1 25 9 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/520b1cc88c9daaa4d110abf2a8132fa7.pdf 50c91705185b884d5f84025dc435addf PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING February 7,2001 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 Ralph Gunderman Absent: Donald Stever Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of November 2000 Meeting b) David Cartenuto c) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of November 2000 Meeting Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. b) David Cartenuto The Chair stated that there was nothing in the LWRP pertaining to this project. The Chair stated that he would inform the Zoning Board and the Planning Board that they should not wait for a recommendation from the Waterfront Advisory Committee on this matter. The Committee agreed. c) Kendal-on-Hudson Andy Tung is representing the applicant in continuing the consistency review of this project. �The Chair stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee's findings would go to the Village Board of Trustees by mid-March. Andy Tung summarized the sewer and water connection changes. He discussed in detail the Northern Loop connection and the revised sewer tie-in to Sleepy Hollow Manor. The Chair asked about the water pressure in the Manor as a result. Andy Tung responded by discussing the methods that will be used for storing and replenishing the domestic water. George Lence asked how many gallons per day would be used. Andy Tung responded 30-40,000 gallons per day. Jim Margotta asked if the sewage would be pumped at night. Andy Tung responded yes. He spoke about the sewage tie-in and the existing sewage in the Manors and Phelps Hospital. Andy Tung spoke about the vehicular changes. He detailed the changes in the underground parking and in the area around the James House. He also spoke about the changes in the pedestrian path. He stated that the proposed connection to the Manors through Birch Close was removed. He also stated that a path to Rockwood Hall was added. Andy Tung spoke about the project architecture. He described the differing styles of architecture that exist along the Hudson. George Lence asked the applicant how they addressed Policy 5A on Infrastructure Improvements. Andy Tung responded that this project has made sewer improvements in the Manors. He stated that there are current sewer problems in the Manors as per the sewer study. He also stated that the same for the water in the Manors. The Chair asked the applicant how they addressed Policy 23 (preserving and enhancing significant structures in Sleepy Hollow) and Policy 25 (preserving and enhancing structures in Sleepy Hollow, which contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal area). Steve Ebanusa is the Project Architect. He reviewed the architectural design and the Italianate style architecture that was selected. He also spoke about the different styles of architecture that are visible from the Hudson. There was an open discussion on the different styles of architecture on the Hudson and why the Italianate style was chosen. There was an open discussion on the heights of the buildings and the surrounding landscape buffer. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 7,2001 2 �Steve Ebanusa spoke about the massing and scaling of the buildings. He spoke in detail about the roofs and building facade. The Chair asked if any member of the Committee had any questions. There were none. The Chair stated that he received an e-mail from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. He distributed the e-mail to all members as well as the applicant. The Chair stated that the Committee would like to further review the documents and possibly discuss at the next meeting. Keith Saifin (President of Phelps Memorial Hospital) spoke about the e-mail from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. He stated that the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association is not the owner of the James House. Phelps Memorial Hospital owns the James House. He also stated that Phelps Memorial Hospital is in favor of this project. Other TOPICS: None. Adjourn at 9:55 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 7,2001 3 �RESOLUTION FOR CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHEREAS, on or about December 1, 2000, David Cartenuto (the "Applicant") submitted an application to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") for site plan approval for the replacement of an existing masonary wall and construction of new retaining walls; and WHEREAS, at their December 21,2000 meeting the Planning Board did declare themselves to be the Lead Agency in this matter as per the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed and relied on the following materials: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Site Plan Application dated December 1,2000 Short Environmental Assessment Form dated December 1,2000 Site Plan Erosion Control Details, prepared by A.G. Paese, P.E. dated 11/28/00 Details Sheet, prepared by A.G. Paese, dated 11/28/00 Review memorandum from Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers dated November 3,2000. Review memorandum from Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers dated December 21,2000; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. 2. 