https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/fdb14ff58a1b48d69d145d498b34b031.pdf 09c9d0227adc900e29ae741a32caf4de PDF Text Text Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Minutes May 22, 2025 Chairperson Krakauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Chairperson Krakauer read the agenda. Present: Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson Richard Gross Jay Schulz Rachelle Gebler Benjamin Nielsen Chris Camia Ken Anderson Also Present: Joshua B. Subin, Village Attorney David Smith, Village Planner James Natarelli, Village Engineer Sean E. McCarthy, Building Inspector Absent: Pamela Kroll, Secretaty to Planning Board Agenda: 1) 16 Hudson Street Realty, 16 Hudson Street, Proposed parking area, Site Plan ApprovalContinued public hearing 2) 50 on Hudson Street, LLC, 50 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan & ARB Approval- Public hearing, pending ZBA continued public hearing 3) 188 Wyatt, LLC, 188 Cortlandt Street, Amended Site Plan Approval- Discussion 4) One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 300-306 Legend Drive, Proposed (4) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 5) One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 352-358 Legend Drive, Proposed (4) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 6) One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 360-370 Legend Drive, Proposed (6) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 7) One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 372-378 Legend Drive, Proposed (4) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 8) One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 329-337 Hollows Pass, Proposed (5) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 9) One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 339-347 Hollows Pass, Proposed (5) Unit Townhome, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 10) Approval of minutes, April 24, 2025 1 (5/22/25) �1. 16 Hudson Street Realty, 16 Hudson Street, Proposed parking area, Site Plan, and Architectural Review Approval- Continued public hearing Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board has not received the engineering drawings for the application. Benjamin Nielsen moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Gross Vote 7-0 Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. There were no public comments. Chairperson Krakauer moved to adjourn the public hearing to the June 26, 2025 meeting. Moved: Krakauer Seconded: Nielsen Vote 7-0 2. 50 on Hudson Street LLC, 50 Hudson Street, Proposed three-family residence, Site Plan & Architectural Review Approval – Discussion, Pending ZBA Approval Richard Gross moved to open the public hearing. Moved: Gross Seconded: Anderson Vote 7-0 Brian Hopkins is the owner and architect of the property. Mr. Hopkins stated that he reviewed the comments from the May 16, 2025 work session. Mr. Hopkins stated that houses on Hudson Street are a mix of single, two, three, and multi-family buildings that contain a variety of different roof types, porches, railings, columns, and windows. There is no defined character on Hudson Street as character is developed when buildings are repetitive in the styles and elements. Mr. Hopkins presented the design progressions and stated that the proposed building is modern with articulate architectural elements, scaled for the neighborhood with intentional designs for functionality. The proposed building will submstantially improve and add continuing value to the neighborhood as a way forward for Hudson Street. Mr. Hopkins requested that the Board draft a resolution to approve the project. Joshua Subin stated that it is within the Board’s discretion to decide things such as excessive dissimilarity or what the overall look and feel of the neighborhood is. Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the public. Jeff White stated that he is the owner of 42 Hudson Street. Mr. White stated that he is concerned about parking. He stated that there are (38) families on the block and (14) street parking spaces. There are (12) spaces available to rent from the Village. Many houses have no driveway and Bridgview Tavern is not permitting residents to use his lot. There are other three-family residences without driveways and he is concerned about permitting a three-family residence 2 (5/22/25) �without having the required number of parking spaces. When the Zoning Code was changed to increase tax revenue, it created a problem without a solution. William White stated that he representing 48 Hudson Street. Mr. White stated that the Zoning Board approved the requested variances. He said the the design of the building with the flat roof is commercial looking, retains heat longer, and is visually unappealing. A gable roof would be more efficient for solar panel installation and more appropriate for the character of the street. Mr. White requested that the Planning Board force the developer to come up with a design that would enhance the street. Clara Teagle stated that she lives at 38 Hudson Street. Ms. Teagle stated that the proposed design is too modern and big for Hudson Street and would align with the buildings on the street. The proposed building will create a problem with parking as there should be seven parking spaces. She has a shared driveway with one parking space but often doesn’t use it during the winter months. Toby White stated that she is the owner and trustee of 48 Hudson Street. Ms. White stated that the proposed development project and shared driveway will provide a benefit to her property by providing her with a parking space that doesn’t currently exist. Ms. White stated that the