce the impervious surface between the neighboring property on the right side. Mr. Hernandez agreed to make the requested changes. 10 (3/21/24) �Chairperson Harries move to schedule a public hearing for the April 18, 2024 meeting. Moved: Harries Seconded: Krakauer Chairperson Harries- yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Caroline Chen- yes Richard Gross- yes Clare Trapasso- yes Vote 5-0 Chairperson Harries requested that Mr. Hernandez submit revised plans to reflect the comments from the Board. 9. Marcelo Poguio, 80 Depeyster Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan and Architectural Review Approval- Preliminary Presentation Steven Costa is the engineer representing the owner of the property. Mr. Costa stated that the current structure is a non-conforming two-family dwelling. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure and construct a three-family dwelling. The application will require the Zoning Board to grant variances for the front yard setback, lot area, and parking. Mr. Costa presented the front elevation drawings and stated that tandem parking is proposed on the side and in garages below the house. The application proposes to connect to existing water and sanitary sewer utility services and install sprinkler systems in the building. Deep hold testing was performed where groundwater was found a foot below the existing grade. He is working with James Natarelli on designing the stormwater system. Richard Gross asked Mr. Costa if the front entrance would remain on Depeyster Street. Mr. Costa confirmed that the front elevation will remain on Depeyster Street. Lindsay asked Mr. Costa to describe how they will provide five parking spaces on site. Mr. Costa stated they propose two tandem spaces in the driveway and three in the garages under the basement. Clare Trapasso asked Mr. Costa how many bedrooms they proposed in each apartment. Ms. Trapasso asked why some windows had shutters and why there were no windows in other locations. Mr. Costa presented the elevations and floor plan drawings and stated that they didn’t include windows at the side elevations on Valley Street to avoid light from cars and the living rooms facing the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Costa said he would add windows in both elevations and eliminate shutters if the Board prefers. Chairperson Harries requested that Mr. Costa consider providing more architectural articulation to the building. Ms. Harries asked if the residents would share the green space on the south side of the property. 11 (3/21/24) �Mr. Costa stated that each apartment would have a private rear covered porch and share the two levels of the rear yard green space. Stair access is planed from all levels of the balconies to provide two means of egress. Chairperson Harries asked Mr. Costa what is proposed for the heating and cooling systems and suggested that the applicant consider energy-efficient methods. Mr. Costa stated that air conditioning and direct vent gas-fired boilers are proposed. The applicant plans to construct the roof to be solar-ready. Richard Gross asked if there were plans to demolish the building. Sean McCarthy stated that the owner gutted the inside of the house and that he can apply to demolish the structure. Mr. Costa said he would apply to attend the May Zoning Board meeting. Chairperson Harries moved to schedule a public hearing for the May 16, 2024, Planning Board meeting, pending approval from the May 15, 2024, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Moved: Harries Seconded: Gross Chairperson Harries- yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Caroline Chen- yes Richard Gross- yes Clare Trapasso- yes Vote 5-0 Chairperson Harries requested that Mr. Costa develop the elevation drawings and stormwater plans for presentation at the April 18, 2024 Planning Board meeting. 10. Approval of minutes, December 21, 2023, February 22, 2024 Chairperson Harries moved to approve the December 21, 2023 minutes. Moved: Harries Seconded: Vote 5-0 Chairperson Harries- yes Lindsay Krakauer- yes Caroline Chen- yes Richard Gross- yes Clare Trapasso Vote 5-0 Chairperson Harries tabled the February 22, 2024, minutes to the April 18, 2024, Planning Board meeting. Chairperson Harries moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. 12 (3/21/24) �Moved: Harries Seconded: Vote 5-0 13 (3/21/24) Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board �Exhibit #1 Christopher and Lauren Camia 330 Horseman Blvd Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 March 18, 2024 Dear Chairperson Harries, Mr. McCarthy and Members of the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board, We are writing as a matter of public record for the public hearing regarding the Medical Office Building (“MOB”) Site Plan and Architectural Approval at Edge on Hudson (“EOH”). We make reference to the presentation made to the board on February 22, 2024. The Board understandably raised questions with respect to programming and traffic flow. However, we would urge the board to even more carefully analyze and consider the implications on traffic and spillover onto Legend Drive. We