3. Received an application fee; Requested received and considered comments from the Village engineering consultants, Village Planner and Building Inspector about the proposed project; Received and reviewed a short environmental assessment form (EAF) in compliance with SEQRA dated December 1,2000; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after review of field conditions, the EAF as well as other items noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and no significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed action; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the said Application for site plan approval as shown on the site plan, dated 11/28/00 is hereby granted approval and the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman on a copy of this resolution and upon the site plan drawings, as and when revised as necessary to show compliance with the following, which endorsement shall permit filing iii the G iiiCc Ox tile Village Buimiiig Dcpaitiiiciit for pufpOScS of obtaining permit ill aCCOfdaiiCc with this resolution and the building code requirement, provided, however, that the approval shall expire after one (1) year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications have not been �<t completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Applicant has not obtained the required building permit(s) in accordance with the approval plan: 1. 2. 3. Provision of a completed Coastal Assessment Form. Final site plan including the design of proposed embankments and retaining walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Inspector and/or the Village Engineer including conformance to the Village Engineer's Comments in their 11/3/00 and 12/21/00 memorandum as appropriate. Prior to the signing of the site plan, all outstanding professional review fees, environmental changes and other Village Fees shall be paid to the Village, satisfactory to the Village Attorney. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Ijbh 4<XsNicholas Robinson, Chairman fu iCf^i Dated F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Re$ohitiooi\M720.26-Re« Conditional Site Pin Approvtl.wpd �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 February 9, 2001 Robert Anello, Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Nicholas A. Robinson, Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 A Coastal Assessment Form has been submitted to the Waterfront Advisory Committee (the "Committee") on behalf of David Cartenuto in connection with the reconstruction of a stone wall and construction (with landscaping) of terraced wooden (railroad tie-style) walls at the residence of Mr. Cartenuto located at 275 Millard Avenue (the "Project"). The Project is sited at the rear of Mr. Cartenuto's property, facing Riverside Drive. The Project was reviewed at a meeting of the Committee on February 7, 2001. At that time the Committee concluded that the polices of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (the "LWRP") are not applicable to the Project and that the Committee does not have jurisdiction to make any finding as to consistency of the Project with the policies of the LWRP. The Committee understands that the Project is to be considered by both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Please be advised that consideration by your respective Boards can proceed without the need for a consistency finding from the Committee. Very truly yours, /—/T- ^X Richard D. Weiss, Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee � 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-2001 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_2001-02-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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/018f984f933e484a0659322b0dc0d7c9.pdf 9d2210f298175c464fdd1dabd6d24f8b PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir «*c»>»*0 _ « g 7(flft W* UH^Ci^* Donald Stever Doug Maass Also Present Dave Smith (Saccardi & SchirT/Village Planner) Shailesh Naik (Charles A Manganaro/Village Engineer) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of January 2001 Meeting b) Fremont Pond Dredging c) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of January 2001 Meeting The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted Ralph Gunderman seconded It was unanimous b) Fremont Pond Dredging Dave Smith spoke about the EAF for this application. He detailed the proposed dredging process and what will be done with the dredged material He also spoke about the applicable LWRP policies. Dave Smith stated that the NY Department of State has approved the item in their LWRP review. He also stated that the material removed is considered clean by the Department of Environmental Conservation. �The Chair asked if this process would result in a more habitable lake for fish and wildlife Dave Smith responded yes The Chair asked about the settling tank Dave Smith responded that the tank would be installed under the road and would be accessed probably once a year Karin Adir asked how long would the dredging process take. Dave Smith responded 10 weeks. Chuck Lancaster spoke about the dredging He stated that the most noticeable sedimentation is from the Southeast corner near Peabody field He stated that this needs to be mitigated to prevent future dredging. He also stated that there is a nest of swans at the Southeast end. The dredging should be coordinated with the nests hatching The Chair asked if the Committee had any other comments. There was none The Board voted unanimously that the dredging was consistent with the LWRP. Kendal-on-Hudson The Chair stated that Dan Pennelia and Shailesh Naik are the Village Engineers assigned to the Planning Board. They will answer any engineering questions that the Committee has concerning the proposed development. Dan Pennelia spoke about the sewer impacts. He used a map to illustrate the current sewer path within Sleepy Hollow Manor. He also stated that the Mount Pleasant Executive Center is contracted to pump 200 GPM into the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewer system. Although the center is vacant now, the model used included the sewage capacity as if the center was