Pleasantville Board and Planning Commission Work Session on Lennar 1 Campus Drive Application – June 26, 2026

The Pleasantville Village Board of Trustees and the Planning Commission held a joint work session on June 26, 2026, to review the Planning Commission's draft comments on Lennar's proposed 102-townhouse development at 1 Campus Drive, a roughly 20-acre site behind Foxwood. The work session was scheduled from about 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.; the chair said the boards would not take public comment during that period, but the regular meeting beginning around 8:00 p.m. would include a public comment period. The agenda lists the meeting as Thursday, June 25, 2026, and also lists an 8:30 p.m. executive session on personnel and real property; the provided transcript does not cover that executive session.

Proposed Project and Review Process

• Lennar proposes 102 townhouses on just over 20 acres at 1 Campus Drive; residential use requires a zoning change because most of the parcel is zoned campus office. The site contains two existing commercial buildings: the former Saturn Engineering Building, about 30,000 square feet, and the former Bank of New York building, about 144,000 square feet, described as the largest building in Pleasantville.
• The Village Board referred the zoning application to the Planning Commission. The commission met with Lennar three times, conducted a site visit, and prepared a draft memo that is essentially complete and may still be tweaked. Consulting support was provided by Susan Favate of BFJ Planning and Jennifer Gray of Kane and Bean.
• The commission's formal charge is to advise on the zoning change, but the draft memo also includes site plan and architectural comments that would be considered later.

Planning Commission Draft Comments: Housing Mix and Affordability

• The draft comments state that the proposed mix is not adequately diverse, with about 80 percent of units priced above $1 million; the applicant should provide a detailed breakdown of unit sizes and expected price points and show how the mix serves residents across a range of incomes.
• The commission is concerned that second-floor living spaces do not adequately serve older residents or those with difficulty navigating stairs. It asked the village to explore options that could include making 50 percent or more of the units affordable and/or building smaller-footprint market-rate units.
• A minority opinion on the commission suggested repurposing the Savin building as 20 to 32 apartments for affordable senior housing, or building dedicated senior housing at a scale comparable to the Woodcrest Village Complex in Mount Kisco.
• Commission members tied the comments to the master plan's goals of economic diversity and housing choices for varied ages and incomes. One commission member said affordability is important enough that he would give up some density and accept a little more traffic; the commission's target had been 50 percent some version of affordable.
• Current Lennar proposal as discussed: 102 units, 11 deed-restricted affordable units at 60 percent of area median income or below, 12 additional smaller market-rate units (23 smaller-footprint units total), deed-restricted units of about 1,300 square feet, smaller market-rate units of about 1,550 square feet priced at approximately $775,000, and larger units of about 2,300 to 2,800 square feet priced around $1.1 million. Slightly more than half of the units could include first-floor suites.
• A trustee cautioned that adding 102 units will not automatically make housing more affordable because demand is greater than the current housing stock. Another member noted the village has required fee-simple ownership in recent projects because condominium ownership reduces tax revenue, and that affordability could be pursued through density bonuses, tax abatements, or other incentives. One idea discussed was zoning for 4 units per acre by right with affordability incentive bonuses up to the current 5 units per acre.
• A board member cited projections that the original plan would generate about $2.9 million in total annual taxes, not all to the village, including roughly $1.8 million in additional revenue to the school district; shifting about half the units to smaller and affordable units would reduce total annual tax revenue to almost $2.6 million, about $400,000 to $450,000 less, and reduce projected total sales from about $102 million by about $10 million.

Environmental Review / SEQRA

• Some community members had emailed the village to request an environmental impact statement. The state environmental review law was amended about two weeks before the meeting, creating a possible exemption for certain housing on previously disturbed sites connected to public water and sewer.
• Jennifer Gray explained that the village, as lead agency, must determine whether the site meets the new definition of previously disturbed land. If it is not exempt, the village must continue the environmental review; if significant adverse impacts are identified, an EIS would be required, and if not, a negative declaration would be adopted.
• Board members said the site is largely previously disturbed, with hundreds of parking spaces and two large buildings, and that an environmental impact statement is probably not the likely path. Environmental issues including tree canopy, forest disturbance, and stormwater are still being reviewed.