have to get this right from the start as the nature of the site’s elevation will prevent remedies in the future. Our concern is very simply that the flow of vehicular traffic entering and exiting the commercial site and parking lot from Legend Drive will not be adequately handled by the current infrastructure. The plan as presented envisages just one vehicular entrance to serve a busy supermarket, retail building and the MOB. The parking lot and parking garage will have over 375 parking spaces and constant vehicular and pedestrian traffic, including large commercial vehicles accessing the loading docks at DiCicco’s. As shown in the screenshot from the application below, almost immediately upon entering the commercial site via the singular access point, cars will encounter a FIVE WAY cross walk, further complicated by cars entering and exiting a covered drop off point for the MOB. Given the expected volumes, it is hard to imagine that traffic will flow smoothly through this area. As congestions takes root, cars will back up onto Legend Drive, awaiting their turn to enter the commercial site. This would then in effect restrict vehicular traffic to ALL subsequent residential areas of EOH as Legend Drive is the only two way street beyond the traffic circle at the entrance to EOH. Lighthouse Landing is currently configured for one way traffic. Westward is construction access only. We understand that parking capacity has been thoroughly studied by the applicant, but we saw no such attention paid to traffic. �While we trust that the Planning Board will diligently consider and make appropriate recommendations to the applicant, we think there are at least three mitigating elements to consider: 1) Simplify the pentagon pedestrian crosswalk just beyond the entrance to the commercial site a. While pedestrian safety is of utmost importance, the current design is complex and will undoubtedly hinder traffic flow 2) Relocate or eliminate the MOB drop off point a. The exit for the drop off point intersects with the very short and what will be a very busy singular access road, further complicating flow 3) Relocate the entrance to the MOB parking garage from the South side of the building in the commercial site parking lot to the North side with its own access via Legend Drive a. We recognize that this relocation may require reconfiguration of a portion of the Emerson parking lot, but it will relieve substantial pressure on the main entrance Please excuse the amateur sketch below but thought it would be helpful in illustrating the aforementioned. We thank you very much for your attention to this matter and ensuring the best possible outcomes for EOH, its residents and the Sleepy Hollow community at large. �Exhibit #2 ��������Exhibit #3 From: To: Subject: Date: Pamela Kroll Pamela Kroll Comments Received 3-21-24 from Resident on 102 Legend Drive Thursday, March 21, 2024 3:57:47 PM From: Susan Geisler Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 3:17 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Statement for Public Hearing re: Medical Office Building at Edge on Hudson March 21, 2024 Dear Chairperson Harries, Mr. McCarthy, and Members of the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board, We live on Legend Drive in Edge on Hudson, and we have major concerns about the proposed 3 story Medical Office Building and 186 space attached Parking Structure. Since we will not be able to attend the Public Hearing scheduled for this evening, we submit our concerns, for the record, via this email. Our main issue with this proposed project concerns the traffic flow within Edge on Hudson and the surrounding community.  Currently, as you know, Beekman Avenue, RIver Street, and Legend Drive converge at a small traffic circle which provides access to  our community.  It is important to note that this is the ONLY access to our community.  The number of residents who use this access has grown as construction continues and more and more people move into Edge on Hudson, and once the community is finished, with the completion of the boutique hotel, 100 units currently under construction by Daymark, and an additional 90 townhomes to be built by Sun Homes, this access will become that much more utilized both by vehicles and pedestrians. We have serious concerns that the addition of a three story Medical Office Building and adjacent Parking Structure will seriously impact the traffic in this area.  As it stands now, the only entrance to the parcel of land that will house the DeCicco's Supermarket and the retail space is on Legend Drive. Imagine the nightmarish congestion that will ensue in the area, specifically on Legend Drive, by the addition of a constant flow of cars, supply trucks, medical transports, ambulances, etc, going in and out of a three story medical building.  The surrounding infrastructure simply cannot handle it.  