occupied. Terrance McGlynn asked if the model included the proposed Kendal usage. Dan Pennelia responded no Terrance McGlynn asked if the system could handle the Kendal volume. Dan Pennelia responded that they would pump the sewage at night so not to interfere with the residents. The Chair asked if Phelps hospital pumps their sewage. Dan Pennelia responded no. It is a gravity feed. Chuck Lancaster spoke about the EIS. He stated that there is no mention of the Sleepy Hollow pumping station and the impact that Kendal will have on it. He also spoke about the Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 7,2001 2 �sewer and storm drain systems He stated that the EIS in very inaccurate regarding both. The Chair asked Dan Pennella about the water pressure and the proposed Northern Loop. Dan Pennella responded that the Northern Loop is still under negotiations. The Chair stated that the uncertainty of the Northern Loop is a major concern. Dan Pennella responded that the water usage for Phelps Hospital has increased in the last few years He also stated that the increased water usage must result in increased sewage usage. The Chair stated that Doug Maass could not be at the meeting tonight but he is in favor of the project but he is not comfortable with the size of the proposed development. Ralph Gunderman stated that he could not find this project consistent with the LWRP for several reasons. Karin Adir stated that the project is important to the community but the potential water and sewer problems area concern. George Lence stated that a number of Policies were impacted by this development. He cited policies 5 A, 7D, 18D, 23 and 25. He stated that he is not comfortable with the proposed development. The Chair stated that he did find some consistency in the LWRP in policies 19 and 21. The Chair also stated that the Kendal presentation did not address the impacts of the mass and scale of the project. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to provide a recommendation that the project is not consistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. Other TOPICS: None Adjourn at 9:24 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 7,2001 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Kendal on Hudson The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at several meetings in 2000, at its March 7, 2001 meeting and its June 13, 2001 meeting, the proposal (the "Proposal") submitted by Kendal on Hudson (the "Applicant") for the development of a continuing care retirement community ("CCRC") on the grounds of the Phelps Memorial Hospital Center ("Phelps") in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village"). At the June 13 meeting of the Committee, Mr. Andy Tung, of Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP and other representatives of Applicant presented modifications that had been made to the Project since the time of the March 7 meeting of the Committee, and answered questions from the Committee. The modifications to the Proposal were in response to earlier comments by the Committee and by members of the public. The Project The development project (the "Project" or "Kendal"), as presented to the Committee in its modified form, consists of 225 independent living apartments, 24 assisted living apartments and 42 skilled nursing rooms contained within 435,00O± square feet of structures. The proposed CCRC units comprise four buildings. Three of the buildings would contain independent living units (generally referred to in the Applicant's submission documents as ILU East, ILU West and ILU South). The fourth building, the Commons Building, would house community facilities, a health center, assisted living units and skilled nursing facilities, as well as some additional independent living units. The Project would be sited on the western side of the Phelps campus, north of the Sleepy Hollow Manor section of the Village and south of the Rockwood Hall section of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve. The proposed site is located in the Village's H (hospital use) zoning district. The Project contemplates that the H district zoning would be amended to make the CCRC facilities a permitted use within the district and to otherwise accommodate the Project. Access to the site would be provided from NY Route 117 and Rockwood Road (using an easement over lands that were owned by the Laurance S. Rockefeller Fund prior to dedication of the Rockwood Hall property to the State of New York as part of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve) and through a portion of the Phelps property. Signs for the CCRC would direct traffic to the Route 117/Rockwood Road access and it is expected that these signs would minimize access via the main Phelps entrance from Route 9. Parking for 390 vehicles would be provided in structures located beneath the proposed buildings and beneath a Phelps on-grade parking deck. The Project has been modified a number of times since its initial submission to the Committee. These modifications have included a reduction in the number of assisted living units from forty to twenty-four, lowering the height of a portion of the Commons Building from an �originally-proposed seven stories to five stories, provision for additional vegetative plantings and landscape buffer enhancements, and improvements to the sewer and water systems that serve the Phelps Hospital property and the Village. The architecture for the Project has also been modified since the time of the initial submission in order to make the buildings appear less institutional and to achieve greater harmony with the architectural style of The James House, an historic mansion owned by Phelps and adjacent to the Project site. Specifically, the proposed