1 25 6 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/647e30c2f5ac7f32371f5251ff984ea8.pdf 078ee0cd8a518bfbaa157145b899ee85 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING April 5,2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:05 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Donald Stever Absent None Also Present: Jerome Fine (Village Engineer) James Margotta (Building Inspector) David Smith (Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Nicholas Cicchetti (Planning Board) George Tanner (Planning Board) Announcements: The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following items: a) County House Road b) Philipsburg Manor a) County House Road The Chair stated that this was a sub-division of 11.9 acres. This will involve 11 one-family lots. The Chair asked if any Board member had any comments. Ralph Gunderman asked if there was a size restriction on footprint of house. Jim Margotta responded no if the building meets front and side yard boundaries. There is a visual restriction on building lot sizes. He also stated that for Rl zoning it is 15%. The code requirements are as follows: For 1 acre: Front Yard One Side Yard Both Side Yards Rear Yard Max height Max size 100 feet 100 feet 200 feet 100 feet 35 feet 45,000 sq. feet. �Dave Smith stated that under NYS law, the Planning Board could vary the design criteria in order to get a more favorable design. Dave Smith gave a brief overview of the County House Road layout. Doug Maass inquired why grass-Crete was crossed out. Dave Smith responded that there is a suitable sub-base to access facility. He also stated that sometimes with grass-Crete, the grass dies and the concrete substructure would remain. The Chair asked what measures would be in effect to force the applicant to keep a certain amount of lawn space. Jim Margotta stated that the maximum lot coverage is 15%. George Lenco inquired if the builder uses the full 15% for the footprint, what would be left. Dave Smith responded that the coverage is defined as the percent of lot area covered by the building area. Doug Maass inquired if the detention basin would have water in it at all times. Dave Smith responded no. There would be a gradual release of water. Doug Maass inquired if the detention basin would be fenced in. Dave Smith responded that it would be landscaped. Dave Smith stated that a l-in-5 slope is easy to get out of. Ralph Gunderman stated that the detention basin restricts the flow into the stream. The Chair inquired if it was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair read clauses on open space and noted reduction in open space and the mixed consistency on LWRP Policy 5B (Open space character East of the old Croton Aqueduct). Ralph Gunderman inquired about the re-zoning of the area. Jim Margotta stated that this was previously zoned as an R3 (5000 SF). The Village Board increased it to 1 acre. Dave Smith stated that there are 11 lots under the property boundary. He also stated that there is an open space component. There will be a fee paid by the applicant to maintain the dedicated area. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Karin Adir inquired if there would be an establishment of a Homeowners Association. Dave Smith stated that that would be a personal decision. Doug Maass inquired about the easement on Lot #10. Dave Smith responded that this was necessary in order to avoid a curb cut on Bedford Road. The Chair stated that the plans take measures to minimize damages on flooding and erosion (policy #11). The Chair stated that the plans take measures to protect hillsides (item #17a). The Chair stated that this plan conflicts with Policy #25 (Scenic Quality of the Coastal Area). Ralph Gunderman stated that there are many measures in the plans that protect and comply within the LWRP. The Chair stated that efforts were made to spare as many trees as possible. Dave Smith stated that a tree survey was prepared. It was discussed that most of the trees were preserved. Ralph Gunderman inquired about preventing erosion during construction. Dave Smith responded that this was outlined in the EAF. During construction, the developer will use Westchester County erosion plans when developing on slope. The Chair inquired about steep slopes. Dave Smith responded that the developer is staying off of the steep slopes. The Chair inquired about what the Village would do to prevent homeowners from further developing the property. Don Steer responded by a deed restriction. The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously that it was consistent with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �b) Philipsburg Manor The Chair stated that a representative of the Historic Hudson Valley wishes to speak to the Committee. The applicant gave a brief overview of the entire history of the dredging project. The T21 grant was also discussed. Don Steer asked Steven Huske to go over dredging project. Steven Huskie gave a brief overview of the project. He also discussed the hydraulic method of dredging. Doug Maass asked how many gallons/minute would be dredged. Steve Huskie responded 850-1200 gallons/minute. Doug Maass asked what % of this would be solid. Steve Huskie responded 10-15% and the rest is liquid. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant was excavating an area to create a pond? Steve Huskie responded that an embankment would be built. Doug Maass asked where the material from previous dredging was placed. Steve Huskie responded that it is in the same area. Don Stever asked if this is a drudge disposal site already. Steve Huskie responded yes. Doug Maass asked about the turbidity of the water in Pocantico River. Steve Huskie responded that it was standard. The Chair asked about the refill rate of the silt. Steve Huskie responded 1500 cubic yards/year. Doug Maass asked what time of year would this be performed. Steve Huskie responded after the spawning season. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Steve Huske then discussed wetlands. He stated that there is only 2/10 of an acre and it is low quality wetlands. Don Stever asked if it was isolated. Steve Huskie responded that some areas are isolated and other areas might not be. The Chair asked if the pipe was going to remain. Steve Huskie responded that it would remain for drainage. If it were ever needed, it wouldn't disturb the other areas. Don Steer asked if the applicant would return the substrate to its natural elevation with the exception of the pipe. Steve Huskie responded that the pipe needs support. He also stated that it would be filled about halfway. Doug Maass asked how permeable will the pipe be. Steve Huskie responded that it depends on the mixture. Doug Maass asked about on-site mitigation Steve Huskie responded that it would not be suitable. He also stated that the Fish and Wildlife Society suggested an offsite Wetlands restoration. The Chair asked about the wetlands in Sleepy Hollow. Steve Huskie responded that they would only be restored within the Historic Hudson Valley. Don Stever asked the applicant where they were in terms of the 404 permit. Steve Huskie responded that the Fish & Wildlife Society has accepted mitigation verbally. The Army Corps of Engineers has the final say. Don Stever asked about the title wetlands permit from DEC. Steve Huskie responded no. Don Stever asked if they were required. Steve Huskie responded no. Don Steer recommended that the applicant check with the DEC. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Steve Huskie responded that they would. Dave Smith stated that the expanded EAF was sent to the DEC. The Chair asked the committee to look at the LWRP policy on this project. The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 19b The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 23. The Chair also referenced one of the significant sites listed on HI-48 (Philipsburg Manor and Upper Mills). The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 25. The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 35 A (fish spawning). There was an open discussion on Policy 7B due to the fact that the wetlands were not being restored within Sleepy Hollow. Don Steer referenced Policy 35B. There was an open discussion on Policy 44 (Wetland protection). Ralph Gunderman asked if there was any way to support pipe without raising grade. Give title wetlands a chance to restore itself. Steve Huskie responded that it would probably not be worth it due to the degree of disruption. Ralph Gunderman asked what is the jurisdiction of this committee of LWRP. Don Stever responded that the Waterfront Advisory Committee interprets the LWRP. The Chair stated that Sleepy Hollow should get mitigation instead of Croton. Don Stever responded that there is no policy on local mitigation. Ralph Gunderman stated that these wetlands are not significant to Sleepy Hollow. Doug Maass stated that he favors Croton. The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously that it was. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Other Topics: Don Stever discussed the EIS draft on Kendall. Once DEIS is complete, Kendall will be invited in. The Committee meetings will be open. The Historic Hudson Valley applicant stated that they are interested in appearing to Waterfront Advisory Committee on GM site in order to address some issues. Don Stever stated that he should wait until the selected developer knows what will be done with the site. The draft of findings from this meetings agenda will be sent to Planning Board. A representativefromthe Scenic Hudson Valley spoke to the Committee. They are also interested in GM site. The representative also expressed an interest in meeting with the Waterfront Advisory Committee. There is no plan as of yet but they are looking at specific ideas and objectives. Adjourn to next meeting. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application of County House Road, LLC The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on April 5, 2000, the proposal submitted by County House Road, LLC (the "Applicant") for a development project consisting of the construction of eleven residences on approximately 11.9 acres (the "Tract") located on County House Road at the intersection with the Bedford Road (Route 448) (the "Project"). The Village's planning consultant, David Smith of the firm of Saccardi & Schiff, Inc., provided an overview of the Project and was available to respond to questions posed by the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Project The Project consists of the subdivision of the Tract into eleven lots and the construction of eleven single-family residences, arranged in a cluster configuration. The Project also provides that approximately 1.5 acres of the Tract (including a parcel affording a notable view of the Hudson River and the opposite shore at the intersection of the Bedford Road and County House Road) will be dedicated to the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village"), to be preserved as open space, and that, in addition, approximately 0.84 acres of the Tract will also be preserved as open space pursuant to a conservation buffer easement that will run along the frontage of the Tract at the Bedford Road and County House Road. Consistency Findings In addition to the reviewing the general purposes and policies of the LWRP, the Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the Project with the LWRP, gave consideration to Policies 5B, 11, 17A and 25B of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to the Project. Policy 5B - Retain the rural residential, agricultural, and open space character in those areas of the Village east of the old Croton Aqueduct. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 5B. The entire Tract is currently open space and the Committee recognizes that any development at this site will necessarily reduce the open space character of the site. However, the Committee notes that, at the time the LWRP was adopted, the Tract was zoned "R-3," which would have allowed the development to proceed with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. The Tract has been upzoned by the Village's Board of Trustees, in anticipation of this development and with the concurrence �of the Applicant, to UR-1," which requires a minimum lot size of 43,560 square feet. This significant reduction in the density potential for the site, the Applicant's decision to place the houses that are to be built in a clustered configuration and the retention of a large number of the trees presently existing on the Tract, together with the preservation of a portion of the Tract as open space (by means of the open space areas to be dedicated to the Village and the grant of the conservation buffer easement), assure that the development will have a rural residential character and that the site will retain, to a reasonable degree, its present open space character, as contemplated by Policy 5B. Policy 11 - Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 11. The placement of residential structures in a cluster should result in minimization of disturbance to the site. For example, use of common driveway areas should reduce the amount of land covered by paved surfaces and thus should reduce water run-off. The Project includes a detention pond to receive stormwater, which will thus be collected and can be gradually released to an existing watercourse. This feature should result in a reduction of the flow of stormwater to a level less than that occurring at the site in its present state. The siting of construction away from steep slope areas will reduce the risk of erosion (see also, Policy 17A). Policy 17A - Protect the steep slopes and hillsides throughout the Village through the use of nonstructural measures, when practical, to prevent erosion, especially through the retention, or planting of vegetative covers. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 17A. The area of the Village in which the Tract is situated appears on Map 2 of the LWRP as an area of steep slopes, and a portion of Tract, in fact, consists of a relatively steeply sloped hillside. The LWRP specifically notes that the removal of vegetation from steep slope areas creates a risk of erosion and could impair the scenic quality of the Village. The cluster configuration selected for the Project avoids the placement of any structures on or adjacent to the portion of the Tract that is steeply sloped, and the trees and vegetation existing on the steeply sloped segment of the Tract will be retained. Policy 25B - Protect or enhance the following identified scenic resources as areas and viewsheds of local scenic significance. The Committee observes that the viewshed from the intersection of County House Road and the Bedford Road is not one that is specifically identified in the LWRP as among the Village's twenty-three viewsheds of local importance. Nevertheless, the view from this intersection is similar to that "from the intersection of Route 448, Pine Street, and the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail," which is one of the viewsheds so identified in the LWRP. The Committee believes that this viewshed from the intersection of County House Road and the Bedford Road, even if not specifically identified in the LWRP, is, nonetheless, a valuable scenic asset of the Village. The protection of this viewshed is, therefore, consistent with the general policies of the �LWRP and with the philosophy underlying Policy 25B. The Project includes the dedication to the Village of a part of the Tract situated at this intersection, which will be maintained as open space. Maintaining this land as open space will be protective of this viewshed and thus the Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with the goals of the LWRP applicable to protection of viewsheds and protection of scenic assets. kichard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY: PHILIPSBURG MANOR POND DREDGING The Waterfront Advisory Committee considered the Philipsburg Manor Restoration pond dredging and dredged spoil disposal proposal at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 5, 2000, upon referral from the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board. The Board, in public session, heard from the applicant and its consultant, Huskie Engineering, and discussed the matter with the Village's planning consultant, David Smith, of Saccardi & Schiff. The Committee has unanimously concluded that the project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), and that it is consistent with the applicable specific policies thereof. General Consistency The purpose of the project is to restore the aquatic integrity of two ponds located on the historically significant property, Philipsburg Manor. There are two ponds, a manmade freshwater impoundment originally constructed as a mill pond (the "upper pond") in ancient times, and a natural still water portion of the mouth of the Pocantico River below the mill dam, which is influenced by the tidal action of the Hudson River (the "lower pond"). Both ponds have been dredged periodically since the 1940s, and both are significantly degraded as aquatic habitat by an accumulation of silt primarily resulting from urban street run-off, but significantly exacerbated byfloodingcaused by Tropical Storm Floyd late in 1999. Philipsburg Manor is a critical element of the post-industrial economy of Sleepy Hollow. Preservation and enhancement of historic tourism is one of the fundamental goals of the LWRP. Since the activity directly enhances the property, it is consistent with that goal, and with specific Policies 19, 23A and 25B, which articulate that goal. Specific Policies The Committee considered the project against the following other applicable policies of the LWRP: 7B, 35A-D, 44. Policy 7B. The Philipsburg Manor and Devries Field wetland/watercourse areas of the Pocantico River shall be protected, preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain its viability as a locally significant habitat. The Committee believes that the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Although some minor wetland loss will occur if the plan to dispose of dredged spoil �onsite is implemented, the Committee concludes that restoration of open water habitat, which has been seriously degraded by sediments contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons from street run-off falls squarely within this policy. The activity will improve two significant aquatic habitats, one a freshwater habitat and the other an estuarine habitat, without materially compromising locally important wetland values. Policy 35. Dredging and dredged spoil disposal in coastal waters will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands and wetlands. The lower pond dredging and spoil disposal will occur in waters that are coastal waters. There are no State permit requirements for the dredging aspects of the project, and the applicant has affirmed that it will comply with any State permit requirements that are applicable to the dredged spoil disposal. The activity must be authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The applicant has applied to the COE for a permit. The applicant proposes to utilize the least intrusive dredging technology. The overall improvement of the aquatic habitat that will result from the removal of accumulated contaminated silt and sediment will protect significant fish and wildlife habitats. There is no significant loss of important wetlands and no loss of agricultural lands. The Committee concludes that the activity is consistent with Policy 35, conditioned upon the Applicant's securing and fully complying with all applicable state and federal permits. Policy 35A. Dredging shall not occur during fish spawning seasons and must be authorized by an appropriate permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Applicant represented to the Committee that it will not undertake its dredging during any fish spawning season. With respect to permits, see discussion under Policy 35. The Committee finds that the project is consistent with Policy 35A. Policy 35B. Dredge Spoils shall not be deposited in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitats, as identified in the Sleepy Hollow LWRP. The Applicant proposes to place dredged spoils in a disposal impoundment situated on its property south of the area where the lower pond will be dredged. The impoundment is the site of prior dredged spoils disposal, and thus is already disturbed land. Two small areas of low quality, emergent, isolated wetlands will be impacted by construction of the berm and placement of the dredged material within it. The disposal area will have a system of dewatering underdrains to convey water from the site back to the Pocantico River. The discharge pipe will require excavation of a small (approximately 20 foot wide) area of tidal wetland at the edge of the river. �The Committee reviewed the wetland identification map, Map 3, of the LWRP. The isolated wetlands that will be impacted by the disposal of dredged spoils are not shown on Map 3. Thus, the Committee has concluded that they are not "identified in the Sleepy Hollow LWRP". The area is not otherwise a fish or wildlife habitat. The fact that the spoil disposal area has been used for that purpose in the past tips the balance heavily toward consistency with this policy. The water discharge pipe will negatively impact a small portion of a wetland identified in the LWRP. However, because the deposit of dredge spoil will not occur in this area, Policy 35B is not applicable to that aspect of the project. It is discussed in relation to Policy 44. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 35B. Policy 35C. Reclamation of dredge spoil sites, including landscaping, shall be required where it is practical to do so. Policy 35D. Dredge spoil site design will incorporate considerations for natural features, view sheds, and shall, where feasible, conform to existing land forms. The sediment basin design includes reclamation. The dredged material will be covered with clean soil and will be partially revegetated with native grasses. The unvegetated area is an area that is already used as a parking lot. That area will be restored and upgraded for use as a relief parking lot. It will not be paved, but instead finished in gravel. The finished grade of the site will be consistent with the general surroundings and will conform to the existing land form. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 35C and Policy 35D. Policy 44. Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and wetland/watercourse complexes and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. At present, the accumulated sediment in the upper pond and the lower pond contains a sufficient concentration of contaminants that it is prohibited from being disposed of in the marine environment. It is categorized as "category 2 material". Only "category 1" dredged material (cleaner material) is allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be disposed of in the marine environment adjacent to New York and New Jersey. Category 2 material is considered too toxic to critical biota for ocean disposal. Thus, the Applicant is removing from the wetland/watercourse complex a large amount of material that is unsuitable to remain there. Presence of the contaminated sediments adversely impacts both the Pocantico River and the adjacent wetlands. This fact in and of itself satisfies Policy 44. The project will, however, result in the loss of a small amount (less than 0.1 acre) of tidal wetland adjacent to the Pocantico River. This loss will result from construction and maintenance of a dewatering pipe that will convey water from beneath the disposal area back to the Pocantico River. The Committee is concerned about this wetland impact, and has encouraged the Applicant to design the project so as to minimize the amount of wetland permanently lost. The Committee also encouraged the Applicant to �continue its efforts to secure an upland disposal site on the adjacent former General Motors property, and to implement the on-site upland disposal only as a last resort. To comply with federal regulatory requirements, the Applicant has committed, in connection with its application for its federal dredging/disposal permit, to restore or enhance a greater acreage of Hudson River estuarine wetland at its Croton River property than will be lost at Philipsburg Manor. Thus, there will be no net loss of wetlands. While it would be preferable for the mitigation parcel to be in Sleepy Hollow, the Committee is without jurisdiction to address that issue other than by way of comment. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 44. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-04-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9a2c3b2719f45df50fed51ca4ea67d06.pdf e6bba65108f09f6a0dd8b62401112def PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING June 7, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:09 p.m. Present Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Absent Karin Adir Donald Stever Also Present James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Announcements: The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following: a) Philipse Manor Beach Club b) SamVieira Fence replacement 140 Valley Street a) Philipse Manor Beach Club Lee Kennedy is representing the applicant Lee Kennedy stated that this application is for a replacement of an existing 6' -6 " fence with a new wood picket fence at a height of 6 ' - 0 " The applicant will request through the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance of T - 0 " if 6' -0 " is not approved. Lee Kennedy stated that a 6' -0 " fence is the acceptable commercial height of a fence. The Chair inquired about the location of the existing chain link section. Lee Kennedy responded that it is on the North End. The Chair asked if it would be replaced with a picket fence also. Lee Kennedy responded yes Lee Kennedy stated that the Architectural Review Board approval is for 6' - 6 ". Doug Maass asked if this fence is for security or privacy. Lee Kennedy stated that one foot would not make a difference as far as privacy is concerned. The Chair inquired about the visual impact of the fence. Lee Kennedy stated that the boards of the fence would be apart as opposed to the current fence, which is not transparent at all �Doug Maass asked if the applicant would duplicate the fence that is currently installed There was an open discussion on board spacing. Lee Kennedy proposed 1" to 1 - Vi" spacing as long as they can be uniform. George Lence asked when would this work commence. Lee Kennedy stated that work would start as soon as it is approved. It was openly agreed for a minimum of 1" board spacing and a height of 6' - 6" at the base of the shoulder (of the picket). The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP The Committee agreed unanimously that it was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee will refer its recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. b) 140 Vallev Street Sam Vieira is the applicant and co-owner. He gave an overview of the existing layout. Doug Maass stated that he would not participate in this discussion since it is a conflict of interest. Sam Vieira gave an overview of the proposed phases in the conversion from commercial to residential. The Chair asked about the surrounding uses. Sam Vieira responded that primarily it was residential (on College Ave.) with some commercial (on Valley St.). The Chair asked if there were any other changes besides the windows. Sam Vieira responded that there is a loading dock that will be removed in the back of the property. The Chair asked about zoning in this area. Jim Margotta responded that it is in a C2 district. He also stated that mixed use is allowed in a C2 district. The Chair stated that LWRP policy l(i) approves this work. The Chair read this section aloud. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 7, 2000 �The Chair asked if there were any other findings Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously (with one abstraction) that it was consistent with the LWRP Other Items: A new Chairman needed to be selected. Doug Maass nominated Richard Weiss. Ralph Gunderman seconded. There were no other nominations. Richard Weiss was unanimously elected. There was an open discussion on a proposed purchase on River Street and its relevance to the LWRP. It was determined that the Committee will not give an opinion without an application. The Committee agreed to follow the other Village Boards by not holding an August meeting. The minutes from the April 5, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn to next meeting. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 7,2000 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Change of Occupancy at 140 Valley Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 7, 2000, the application submitted by Messrs. Samuel F. and Samuel S. Vieira ("Applicants") for a change of occupancy of an existing building at 140 Valley Street from commercial to residential use. The proposal for the conversion of the site was presented to the Committee by Samuel Vieira, an architect and co-owner of the building. Mr. Vieira also responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed conversion of the site from commercial to residential use would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. Mr. Maass, whose wife rents studio space in the building, abstained from participation in consideration of the proposal. The Proposal The building at 140 Valley Street is located in an area that includes both residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. Mr. Vieira advised that the surrounding area on Valley Street was principally residential, although it was more commercial across the street from the site. Mr. Vieira also explained that the exterior of the building would undergo no significant changes other than the addition of a number of windows, and that use of the property for residential apartments would result in less vehicular and pedestrian traffic than the current commercial use. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II 23 of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Review of Map 4, referred to in Policy II, identifies Valley Street as one of the Village's urban renewal areas. And the applicable Policy explanation describes the urban redevelopment areas identified on Map 4 as sites that "have been identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." �Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the ''traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The proposed reuse of the 140 Valley Street site for new apartments will meet these LWRP goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation and, therefore, the Committee has concluded that the proposed conversion of 140 Valley Street is consistent with Policy II. The Committee further notes that, although, the LWRP has explicitly recognized the mixed use nature of the Valley Street neighborhood, the proposed conversion of the site from commercial use to residential use will not upset the mixed use character of the neighborhood. Mr. Vieira has advised the Committee that it is even possible that, since the conversion has been planned in two phases, part of the site may remain commercial. However, this possibility was not critical to the Committees consistency findings. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application of Philipse Manor Beach Club The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 7, 2000, the application submitted by the Philipse Manor Beach Club (the "Applicant" or the "Beach Club") for replacement of an existing fence along the west side of Applicant's parking lot. The plans for the new fence were described to the Committee by Mr. E. Lee Kennedy, an architect and a member of Applicant's Board. Mr. Kennedy also responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, since the proposed new fence was a replacement of an existing fence structure, and since Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of the Applicant, has undertaken to implement certain modifications to reduce any potential adverse impact of the new fence, approval of the proposed fence replacement would not be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Beach Club site is located along the banks of the Hudson River, to the west of the Philipse Manor train station and the paved parking area owned by the Philipse Manor Improvement Association. The new fence, which would replace approximately two hundred thirty feet of six and one half to seven foot high fencing, (mostly wood, but some chain link) is proposed to be wood picket on a galvanized frame. Mr. Kennedy advised that the new fence is likely to be six feet in height, since this is a stock size, but that the Applicant is seeking a zoning variance that would permit a seven foot fence, in order to allow flexibility in finalizing specifications with Applicant's supplier. Proposal Modifications The Committee recognized that a fence presently exists at the site, and that views of the Hudson River are already impaired by the existing fence structure. However, the Committee felt that the new fence should not in any way be allowed to further impair views of the River at this location. Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of the Applicant, committed to certain specifications for the new fence to assure that it would not cause increased impairment of River viewsheds. Mr. Kennedy agreed that the open spaces between the fence boards would be up to one and one half inches, but in no event less than one inch, in order to create a relatively "transparent" effect. By contrast, the overlap of the boards of the existing fence presents an opaque appearance. In addition, although the Applicant is seeking a zoning variance that would allow a maximum fence height of seven feet, Mr. Kennedy has agreed that the height to the shoulders of pickets (that is, the height at which the vertical planes of the fence boards start to angle toward their points) would not exceed six and one-half feet. �Consistency Findings In addition to reviewing the general purposes and policies of the LWRP, the Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the Project with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 2 A and 25B of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy 2A - DOCKS, BOAT RAMPS, MOORING FACILITIES, AND OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES OR FACILITIES WILL BE DESIGNED AND SITED TO PROTECT NAVIGATION, ASSURE ACCESS BETWEEN WATER AND SHORE, AND MINIMIZE VISUAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Applicable portions of the LWRP explanation of this Policy notes that the Village has designated the Beach Club as one of the locations "best suited for water-dependent and water-enhanced uses." It is listed as an "existing water-dependent use." The Committee has concluded that replacement of an old Beach Club fence that is in disrepair with the proposed new fence would not be inconsistent with Policy 2A. In addition, part of the new fence construction will include a reinforced steel gate with a forty-eight inch active leaf and a ten-foot inactive leaf. This improved access for boats and boat trailers would enhance the water dependent uses of the Beach Club site. The Committee has concluded that this will be consistent with Policy 2A. The design limitations referred to, with respect to Policy 25B, below, will also minimize visual impacts, as contemplated by Policy 2A Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. The Committee observes that the viewshed from the Philipse Manor train station is not specifically identified in Policy 25B as one of the Village's twenty-three viewsheds of local importance. Nevertheless, the LWRP clearly recognizes the value of Hudson River views, and protection of those views is a significant element of the LWRP. Indeed, the Hudson River view from Kingsland Point Park is one of the viewsheds identified in Policy 25B, and the Committee notes that the views from the train station are substantially identical. The placement of fencing almost adjacent to the River will, necessarily, impair such views. However, that impairment already exists by virtue of the existing Beach Club fence. The Committee has determined that the replacement fence will not make the interference with views of the River any worse. The Committee also noted the steps being taken to minimize the visual impact of the new fence. The greater "transparency" of the new fence as compared with the old, the fact that the fence boards will be picket boards with open spaces formed by the angles between the pickets at the top and the fact that Applicant has agreed that the picket "shoulders" will be no higher than six and one- �half feet, have led the Committee to conclude that Applicant's proposal is not inconsistent with the LWRP goals applicable to protection of viewsheds and protection of scenic assets. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-06-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f17209e1201114f2cc88044a00867095.pdf fdca0a36a58f6cb344772f66ca57f1e1 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING July 5, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Donald Stever Absent: Karin Adir Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Helen Carlson (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The minutes from the June 7, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes with the following corrections: On page 1 it states that the applicant has requested a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a 7-0" fence with the expectation that the fence would be 6'-6" tall and requested the extra footage for flexibility Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following: a) Kendal-On-Hudson Waterfront Development Project a) Kendal-On-HudsonAl DelBello is representing the applicant. He gave a brief overview of the Kendal-OnHudson Organization and the need for adult retirement housing communities. David Jones is the Project Director for Kendal. He gave a brief introduction of the CCRC concept. He also stated that Kendal is a not-for-profit organization. The Chair asked what the geographic distribution was for this facility. David Jones responded that it is about 250-275 They are proposing 225 residential units that would be studio apartments up to 2 bedroom units. There would also be 40 assisted units. Terence McGlynn asked what the CCRC would do if more skilled help was needed. David Jones responded that based on industry experience and predictions, the CCRC would have to adjust as needed. �George Lence asked if there were any preferences to get in David Jones responded that there was no preference George Lence asked if Kendal has any other projects pending in New York David Jones responded no Doug Maass asked what was Kendal's competition David Jones responded that there were two- (2) other CCRC's. They were Anderson Medical and Westchester Meadows Hebrew Hospital The Chair stated that the Kendal submission was missing information. The Board agreed. Andy Tung is the planner for Kendal-on-Hudson. He stated that there is a separate package for the Waterfront Advisory Committee that specifically addressed the LWRP. He also stated that in Table 382, all 44 policies were addressed. There are 6 policies that are most applicable. They are: Policy 9 (Fish and Wildlife) Policy 23 (Area enhancement) Policy 25 (Scenic Views of Hudson) Policy 33 (Water runoff) Policy 37 (Erosion) Policy 44 (Wetlands) Andy Tung gave a detailed presentation of the proposed property and building layouts. He discussed entrance layouts, parking (for visitors and residents), building elevations and vegetation. Doug Maass asked if the walkways are level. Andy Tung responded that the walkways are not level. Doug Maass asked if you can step-off the walkways Andy Tung responded yes Andy Tung stated that Policy 19 would increase public access to water resources by allowing access to a waterfront area that was not previously accessible to the public. Andy Tung also stated that Policy 23 would preserve and protect the James House and the surrounding area. Don Stever asked if the maintenance of the James House would be easier on the hospital. Andy Tung responded yes. The James House is expensive to maintain and this will assist the hospital in the maintenance of the James House. Don Stever asked if this makes the James House incorporated into Kendal-on-Hudson. David Jones responded that currently it is only to be maintained. f Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 \ 2 �Andy Tung discussed the impact of Policy 25. He gave an overview of the proposed landscaping and building exteriors Don Stever stated that Policy 25a reads to enhance views of the river The proposed buildings are intrusions He would like to see more aggressive landscaping with mature conifers to largely obscure the sides of the buildings Doug Maass stated that view 2PL has a tremendous visual presence Andy Tung responded that the proposed entrance from Rockwood Hall would not disturb the Rockwood Hall trail He also stated that the architecture was being developed so that the buildings look residential This would allow the view from the Hudson to be more appealing Don Stever stated that the view from the James House needs more foliage. This would hide the buildings from the James House view He also stated that foliage could be used instead of a wall Ralph Gunderman stated that he likes the alternative path including Rockwood Hall. He stated that he prefers the preserving of the trail and the improved scenic quality. Andy Tung addressed Policy 33 (Water Runoff) and the proposed terminal basins. He addressed Policy 37 (Erosion) during construction and on a permanent basis. He also addressed Policy 44 (Wetlands) The Chair asked about the size of the construction site. Andy Tung responded that it would be about 1/3 of the site. He also added that there would be some blasting of rock Doug Maass asked about the nutrients to feed vegetation. Andy Tung responded that the catch basins would capture and divert all runoff. It is all part of the water quality treatment system. Don Stever sited an alternative site and asked if this was considered as an alternative. Andy Tung responded that the topography was more challenging. He also stated that their intention was to keep away from the public and to use the view of the Hudson River. The Chair asked what kinds of alternatives have been researched. Andy Tung responded that they have looked at moving the entire complex over and also looked at removing some levels on the buildings. Terence McGlynn asked what the impact was of reducing the number of buildings. David Jones responded that the units would be less affordable and the development might not be as financially stable. Al DelBello stated that Kendal tries to reach a broader market. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 3 �George Lence asked where the two- (2) storage tanks would be located. Andy Tung responded that they would not be visible He indicated the location of the two(2) tanks. Don Stever asked if there would be enough water to supply this area without using storage tanks. Andy Tung responded that an alternative would be to have a new water line built from the northern loop that serves Briarcliff, Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown instead of using tanks. Andy Tung also spoke about the proposed sewer connections between the proposed development and Sleepy Hollow Manor. He detailed the proposed method of discharging into a holding tank off-hours as not to interfere with Sleepy Hollow Manor. Andy Tung also discussed a proposed alternative to the original sewer method by piping at an alternative location. This would minimize the impact to Birch Close. The Committee will re-convene in September. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-07-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7ec5fad3bcb86c1f69e2284a870e6f6a.pdf 72af1e97e89bd76b640c6fc370036ce3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING September 6, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:13 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Donald Stever Karin Adir Absent: Ralph Gunderman Terence McGlynn Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The minutes from the July 5,2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. It was unanimous. a) 6-8 Cedar Street b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Townhouses Fence a) 6-8 Cedar Street Robert Barstow is the applicant. He gave an overview of the proposed of three (2)-family townhouses on Cedar Street. He stated that the area is currently a vacant lot surrounded by a fence. Robert Barstow stated that all parking requirements have been met but there are several zoning variances that the proposed drawings do not comply with. Don Stever asked if the application has gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Robert Barstow responded not yet but he is on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda this month. Jim Margotta asked if these plans were revised as per the Planning Board's initial comments. Robert Barstow responded no. The Chair asked what property adjoins this. Robert Barstow responded that it is surrounded by multi-family apartment houses. The Chair referred to policy l(i) that discusses the development of Cortlandt and Valley Streets. All agreed that the applicant meets this condition. �Don Stever stated that the applicant has no issues with the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He also stated that this application will have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board for their approval and they will have other issues with this application. Don Stever liked the plans and stated that the area needs more improvements like this. The Chair asked what was the height of the adjoining buildings. Robert Barstow responded that they were the same height. The Chair stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee's finding are only a recommendation and has no bearing on the decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board. It was unanimously approved. b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club There was no representative for this application. The Committee decided to make a decision based on the letter submitted by Mr. Lee Kennedy. The Chair reviewed that Waterfront Advisory Committee's previous decision on this application. Don Stever asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Architectural Review Board determine that the fence was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair responded no. There was an open discussion on the fence height and spacing. The Committee unanimously agreed to let the fence stay up until the season is over and allow the fence to be corrected according to the previous approved requirements. Adjourn at 9:01 to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 6,2000 2 �RECEIVED Village o f S l e e p y H o l l o w Waterfront Advisory Committee 2 8 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 §gp f g ^AM VILLAGE C I C D V WVBKR CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Residential Construction at Corner of Cortland and Cedar Streets The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on September 6, 2000, a proposal submitted by Mr. Robert Barstow ("Applicant") for construction of three attached two family units at the corner of Cortland Street and Cedar Street. The proposal was presented to the Committee by Mr. Barstow, who is the architect and developer for the project. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed construction would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The site at the corner of Cortland Street and Cedar Street is presently a vacant lot, surrounded by a chain link fence, and is used for parking. It is located in an area that includes both multi-family residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. The proposal would involve the construction of three townhouse-style residential units, with two apartments in each unit. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II 23 of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Policy I and Map 4, referred to in Policy II, identify the site of the proposed construction as one of the Village's urban renewal areas, and the applicable Policy explanation describes the urban redevelopment areas identified on Map 4 as sites that "have been identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." The Committee finds that the proposed construction will be rehabilitative, replacing a vacant lot that is presently used for the parking of motor vehicles (many of which are in a state of disrepair), with three attractively designed residential units. Each unit will contain two apartments, one to a floor. Adequate parking will be provided with garages set beneath the living units and additional parking in the rear of the buildings. �In addition, Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the "traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The construction at the Cortland Street/Cedar Street site for new apartments will meet these LWRP goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation in this part of the Village and, therefore, the Committee has concluded that the proposed construction is consistent with Policy II and with the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-09-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a817f4405aa52aafcbde2643e5d06908.pdf c22ea768b095cf6ff46778f14be187f4 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING October 4, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m Present Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Donald Stever Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Absent Terence McGlynn Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None Agenda: a) Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises 183 Valley Street Parking Deck w/two 2 bedroom units a) Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises Larry Rodrigues was the applicant and addressed the Committee himself. He discussed the proposed development with the use of a model. He discussed the details of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 2 family house with 10 parking spaces. Don Stever stated that 10 spaces are required because the adjacent property needs spaces based on a previous requirement The Chair asked if the existing structure is wood. Larry Rodrigues responded that the existing structure is made of block and brick. The Chair asked about the height of the two structures. Larry Rodrigues responded that they are the same. The Chair referred to policy l(i) that discusses the development of Cortlandt and Valley Streets All agreed that the applicant meets this condition. The Chair asked if the building would have a stucco exterior. Larry Rodrigues responded yes. �The Chair discussed the full footprint of 183 Valley Street and its relationship to 185 Valley Street. Don Stever discussed the open feeling associated with parking areas. Doug Maass asked about light pollution Larry Rodrigues responded that the lighting