Having only one entrance on a small, two lane road within a residential community would be simply intolerable. In short, we are most definitely opposed to the construction of the proposed three story medical office building and attached parking structure within our community, and we respectfully ask the board to reconsider its approval. Thank you, Susan and Alan Geisler 102 Legend Drive Sleepy Hollow, NY �Exhibit #4 From: To: Subject: Date: Pamela Kroll Pamela Kroll Comments Received 3-21-24 from 100 Legend Drive Owner Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:54:48 PM From: Sarah Wolf   Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:09 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Concerns Regarding the Proposed Medical Office Building at Block A in the Edge-on-Hudson Riverfront Development Sarah Wolf 100 Legend Dr #105 Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Thursday March 21, 2024 Planning Board of Sleepy Hollow C/O Village of Sleepy Hollow, Department of Architecture, Land Use Development, Buildings and Building Compliance 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Subject: Concerns Regarding the Proposed Medical Office Building at Block A in the Edgeon-Hudson Riverfront Development Dear Chairperson Harries and Members of the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed medical building across from the Lofts at Edge on Hudson. As a new resident and owner in this community, I was initially under the impression that the building would be a small-scale establishment, perhaps housing a pharmacy or retail space. However, the proposed plans presented to us indicate that the building will be significantly larger than anticipated, with a parking structure included. My primary concern is the potential impact this oversized building will have on traffic flow and safety in our neighborhood. With only one entrance and exit point, I fear that the influx of vehicles associated with the medical facility will overwhelm Legend Drive and create congestion, particularly during peak hours. This could not only disrupt the tranquility of our �community but also pose safety hazards for pedestrians crossing streets and walking along sidewalks. Furthermore, the proposed drop-off location for ambulettes raises additional concerns about noise pollution, especially during late hours. Given the proximity of the medical building to residential areas like ours, such disturbances could significantly diminish our quality of life.  Additionally, the conversion of parallel parking spaces on Legend Drive into a loading zone is troubling, as it will reduce the already limited parking options available to residents. This decision not only exacerbates congestion but also raises concerns about noise and pollution from idling trucks and medical waste disposal. In light of these concerns, I urge the Planning Board to reconsider the size and scope of the proposed medical building and explore alternative solutions that prioritize the well-being and interests of residents in the surrounding community. Collaborative efforts between developers and residents are essential to ensuring that any future developments align with the character and needs of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing your response and participating in constructive dialogue moving forward. Sincerely, Sarah Wolf �Exhibit #5 ��Exhibit #6 From: To: Subject: Date: Pamela Kroll Pamela Kroll Comments Received 3-21-24 from 220 Legend Drive Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:07:02 PM From: Gillian Wakabayashi Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 12:50 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Cc: Mark Wakabayashi Subject: Medical Building Size Increase Hello Sean, I want to add my concern and support to letters sent to you and SL planning board for the meeting this evening by my fellow EOH neighbors. The proposed massive increase in size of the medical building would further complicated the traffic situation and change the development way beyond the community we were sold. One access, hundreds of added cars, I will not be able to access my own home on Legend Dr. let alone the obvious safety concerns. Sincerely, Gillian Wakabayashi 220 Legend Dr �Exhibit #7 Subject: Date: 3-21-24 Comments Received from Owners of 102 Legend Drive Unit 302 March 21, 2024 PM Hello, I am officially writing a letter of opposition to the medical office being built next to Decicco's market.  I live directly across from the space and am incredibly upset about this.  I would not have moved to the area had I known.  I thought this was going to be RETAIL space.  Beekman Avenue simply cannot handle up to 250 cars per hour which is expected!  This will not be safe and will not be a good place to raise our 2-year-old son.  This was not supposed to be what Edge on Hudson was about. Unfortunately, I have no babysitter and cannot attend tonight's meeting. This is incredibly disappointing to hear and I am just sick over this. Michele & Aaron Abramson 100 Legend Drive, Unit 302 Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 �Exhibit #8 From: To: Subject: Date: Pamela Kroll Pamela Kroll Comments Received 3-21-24 from Resident of EOH Development - Moschella Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:56:24 PM From: Michael Moschella Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 2:17 PM To: Sean McCarthy <smccarthy@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Comments for tonight’s hearing on proposed medical office building at block A in edge on Hudson development Dear Planning Board, I am sure you’re inundated with nimby emails about the proposed medical office building. I would like to express a clear preference in favor of rapidly developing the Sleepy Hollow waterfront to make it a true destination for all of New York.  