Planning board waives hearing, requests alternate exterior options for Millvale Lane house

The Planning Board reviewed revised materials on Jan. 15 for a single‑family dwelling at 88 Millvale Lane in Highland Mills and voted to treat the application as a Type II action and to waive a public hearing while requiring the applicant to submit alternate exterior renderings and visibility photos before the next meeting.

Joel Mann, representing the property owner, said the project does not change the footprint or height of the approved house but replaces previously approved facade finishes with a more contemporary package of materials and colors. "We're not changing the footprint or the layout of the house. It's basically the roof plan and the finishings," Mann said. He also provided context that the original building permit predated ARB review, and that the applicant had since submitted revised materials addressing prior comments.

Board members expressed concern that the proposed facade and materials are notably different from surrounding houses. Multiple residents and board members said the design reads as more modern than the existing neighborhood stock and asked the applicants to provide two alternative finish options to reduce the contrast. Asher Horowitz (owner's representative) agreed to bring two options showing different siding/stone balance and to provide photos from the public view corridor to help the board judge visibility.

Actions and conditions: The board voted, by voice, to classify the matter as a Type II action under SEQRA and to waive a public hearing on the matter (recorded in the transcript as unanimous "Aye"); individual vote counts were not specified. The board asked the applicant to submit by Feb. 5 the revised materials, including: two alternative exterior finish renderings; photos showing the house in context and the view corridor with the house location marked; and confirmation that no further clearing will occur. Staff said the building inspector must confirm whether construction may proceed on the approved plans while final ARB/Ridge Preservation findings are resolved.

Why it matters: The board's review focuses on compatibility of exterior materials in a neighborhood where most houses date from earlier decades; the board signaled it is willing to allow construction to proceed on the approved footprint but wants clearer evidence that the visible finished appearance will be contextually appropriate.

Next steps: The board authorized counsel to draft a resolution of draft approval contingent on the materials the applicant will bring back; the applicant and staff will work with the building inspector to clarify what construction may continue while final aesthetic approvals are pending.