building design will set a precedent for what the new generation will want. Jeff White stated the long time residents of Hudson Street are not leaving. It should not be up to the developer to decide what homes will eventually look like. Clara Teagle stated that she is a lifelong resident and although there may be someone else who wants to tear down and construct a modern building, it is not the case now. Chairperson Krakauer solicited comments from the Board. Mr. Nielsen stated that the Neighborhood Streetscape illustration shows the proposed building in context with the other houses on the street. Chris Camia asked Mr. Hopkins is he is proposing solar panels. Brian stated that solar panels are not currently planned but that the roof will be solar ready. Chairperson Krakauer stated that she was hopeful that Mr. Hopkins would consider the Boards comments relating to the style of the roof, front porch, and railings. The proposed building is excessively dissimilar and doesn’t fit the character of the street. The Zoning Board granted the variances for parking, setbacks, and lot coverage. The Planning Board is reviewing the application for site plan and architectural review approval. She requested that Mr. Hopkins work on the design to get it to a place where the Board can move forward. Mr. Hopkins stated that he is proposing a modern building with a flat roof. He is proposing a custom beautiful building and the Board is requesting a generic design with no character, similar to 46 Hudson Street. 3 (5/22/25) �David Smith stated that they will agree to disagree. Rich Gross stated the application is not ready for a draft resolution. Hudson Street has an identity, and the proposed building does not fit into the characteristics of Hudson Street. He would like to see a gabled roof and different design. Jay Shulz stated that Hudson Street has a character with consistent architectural elements across the block and varies with 1800’s architecture. More could be done to integrate the design into the neighborhood. Mr. Hopkins stated that this is how neighborhoods evolve. The design for 34 Hudson Street was traditional. His next building design will be different from this current design. The proposed building fits in with the scale of the neighborhood. The 46 Hudson building is out of scale. Hudson Street is not landmarked. Rachelle Gebler stated that there is no reason to replicate 46 Hudson Street. A more traditional custom design could be more traditional. Mr. Gross stated that the Board has the final approval and it has to fit into the neighborhood. Chris Camia stated the he agrees that the stepping back of the fourth floor reduces the visual impact of the massing. He stated that the roof continuation in the V3 design adds to the architectural dissimilarity and functionality in comparison to the V2 design. Chairperson Krakauer agreed that the V3 design was intended to show how the covered roof structure would appear visually, and that the V2 design is preferable. Ms. Krakauer stated that the Board is not in favor of the design and doesn’t plan to vote on the application or draft a resolution. She requested that the Mr. Hopkins work the the Board on their requests in order to move forward. Mr. Hopkins stated that he doesn’t agree with the Board’s comments. The application proposes a great building that would be a boon to the neighborhood. David Smith told Mr. Hopkins that his statements are his opinion. Mr. Hopkins stated that his statements are subjective. Chairperson Krakauer stated that Mr. Hopkins is not hearing what they are saying. Mr. Hopkins stated that he has described the reasons why the proposed architecture is not excessively dissimilar. Benjamin Nieslen stated that the Board has been consistent with their comments. The Board provided examples as an opportunity for Mr. Hopkins to consider in order to design a building that is more integrated with the character of the street. There is no expectation for cookie cutter homes. 4 (5/22/25) �Benjamin Nieslen moved to continue the public hearing to the June 26, 2025 meeting. Moved: Neislen Seconded: Gebler Vote 7-0 3. 188 Wyatt, LLC, 188 Cortlandt Street, Amended Site Plan Approval- Discussion Mark Blanchard stated that he is an attorney with Blanchard & Wilson, LLP representing the applicant. Mr. Blanchard stated that the applicant has no issues with decommissioning of the existing floor drains in the garage. He requested that the Board approve to amend the resolution to delete the condition related to the oil and water separator requirement, and to add a condition to decommission the floor drains. Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Blanchard to clarify the current use of the site and to confirm if the storefront tenant has use of the garage. Mr. Blanchard stated that the garage and the office is operating as the same commercial use granted to Barrier Contracting. The Cortlandt Street storefront is leased for permitted uses. The storefront tenant does not have use of the garage. Benjamim Nielsen asked Mr. Blanchard if the condition of the original approval for the oil and water separator was specific to the use. Mr. Blanchard decribed why the condition for the oil and water separator was included in the orginal approval. Chairperson Krakauer asked Mr. Blanchard if the office and the garage are being used by the owner or if a change of use is required for the office space. Mr. Blanchard stated that the office use is connected to the use of the garage. Chairperson Krakauer asked Sean McCarthy to describe the current uses. Sean McCarthy stated that the original site plan was approved for Barrier Contracting employess to occupy the office space and park two commercial vans in the garage. The tenant for the storefront space has changed. Barrier Contracting is no longer occupying the office space and the garage.There is an HVAC contractor using the garage, independent of the office space. Mr. Blanchard requested to meet with Sean McCarthy to discuss who is currently using the spaces. Mr. Nielsen asked if any drain that connects into the sanitary sewer requires an oil and water separator. Mr. McCarthy stated that use of the buiding dictates the requirement for a oil water separator. Removing the drain restricts the use of the space where no automotive repairs or washing of vehicles would be permitted. 