The trouble is this: the way this medical building is laid out could really destroy your opportunity. Before moving forward, I would like you and the developer to simulate 300 cars going in and out of that little space in a short period of time.  Imagine rush hour with people getting lost over the bridge, confused by the roundabout, driving around a big loading dock that is wildly placed right next to residences, and having only one way out.  Is there even a 2% chance this isn’t an utter disaster? You’ll be backed up to route 9! Train parking will be wrecked, police will be stretched, and it will be incredibly loud as a 40 car backups blast their stereos.  The way I see it, you have 3 options: 1. Scale back to the original promised plan. 2. Change the whole parking structure keeping loading off the street and building an entire new access road in and out. 3. Add budget to build an additional monument next to the medical build - a Lincoln Memorial decorated to silly urban planning gone wrong, so students of smart city development can come and visit to learn what NOT to do for generations, and your family names will be inextricably intertwined with foolhardy planning in the legends of Sleepy Hollow. Thanks, Mike Moschella Owner of the condo closest to the development �Exhibit #9 Subject: 2024-03-21_ Comments Presented At Meeting By Ted Lai From: Ted Lai <tedglai@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 1:36 PM To: Pamela Kroll <pkroll@sleepyhollowny.org> Subject: Comments for proposed EOH MOB Signage: 1. 2. 3. The applicant states that they are allowed 3.25 signs and is requesting 4. I ask that the Planning Board 4. deny this request. 3 signs are ample signage. 5. 2. 3. 4. For Proposed Signage A - Legend Dr, the applicant is proposing the installation of a vertical sign that 5. is 21 feet tall and 4 feet wide that will be visible from View 1 Looking South on Legend Dr and clearly visible by residents living in 101 Legend and 102 Legend. This should be denied. No sign should be placed at this intersection. Having such a large sign 6. immediately adds a commercial feel to the street and it definitely doesn’t blend well with the residential neighborhood. Additionally, considering all visitors to �the building are coming in from Beekman, this sign on Legend has no purpose besides branding for the tenant, which I believe is Northwell. 7. 8. 9. 10.   11. For Proposed Signage B - Entrance, the applicant is proposing the installation of an illuminated vertical 12. sign that is 21 feet tall and 4 feet wide that will be visible from View 2 From Maxwell Dr and clearly visible by residents living in 101 Legend and 2 Maxwell. For similar reasons to Proposed Signage A, this sign should be denied. 13. 14. 15.   16. For Proposed Signage D - Canopy - the applicant is proposing the installation of an illuminated horizontal 17. sign that is 4 feet tall and 21 feet wide that will be visible from View 2 From Maxwell Dr and clearly visible by residents living in 101 Legend and 2 Maxwell. This proposed sign should be modified to be smaller and it should not be illuminated. Light pollution 18. is already rampant in EOH and should be minimized. 19. 20. 21.   22. For Proposed Signage C - Monument/Directional Sign - the applicant is proposing the installation of 23. an illuminated monument 8 feet tall by 12 feet wide. This proposed stone wall that doubles as a sign should be modified to be smaller. 24. Parking Structure 1. 2. �3. The applicant is proposing a 4 story parking structure with a transparent screen barrier. Parked vehicles 4. will be visible from Legend Dr and around the entire parking structure. Residents living in their homes, residents walking in along Legend Dr, and residents and guests driving along Legend Dr should not be able to see into a parking structure. This destroys 5. the neighborhood feel. Just as it was done in Northlight, the walls surrounding a parking structure need to be enclosed and there should be no visible evidence of a parking garage from the street. If desired, exterior walls facing the railroad tracks can be 6. left with a screen barrier. Additionally, since the garage is not covered on the 4th floor, the exterior walls should be tall enough to block any view. 7. Loading/unloading zone on Legend Drive 1. 2. 3. The applicant is proposing a striped loading/unloading zone on Legend Drive. This should be denied. 4. Having a permanent loading/unloading zone would allow for the constant parking and idling of delivery trucks, medical waste to be littered on the ground, the constant disruption of pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk, and the creation of a dangerous traffic 5. pattern with the steady flow of trucks parking and leaving the loading/unloading zone. 6. Additionally, the constant flow of handtrucks, carts, pallet jacks and even forklifts traveling from Legend Drive onto the public sidewalk to either the interior drop off circle or receiving on the corner of the building adjacent to the parking garage is not a desirable situation.  