scheme would be designed properly. The Chair asked if the Committee had any other questions. Don Stever asked who was the lead agency. Jim Margotta responded that the Planning Board was the lead agency Don Stever made a motion to approve the application It was unanimous. The findings will be sent to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. Other Topics: The minutes from the September 6, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. It was unanimous (Ralph Gunderman abstained). Adjourn to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 4, 2000 2 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 H M 1 0 1DV11IA 0002 8 1 130 aaAiioiu CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Construction at 183 Valley Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on October 4,2000, the application submitted by Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises ("Applicant") for replacement of an existing structure at 183 Valley Street with a new structure consisting of two parking levels with two two-bedroom duplex residential units above. The proposal was presented to the Committee by Mr. Laurentino Rodrigues, who displayed a three-dimensional model of the proposed project and who responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed construction would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The site at 183 Valley Street is presently occupied by an older residential structure. It is located in an area that includes both multi-family residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. The proposal would involve the construction of a two level parking deck with two two-bedroom duplex apartments above. One level of the parking deck would be accessible from Valley Street and the other from Chestnut Street. A total often parking spaces would be provided, two to satisfy the parking needs of the new apartments at 183 Valley Street and eight to satisfy the parking requirements imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals for residential units at 185 Valley Street, the adjacent property also owned by the Applicant. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Policy II and Map 4 reference the site of the proposed construction as one of the Village's urban renewal areas. The location is described in the applicable Policy explanation as having been "identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." The Committee finds that the proposed construction will be �rehabilitative, replacing an old building that appears in need of significant improvement, with two residential units. The architectural drawings and the scale model presented to the Committee by the Applicant promise the addition of some architectural interest to the Valley Street/Chestnut Street streetscape, in the form of balconies and a surmounting cupola. In addition, the construction will allow the Applicant to comply with the mandate of the Zoning Board of Appeals to provide eight additional parking spaces for the adjacent structure at 185 Valley Street. The Committee notes that Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the "traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation both for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The proposed construction at 183 Valley Street will satisfy the LWRP's goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation in this part of the Village. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that the proposed construction is consistent with Policy II and with the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-10-04.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7bf32b75a5beb77d585d5fcf9589e5e6.pdf bc3b0c77fe76187132b31be521e024b5 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING November 1, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir RECEIVED NOV t 6 2000 Absent: Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman VILLAGE CLERK Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: Agenda: a) Minutes of October 2000 Meeting b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Fence c) Karl Dibble a) Minutes of October 2000 Meeting Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Fence The Chair stated that there was one change to this topic. The applicant was required to provide alternating wide and XA size panels. This method would not give the required 1" spacing so the beach club used all narrow panels. The Committee agreed that it was acceptable. c) Kari Dibble Richard Blancato is representing this application along with Karl Dibble. �Richard Blancato spoke about the proposed changes to the property and the proposed storage containers The Chair asked if this would be a retail operation. Richard Blancato responded no. George Lence asked about the size of the containers. Karl Dibble responded that the containers would be 8 ' x 8 ' x 20'. Richard Blancato showed the Committee members where the containers would be located via the proposed drawings. Richard Blancato stated that the property has been elevated and an engineer has been hired to evaluate the drainage, etc. The Chair asked about the garage size. Richard Blancato responded that it is not specific yet. It is only on the drawings for show. Richard Blancato also stated that they might have to come back for the garage approval. The Chair asked what approvals were sought in tonight's meeting. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant is seeking approval for the building and the storage containers. Karin Adir asked why is approval needed for the containers. Richard Blancato responded that containers are not expressed specifically in the ordinance. Karin Adir asked if people were living in the house. Richard Blancato responded yes along with the office downstairs. Doug Maass asked if all other areas that are not covered would be blacktop. Karl Dibble responded either blacktop or covered with item 4 material. Karin Adir asked if the storage containers were portable. Jim Margotta responded that they are shipping containers. Karl Dibble responded that a roof could be added to make the containers appear like a shed. There was an open discussion on parking. The Chair stated that there is a problem with approving the applicant's request since the drawings are only preliminary. He also stated that the Committee would like to see the engineer's report on the drainage issues. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 1, 2000 2 �The Chair stated that the Committee would like to see the proposals for the chain link fence that is proposed as well as the screening and the water runoff. Karl Dibble responded that the fence would be a wood fence. The Chair responded that the Committee could not make the applicant install a particular fence but the Committee can control what is installed on Route 9 according to Policy l(k). Jim Margotta suggested that Karl Dibble provide pictures of the storage bins. Karl Dibble agreed. Other Topics: None. Adjourn at 8:33 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 1,2000 3 �26 December 2000 To: Waterfront Caimittee From: James Margotta Due to lack of an Agenda, there will be no meeting of the Waterfront Committee in January. The next meeting will be held on February 7, 2001. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-11-01.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text