Pleasantville Planning Commission Meeting Summary - June 18, 2026

Note: The raw transcript states the meeting occurred on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, but per instruction, the date is recorded as June 18, 2026. This summary uses the provided date of June 18, 2026.

The Pleasantville Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board held a joint meeting on June 18, 2026, at Village Hall. The commission discussed two major planning items: a continued review of the Lennar rezoning petition for 1 & 3 Campus Drive and 8 Carey Court, and a new application for a change of use at 35 Pleasantville Road (conversion of Key Food grocery store to a private pre-K school and three retail spaces). The Architectural Review Board approved a signage application for Pleasant Wine & Liquor with conditions. The meeting also included public comments on the 35 Pleasantville Road proposal and approval of prior meeting minutes.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes of May 27, 2026: Approved unanimously.

Architectural Review Board (ARB) Actions

• 1 Cooley Street – Pleasant Wine & Liquor LLC (Signage): The applicant proposed two signs on Bedford Road and Cooley Street. Commissioners found the proposed signs too large compared to neighboring businesses. After discussion, the board approved the signs with conditions: the primary sign on Bedford Road must be reduced by 30% in both dimensions (from 10-inch to 7-inch letter height) and use a white/linen background (not burgundy) with warm light (2500–3000 Kelvin) goose lamps. The secondary sign on Cooley Street must also have lettering reduced by 30%. If the property owner agrees, no further appearance is needed; otherwise, the application must return. Motion to approve with those conditions carried unanimously (all in favor).

Public Comments & Testimony

• 35 Pleasantville Road (DS Pleasantville LLC): Two members of the public commented outside of a formal public hearing (with applicant consent):
  • A resident expressed traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, noting that the intersection near the site is busy with school drop-off, commuters, and pedestrians. They urged the commission to thoroughly study traffic impacts and queuing, especially given the large size of typical Goddard School franchises.
  • Another resident (a local real estate agent of 35+ years) stated that a daycare center does not belong in Pleasantville and that the concept is unnecessary, citing existing facilities like Tutor Time. They also noted the Key Food supermarket is failing due to poor produce and low quality, and that many seniors still walk there.

Discussion Items

• 1 & 3 Campus Drive and 8 Carey Court – US Home, LLC d/b/a Lennar (Continued Review): The commission reviewed a draft report to the Village Board of Trustees regarding the applicant’s rezoning petition. The draft, compiled from individual commissioner comments, was characterized by the applicant’s attorney as “overwhelmingly negative.” Key discussion points included:

  • Housing Unit Mix & Affordability: Commissioners emphasized that the village’s comprehensive plan and PUD zoning call for economically diverse housing. They noted that 80% of the proposed homes would be priced over $1 million, which does not align with that goal. The applicant clarified that only 26 of 102 units exceed 3,000 square feet, but commissioners maintained that the focus should be on affordability, not just square footage. Ideas such as dedicated senior housing, density bonuses, and a broader mix of unit types were debated. The majority favored retaining language about exploring options for greater diversity, though some noted that senior housing might require a zoning text amendment for higher density.
  • Walkability & Traffic: Commissioners raised concerns about pedestrian friendliness, auto dependency, and potential cut-through traffic via Foxwoods. The applicant noted existing bus stops and sidewalks but commissioners countered that residents of million-dollar homes are unlikely to use public transit. A proposed shuttle/jitney was seen as redundant.
  • Architectural & Site Plan Issues: Several items were identified as better suited for future site plan review (building design, front-facing garages, recreation amenities). Commissioners generally agreed that a large-scale recreation facility (clubhouse, pool, gym) could increase impervious surfaces and conflict with preserving trees, preferring passive recreation like trails.
  • Tree Preservation: The commission recommended that the applicant follow the village’s proposed tree ordinance (not yet enacted) and minimize impact on the wooded southern portion of the site.
  • Road Ownership: The commission recommended that the applicant commit in writing that all internal roads would remain private and maintained by the HOA, to avoid future Village takeover and maintenance costs.
  • Next Steps: The commission agreed to have the village attorney refine the draft report to better reflect the commission’s own statements rather than reacting point-by-point to the applicant’s responses. A joint meeting with the Board of Trustees was proposed for June 25, 2026, to discuss the report and provide context. The commission did not vote on the report at this meeting; further refinement is expected.

• 35 Pleasantville Road – DS Pleasantville LLC (New Application): The applicant presented a proposal to convert the existing Key Food grocery store (closing July–September 2026) into a private pre-K school (Goddard School) and three additional retail tenant spaces. No change in building footprint, height, or setbacks is proposed. Key points from commission discussion:

  • The commission deemed the application incomplete, lacking critical details on parking demand, traffic circulation, drop-off/pick-up operations, trash management, lighting spillage, playground design, and architectural uniformity of the retail storefronts.
  • The applicant stated the three retail spaces are not yet leased, and the pre-K operator is still finalizing plans. The commission requested a traffic study, detailed parking calculations based on tenant square footages, operational characteristics of the daycare (schedules, class sizes, queuing), and improvements to site circulation (e.g., one-way flow, reduced curb cuts, drop-off area).
  • Commissioners also noted the current building facade (bricked-up arches) should be improved with storefronts, and any future tenant modifications would need ARB/site plan approval. They urged a unified architectural approach.
  • The applicant was asked to return with a supplemental submission addressing all these items; no public hearing was set. The commission noted that they do not meet in August and requested prompt action given Key Food’s planned closure.

Key Outcomes

• Pleasant Wine & Liquor Signage: Approved with conditions (30% reduction in letter size, white background, warm lighting). Applicant must confirm owner acceptance or return.
• Lennar Rezoning (1 & 3 Campus Drive / 8 Carey Court): No final vote. The draft report will be revised and discussed at a joint meeting with the Board of Trustees on June 25, 2026. The commission will then finalize and adopt the report.
• DS Pleasantville LLC (35 Pleasantville Road): Application deemed incomplete. The applicant will provide additional information (traffic/parking study, operational details, playground design, etc.) before a public hearing is scheduled.
• Meeting Minutes (May 27, 2026): Approved unanimously.