Planning Board keeps public hearing open on 'The Knoll' development, hires independent title expert; asks for fuller SEQR analysis

The Planning Board of Dobbs Ferry on March 6 continued the public hearing for the proposed subdivision commonly called "The Knoll," directed the applicant to supply additional environmental and technical information, and authorized an independent title review paid by the applicant.

Board counsel and planning staff said multiple legal and technical questions remain about property title, road alignment, stormwater, steep‑slope stability, and potential impacts to the adjacent Diering (Juring) Nature Preserve. In response the board unanimously adopted a resolution to retain First American Title (550 Mamaroneck Avenue, Harrison, NY) to prepare an independent title report and related review; the transcript records a roll‑call style confirmation of the motion with members responding in the affirmative. The resolution states the engagement will be paid for by the applicant under the Village Code (Article 16) and that the title report will assist the board’s review of pending applications by Hillside Street LLC.

Planning staff (Valerie) reviewed multiple, detailed information requests the board previously issued and noted many items remain outstanding. Those items fall into several technical categories that the board formalized for the record: slope stabilization and excavation methods; erosion and sediment control; stormwater management and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); construction phasing and truck routing; visual/landscape impact and species/habitat assessment; traffic and sight‑distance analysis (including emergency vehicle access); and legal documentation regarding demapped paper road lines and conservation easements that may affect development rights.

The board emphasized that SEQRA (the state environmental review process) cannot be concluded until those items are provided and reviewed. Planning staff said that the board had already upgraded some part‑2 EAF findings (for example, bedrock disturbance was identified as moderate to large) and that the board may change other impact ratings after receiving the additional analyses. Board counsel and staff told the public the hearing will remain open while the applicant supplies the requested materials; the board voted to continue the public hearing to the next regular Planning Board meeting (April 3).

A large number of residents spoke during the public comment portion; speakers included neighbors and organized groups who urged denial, seeking protection of conserved lots and the adjacent nature preserve, and citing concerns about road safety, stormwater impacts, tree and habitat loss, bedrock removal and blasting, and alleged irregularities in how the applicant calculated lot lines. Public commenters asked the board to require an independent traffic study, a species and habitat site assessment, pre‑ and post‑construction structural surveys for nearby homes, proof that any proposed swale or stormwater features do not encroach on conserved lots, and documentation about prior demapping and conservation‑easement restrictions.

The applicant team (represented by Jacob Amir of Zarin & Steinmetz and engineering consultant Dan Collins of Hudson Engineering) said they have received the village consultants’ comments and will respond; they also welcomed the board’s independent title review. The board repeatedly stated it would not issue building permits or allow tree removal prior to final approvals and that the Planning Board’s SEQRA process must be completed before permits could be issued.

The Planning Board’s motions related to the Knoll on March 6 included: (1) adopting the resolution to retain First American Title to prepare an independent title report (to be paid by the applicant); and (2) continuing the public hearing to the April 3, 2025 meeting. The board recorded a roll‑call confirmation for the title expert resolution, noting one member recused (Laura) for that item and an elevation of an alternate member to full voting status for the roll call.

Members of the public and the Planning Board identified multiple next steps for the applicant: submit a revised Part 1/Part 2 EAF clarifying whether the project will be phased; provide a detailed visual impact analysis and species/habitat assessment; supply rock‑removal and slope‑stabilization plans and a method statement for excavation; provide a traffic analysis including sight‑distance work and emergency‑vehicle access; and demonstrate how proposed stormwater features will operate and who will be responsible for their maintenance. Planning staff will revise the board’s SEQRA Part 2 language to reflect the meeting’s directions and forward a consolidated list of requested materials to the applicant.