5 (5/22/25) �Mr. Blanchard agreed to confirm the occupancy use of the office, garage, and storefront spaces and present documentation that shows that an oil and water separator is not necessary. Mr. Nieslen requested that Mr. Blanchard determine how the current uses impact the intended use of the property as it relates to more than one business using the office and garage space. No action was taken. 4. One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 300-306 Legend Drive, Proposed (4) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 5. One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 352-358 Legend Drive, Proposed (4) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 6. One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 360-370 Legend Drive, Proposed (6) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 7. One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 372-378 Legend Drive, Proposed (4) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 8. One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 329-337 Hollows Pass, Proposed (5) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion 9. One Kingsland Owner, LLC, 339-347 Hollows Pass, Proposed (5) Unit Townhome Building, Architectural Review Approval- Discussion Guy Mazzola is a Managing Member of Sun Homes and stated that he doesn’t have anything new to present. Mr. Mazzola stated that the third brick color will be incorportated into the the six unit Building O at 308-318 Legend Drive and Building U at 360-370 Legend Drive. Architectural details will be added to the high visibility end units of Building U at 360-370 Legend Drive. Chairperson Krakauer asked Chris Camia if he had any comments on the third brick color. Chris Camia stated that the third brick color is a good idea. Mr. Mazzola stated that he just received updated renderings for Building O and Building T. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board will review the renderings and asked Mr. Mazzola for the status of the way-finding signage. The descriptions of the utility placements seem correct. Mr. Mazzola stated that a permit application was filed with the Building Deparement for the way-finding signage, and that they have started to install some of it. Way-finding signage is being designed for preliminary review. He will submit signage designs and the locations for the mailboxes to the Board for review. 6 (5/22/25) �Chris Camia provided examples where there are similar street number on opposing streets which causes residents to exchange packages contantly. He suggested that coloring for way-findage signage would be helpful for emergency vehicles as well delivery carriers. He asked that consideration also be made to avoid duplicating street numbers within addresses if possible. Richard Gross stated that the way-finding sign is important for emergency services. Mr. Mazzolas stated that they are designing decorative private signage. Chairperson Krakauer stated that the Board needs time to review the revised documentation. Due to the number of residents, the Board has decided that a public hearing is needed in order to give the public an opportunity to comment or ask questions related to the designs. Mr. Mazzola stated that the site plan approval included a kit of parts. They have already submitted the offering plan to the New York State Attorney General’s Office. Changes to the the publicized offering plan would require an amendment and cause a major disruption to the flow of the project. The public is aware of what is happening because there are eight buildings under construction. Mr. Mazzola stated that he would share the renderings with the Board and requested that they allow him to work with the Building Department to work out the signage for the Board’s review. Josh Subin stated that according to ARB Law there is a notice requirement for ARB approvals, and that regardless of a public hearing that it’s already being satisfied. Mr. Subin read the law. “ In addition to any notice that may be required by law, the applicant shall cause notice of such application to be mailed atleast 10 days prior to the date scheduled for review of such an application to the owners of the property directly abutting or boundary line of property subject to the matter of the application” Mr. Subin stated that so when the applicant noticed it, notices went out. Chairperson Krakauer stated that if the public has been made aware of the applications, they know that the adjustments were made to the existing kit of part to further improve the overall aesthetics of the site. Chairperson Krakauer polled the Planning Board members on whether there should be public hearings for the current applications. Jay Schulz stated that if the changes are for aestectic purposes, a public hearing isn’t necessary. Richard Gross stated that the changes should be open for public comment. Ken Anderson asked Chris Camia to explain why he thought it was important to hold a public hearing. Mr. Camia stated that a reason for waiving public hearings in the past was