Furthermore, I don’t know of any singular commercial building in Westchester County or NYS for that matter that has a public street for private use. Parking is already strained at EOH. These are public parking spots that should remain public parking spots.  �The applicant should relocate the building’s loading/unloading off Legend Drive and place it in the interior. Perhaps the parking structure’s height clearance should be adjusted to allow for delivery vehicles to enter and park in a designated delivery zone adjacent to the current receiving area.  I am confident that all delivery personnel would appreciate garage access vs parking on Legend and traversing a block-long residential sidewalk before maneuvering onto the applicant’s sidewalk around the corner of the building and down an alleyway or sidewalk to enter.  Traffic Safety 1. 2. 3. Currently, EOH has only 1 egress via Beekman Avenue. The applicant’s parking study estimates that at 4. peak times, there could be upwards of over 350 cars on site. This is in addition to the hundreds of cars expected to be at DeCicco’s and the cars of the projected 4000 residents of EOH. How is the current EOH infrastructure prepared to handle this volume of 5. traffic if the applicant is allowed to proceed without any other site improvements? 6. A second egress bridge from EOH to Continental needs to be built. This is imperative for the safety of residents and visitors. A plan to fund and build this bridge needs to be in place before the applicant is allowed to put a shovel in the ground. I have spoken to the Mayor and Board of Trustees before regarding the significance of the second egress bridge to the success and safety of EOH. The hold up on constructing the bridge is funding and ideally securing state and/or federal grants for the construction of the second egress. Considering, Simone Development’s vast experience dealing with New York State and federal officials during the construction of previous projects and �Northwell Health’s CEO Michael Dowling’s close ties to the governor and state and federal government, I am asking the applicant and its tenant to be a good neighbor and help the Village secure funding for the construction of the second egress bridge by either A) providing direct funding, or B) leveraging their government contacts to bring attention to the needs of a second egress bridge along with securing the necessary funding.  2. 3. 4. The internal drop off circle and 4 way crosswalk is a short distance from Legend Drive. It will cause 5. a backlog of cars (stopping to allow pedestrians to cross) that will cause vehicles to queue outside of the parking lot and onto Legend leading to traffic and congestion. This needs to be addressed by the applicant. 6. 3. 4. 5. The only entrance currently into EOH is either down Beekman Ave or down River Street, around the traffic 6. circle and into EOH. How are all of the projected 4000 residents and hundreds of cars projected to be at DeCiccos and the applicant’s building going to safely and efficiently traverse this traffic circle and surrounding roads that lead to EOH? 7. Additionally, does the planning board or applicant know where the school bus stop is for EOH? At the traffic circle. Does the planning board or applicant know where dozens of cars park and wait to drop off or pick up children from the bus? At the traffic circle. The applicant’s parking study concludes that peak vehicular demand is 3pm. Does the planning board or applicant know what time multiple school buses make stops at the traffic circle? 3pm. How is the singular traffic circle that allows entry into EOH going to function at 3pm? It’s not, and patients who have a 3pm appointment better get to the parking lot by 2pm to avoid getting stuck behind a school bus.  There needs to be further traffic studies done to understand what the impact would be of an additional large scale commercial tenant and if EOH can sustain the additional traffic, and, most importantly, a second egress needs to be built for EOH immediately.  �Taxation 1. 2. 3. I want to make a comment to the planning board about the possibility of Northwell becoming a tenant. 4. Northwell, and other potential tenants, is a non-profit. The last thing the town and village needs is a non tax paying tenant. Does the applicant plan to sign a triple net lease with the tenant? If so, will Northwell, or other non profit tenants, be exempt 5. from paying county, town, village, and school taxes? Or will the applicant guarantee to pay for any and all real estate taxes regardless of whether or not the tenant is non profit? 6. � 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-2024 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_2024-03-21_Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2024 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2024 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