architecture is intended to reflect the Italianate style of The James House, and the building facades would incorporate a mixture of different building materials, varying window treatments and ornamental roof elements to break up the apparent massing of the proposed buildings. The modifications to the Project were based on comments raised as part of the public hearing process on the Project's Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), and in response to concerns raised by members of the Committee during prior meetings at which the Project had been reviewed. A comprehensive landscape program is proposed by the Applicant, which would include the preservation of a three hundred-foot buffer between the proposed CCRC and the Sleepy Hollow Manor neighborhood to the south. This buffer, which presently contains a number of dead or unhealthy trees, would be enhanced by additional reforestation plantings and would be maintained by Kendal. Further, the Applicant proposes a series of landscaped berms within the easement on the north side of the site, adjacent to Rockwood Hall. Landscaping is also proposed between The James House and the proposed ILU East and Commons Building, which is intended to soften the views of the proposed CCRC facility from The James House. Existing views of the Hudson River from The James House are, at present, largely screened by existing vegetation. The proposed plan would remove much of this vegetation, opening up views of the Hudson River and the western shoreline from The James House. The Applicant proposes to connect to existing Village water and sewer service. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its conclusion as to consistency of the Project with the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), considered Policies 5, 5A, 7D, 7E, 17,17A, 18, 18A, 18B, 18C, 19, 19D, 21D, 23, 23B, 25, 25A, 25B, 32A, 33 and 37 of the LWRP as being specifically applicable to the Project. After careful review of the applicable LWRP policies, the Committee found that the Project, as a whole, is consistent with the purposes and polices of the LWRP. Policy 5 - ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE. Both municipal water and sewer utilities are available to service the Project. The Village has recently acquired water rights that should improve the water supply system in the northern portion of the Village, which includes the Phelps site and the Sleepy Hollow Manor residential neighborhood. Connection of the proposed CCRC facility to this "northern loop" of the Village 2 �water supply system will enable the northern loop to back-feed Sleepy Hollow Manor, and is expected to increase pressure to this portion of the Village, which has long been plagued by low water pressure. Similarly, the Applicant proposes to connect to an existing sewer main serving Phelps which, in turn, connects to sewer mains running through Sleepy Hollow Manor to a pump station located on Riverside Drive. The Committee, at several of its meetings considering the Project, had expressed concerns that the Project could adversely impact the Village's sewer system and aggravate existing capacity problems in Sleepy Hollow Manor. However, the County of Westchester has committed to making improvements to portions of the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewage lines as part of a county-wide program relating to sewer inflow and infiltration, and the Applicant has committed to provide three hundred thousand dollars to the Village to fund improvements to other relevant parts of the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewer lines and manholes and upgrades to the existing Riverside Drive sewage pump station. The Village Engineer has reported to the Committee that these sewer system improvements will allow the Village sewers to accommodate the additional sewage flow from the CCRC without adverse impact and the Committee concluded that these improvements would sufficiently mitigate any potential adverse effects from the Project. Based on these considerations, the Committee concluded unanimously that the Project would be consistent with Policy 5. However, the Committee expressly made its finding with respect to Policy 5 conditional. Accordingly, the Committee recommends to the Village's Board of Trustees that any approval by the Village of the Project and any related zoning changes be expressly made conditional upon (a) completion of the sewage line improvements that are to be undertaken by the County of Westchester and the Village, (b) the provision by the Applicant of the sum of three hundred thousand dollars to finance additional sewage line and manhole improvements and pump station upgrades, and (c) the completion of all such sewage line, manhole and pump station upgrades and improvements, before the CCRC may be occupied. Policy 5A - DISCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF USES WHICH, BY REASON OF THEIR DEMAND FOR NEW COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES OR THEIR IMPOSITION OF BURDENS ON EXISTING SERVICES AND FACILITIES, WOULD REQUIRE DISPROPORTIONATE PUBLIC COST IN COMPARISON TO PUBLIC BENEFITS. The Committee concluded that the proposed Project would impose little burden on existing Village services and facilities. The proposed CCRC will provide its own private ambulance service, have twenty-four hour security, maintain its own grounds and roads and provide for its own private collection of trash and recyclable materials. The facilities are not likely to add any school age children to the community and, thus, should not burden the local school district. Although the Village's fire department will serve the CCRC, the building heights of the Kendal buildings, as presently proposed, are well within the capacity of