because there were no residents next door. The public doesn’t approve the applications, the Planning Board does. If the 7 (5/22/25) �Board schedules a public hearing, they would consider mitigating the impacts of the changes to the applicants timeline. Since the applications are not in the resolution phase, a public hearing could possibly be opened and closed at the next meeting date and there would be no impact to the timeline. David Smith stated that if the Board is comfortable with the concepts that have been shown and progressed to this point, with the understanding that additional information is going to be submitted, the Board could direct staff to open and close a public hearing and have resolutions prepared for the applications. Josh Subin stated that the ARB Law notice requirements are in effect whether there is a noticed public hearing or an ARB hearing. Mr. Mazzola stated the project has already been delayed significally. Mr. Camia stated that he doesn’t see a risk in hearing public comments. The applicants timeline is not a strong enough argument against allowing the public to comment. David Smith stated that the public was notified under the code for these applications. Meetings are broadcasted and the information is available online. He is concerned that the Board would be setting a precedent for a project that already has Site Plan approval with preliminary design concept for the kit of parts already established, where now every unit or every block of units requires a public hearing. The site plan public hearing process which included the discussion with the kit of parts. Ken Anderson asked David Smith if those who bought homes have already reviewed the approved site plan and know whats coming. Mr. Smith agreed and stated that when the applicant comes in with a new block, a public hearing will be required for Site Plan and ARB approval. Given the notice requirements, most of the residents would be notified. The Village has full transparency with respect to these applications and the process that has been followed. Mr. Mazzola stated that they have wiggle room with the Attorney General’s approval and will continue to work with the Board to incorporate design changes. Chris Camia and Richard Gross agreed that based on David Smith’s statement, they agree that a public hearing isn’t necessary for the applications. Ken Anderson and Rachelle Gebler agreed that a public hearing isn’t necessary for the applications. Mr. Nielsen stated that transparency and public involvement is paramount to what the Planning Board does. Given the history David provided, and that the Site Plan and the envelope for the kit of parts was previously approved, he doesn’t think a public hearing is necessary. 8 (5/22/25) �Chairperson Krakauer stated that the public has been noticed per ARB Law. The Board has not received corresponce regarding the applications. The Board is comfortable moving forward without public hearings. Mr. Nielen stated that the applications are in the discussion phase. The earliest they could review and approve the applications is next month. Mr. Mazzola requested that the Board approve the applications tonight so he can file permit applications. He requested to work with the Building Department on the way-finding signage. Mr. Nielsen asked Mr. Mazzola if detailed architectural drawings are ready for permit review eventhough the changes have not be approved. Mr. Mazzola said they would file for pile and foundation permits while they are finalizing the Building Permit drawings. Chairperson Krakauer said that she is comfortable reviewing the recent submissions and directed staff to start drafting the resolutions. The Board is not in a position to vote before the next meeting. Josh Subin stated that the Board could direct David Smith to prepare confirmatory resolutions and vote on the approvals based on the meeting and conditions that were outlined tonight and in the submission. Chairperson Krakauer listed the applications submitted by the applicant and requested that David Smith draft six separate confirmatory resolutions with pending conditions. Mr. Nielsen described the definition of the “Kit of Parts” as the agreed upon architectural elements of the buildings, including color, elements for high visibility end units, and sections. A public hearing was held to discuss the Site Plan and architectural review in which the “Kit of Parts” is a template of how the buildings will be. The information was in the public realm for comments. These applications are moving forward with that. Richard Gross moved to approve the (6) applications for the buildings on Legend Drive and Hollows Pass. Moved: Gebler Seconded: Schulz Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson - yes Richard Gross- yes Chris Camia- yes Rachelle Gebler- yes Benjamin Nielsen- yes Jay Schulz- yes Ken Anderson- yes Vote 7-0 9 (5/22/25) �10. Approval of minutes, April 24, 2025 Rachelle Gebler move to approve the minutes from the April 24, 2025 meeting. Moved: Gebler Seconded: Schulz Lindsay Krakauer, Chairperson - yes Richard Gross- yes Chris Camia- abstained Rachelle Gebler- yes Benjamin Nielsen- yes Jay Schulz- yes Ken Anderson- yes Vote 6-0-1 Benjamin Nielsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 PM. Moved: Nielsen Seconded: Schulz Respectfully submitted, Pamela Kroll Secretary to the Planning Board 10 (5/22/25) � 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-2025 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_2025-05-22 Approved Planning Board Minutes Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2025 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2025 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