Dobbs Ferry opens public hearing on ‘Knoll’ Hillside development; residents raise title, environmental and safety concerns, board continues hearing

DOBBS FERRY, N.Y. — The Dobbs Ferry Planning Board opened a public hearing Feb. 6 on the Hillside ("Knoll") development and heard more than two hours of public testimony raising legal, environmental and safety objections. After hearing from the applicant’s team and scores of residents and experts, the board continued the public hearing to March 6 and directed the applicant to provide additional documentation on title, conservation easements, stormwater, steep‑slope impacts and related technical items.

David Steinmetz of Zarin & Steinmetz, representing the property owner and developer, said the applicant did not have a new affirmative presentation but would answer specific questions and submit additional written information. Dan Collins of Hudson Engineering summarized design changes since the last submissions, including consolidating plans into a single set, adding a water main and hydrant per the fire chief’s request, relocating a swale, adding catch basins, and creating a 10‑foot stormwater easement for maintenance. “We also added a series of catch basins to help capture that runoff, and direct it to the stormwater system,” Collins said.

Speakers opposing the project urged the board to resolve threshold legal questions before further action. Attorney Andrew Shriver, representing neighbors, said deeded rights and map history raised a dispute about whether the paper street known as The Knoll was ever dedicated as a public road and whether conservation easements recorded in 1999 prohibit the proposed work. “There was a dedication in 1933,” Shriver said, and he urged the board to examine title evidence and conservation easements carefully.

Residents and outside experts presented engineering and environmental complaints. Civil engineer Steve Davis said the proposed roadway and geometric design do not meet Dobbs Ferry or state standards given the steep, rocky topography and that the project contains “18” geometric noncompliances he documented. Construction and stormwater concerns included a proposed 21,120‑cubic‑foot underground stormwater attenuation gallery, multiple deep manholes, and work that could require rock breaking near existing foundations. Bill Harwood, a construction professional, noted the drainage gallery would require specialized maintenance and questioned how homeowners’ associations would perform the twice‑yearly servicing described in the submittal.

Many residents said tree loss and habitat impacts are severe; speakers cited numbers ranging from 15 to 115 trees to be removed, and a village resident and certified arborist identified a black oak at 101 Bridal Road with a 47‑inch diameter at breast height whose critical root zone would be entirely affected by the proposed roadway. Wildlife concerns included Eastern box turtles and Eastern fence lizards, and multiple speakers asked the board to issue a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) so a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) can analyze flooding, habitat, air and noise impacts.

Neighbors also raised procedural questions: whether the developer lawfully acquired Lot 153 at auction and whether the village properly notified abutters when the project changed; several speakers said title searches submitted by the applicant were incomplete. Multiple residents asked the board to confirm whether any conservation easements exist and to produce or review the 1999 conservation easement documents cited by neighbors.

The Planning Board chair announced the board has requested additional information on several fronts, including a formal title opinion covering ownership and rights to the paper street center line, confirmation of any conservation easements, a visual impact analysis, a documented demonstration that the roadway meets applicable fire and roadway standards, and full stormwater and erosion‑control details sized to the applicable design storms. Board members also asked the applicant to respond in writing to the planning memo dated Dec. 2, 2024, and the village landscape architect’s memo dated Feb. 2, 2025.

After more than two hours of testimony, the board moved to continue the public hearing to March 6. The chair told speakers that the board had taken notes, would review submitted letters and memos, and expected additional materials from the applicant before the next hearing.