Site, Trees, Stormwater, and Conservation

• The board and commission emphasized protecting the forested area at the south end of the site, including large old-growth tulip trees near a large stormwater retention pond. Lennar has expressed willingness to adjust the design and use smaller ponds or bioswales to preserve the most important trees.
• The two northern clusters of buildings would sit on already paved or developed land. The southern cluster still affects the wooded area near the old house referred to as the asbestos mansion and the detention pond; one building was removed from that area, but a tree inventory has not yet been provided.
• There was support for a conservation easement on the southern part of the property and for applying strengthened tree-protection rules if they are enacted.

Traffic and Access

• Traffic was described as the number-one issue raised by residents. The site is auto-centric, and board and commission members said traffic would need substantial study. The applicant is reported to be open to pedestrian and trail connections and a possible rush-hour shuttle shared with Foxwood.
• A board member questioned whether the proposed treatment of the Campus Drive/Foxwood Drive intersection would provide meaningful benefit; larger impacts may occur at the Campus Drive/Bedford Road and Manville/Bedford Road intersections.
• In a separate negotiation, Foxwood and Lennar agreed to alter the intersection so that through access from Manville Lane to Foxwood Drive requires a severe turn, and to extinguish the former Bank of New York easement on Manville Lane except for emergency use.
• Toll Brothers experience was cited as showing limited rush-hour traffic from a similar mix of retirees, remote workers, and part-time commuters, but this site is closer to the Manville/Bedford Road conduit. The Toll development has 68 units, seven affordable, and averages roughly half a child per unit; a trustee said school overcrowding is not a serious concern because enrollment has been trending down.

Recreation, Amenities, and Community Integration

• If built, the 102 units would pay $12,500 per unit into the recreation fund, totaling about $1.25 million for parks and recreation.
• Lennar also offered to rebuild the adjacent tennis courts in whatever manner the village requests. Some participants wanted walking paths, open space, and pedestrian connections so the development is integrated into the community. One commission member said the village lacks field and open space, and that housing without amenities is just stacked housing.
• Other discussion noted that private roads and homeowners association costs could make additional amenities expensive, and that the Toll community, while self-contained, has become integrated and active in village life.

Commercial Alternative and Future Zoning

• The board discussed the question of if not this project, what. The current commercial market has not produced an acceptable buyer for the large buildings; a medical use was seen as more plausible than office but could be more intensive, with nighttime activity and traffic.
• A board member advised against approving a project out of fear of an unknown future use. Another board member suggested the village could create a new PUD district, PUD 2, tailored to the community's goals rather than reacting to a developer's application.
• Consultants noted that a zoning change should be consistent with the comprehensive plan and that a taking generally requires depriving the property of essentially all value. Rezoning to one-acre single-family lots would not meet the plan's housing diversity goals. The site may be the only remaining parcel eligible for PUD zoning.
• There was also discussion of permitting assisted living as of right, though proactive zoning changes are costly compared with an application where the applicant pays fees. Board members also mentioned the risk of state preemption of local zoning and the substantial potential tax relief to existing residents, estimated at $800 to $1,100 per year for many households, as factors in the balance.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes or decisions were taken; the meeting was a joint work session.
• The Planning Commission's draft memo is essentially complete and may be adjusted; the Village Board will use it in deciding next steps on the zoning application.
• The village must make the SEQRA exemption determination before deciding whether an EIS is required.
• Planning Commission members warned that approving a zoning change before the project is much closer to the community's desired outcome would leave the commission with limited leverage in later site plan review.
• Board members said future community information and discussion sessions about the project would be held.
• If a zoning change is ultimately approved, site plan review would return to the Planning Commission, but density, unit count, height, and basic layout would be largely fixed by the zoning approval.
• The agenda's 8:30 p.m. executive session on personnel and real property is not reflected in the provided transcript.