the Village's existing fire equipment, the buildings will be constructed with sprinklers, as required by a mandatory sprinkler law in the Village, and the type of use contemplated by the Project does not carry an enhanced risk of fire. Village police will be responsible for law enforcement, but the CCRC type of use is believed to be 3 �inherently a low-crime use, and vehicular ingress and egress will be, principally, from the Town of Mt. Pleasant rather than from Village streets. Parking availability at the Village's Philipse Manor train station is already over-burdened, but Kendal will provide shuttle buses to allow access to Metro-North train service without the need for additional train station parking. Development fees, recreation fees and an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), which will be allocated to the Village, the Town of Mt. Pleasant and the School District of the Tarrytowns, will be payable by Kendal. And, based on experience at other, similar, facilities, Kendal residents are thought likely to involve themselves in the provision of services to the community. Accordingly, the Committee found, unanimously, that the Project would not overwhelm or significantly burden existing services and facilities and would provide economic and social benefits to the Village, making the Project consistent with Policy 5A. Policy 7D - THE HUDSON RIVER IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND WITHIN 1000 FEET OF THE VILLAGE'S SHORELINE SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED AND, WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT. The Committee gave consideration to the applicability of Policy 7D to the Project and concluded that the proposed CCRC development would not impact the Hudson River or its shoreline, or its viability as a locally significant habitat. The western edge of the Project site is separated from the Hudson River by the Metro-North railroad tracks. However, the Committee recognized that development of the property does have the potential to produce contaminated storm water runoff that could adversely impact the River. The Applicant has developed, and would have to implement, a storm water management plan that, under New York State law, must be adequate to minimize any such impacts. Accordingly, the Committee found that if Policy 7D is, in fact, applicable to the Project, the Project is consistent with that policy. Policy 7E - THE LANDS IN STATE OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE AND OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT TRAIL SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT. The Project would have an impact on the lands of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve because a portion of the access road from Route 117 would traverse a corner of the Park Preserve's Rockwood Hall property. The Applicant has proposed to restore the areas to be disturbed with landscaping comparable to that already existing. The existing fence between Rockwood Hall and the Phelps property would be removed, allowing free access by wildlife between the Rockwood Hall site and the remaining wooded areas of the Project site. All of the members of the Committee, therefore, found that the Project would be consistent with Policy 7E. Policy 17 - NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND EROSION SHALL BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 4 �Policy 17A - PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPES AND HILLSIDES THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE THROUGH THE USE OF NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES, WHEN PRACTICAL, TO PREVENT EROSION, ESPECIALLY THROUGH RETENTION, OR PLANTING OF VEGETATIVE COVERS. The Committee found, unanimously, that the Project is consistent with Policies 17 and 17A. Although parts of the Project's construction site would include steep slope areas, the FEIS notes that the Project incorporates stringent soil erosion and sediment control measures and its erosion and sediment control plan includes a variety of mechanism to attain these goals, including sediment traps, silt fence barriers and straw bale barriers. The Applicant has proposed vegetative cover in the form of a comprehensive landscaping and restoration program for the balance of the property. Policy 18 - TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND OF ITS CITIZENS, PROPOSED MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THOSE INTERESTS, AND TO THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT VALUABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS. Policy 18A - PROTECT THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE IN THE EVALUATION OF ANY PROPOSAL FOR NEW ROADS, ROAD WIDENING OR INFRASTRUCTURE. Policy 18B - TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE SUCH RESOURCES SUPPORT. Policy 18C - TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON VALUABLE AND SENSITIVE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE. The Committee could find, with respect to the Project, no adverse impact on the economic, social and environmental interests of the state and its citizens with respect to valuable coastal resources, no failure to protect economic, social, cultural and environmental interests of the Village as to road construction relating to the Project, no failure to provide adequate consideration of impact on the Village's community and cultural resources and no failure to consider and protect environmental interests and natural resources of the Village. An environmental analysis prepared as part of the Project's environmental impact statement indicated that there are no sensitive natural resources found at the site and, as noted in the discussion of Policy 7E, an existing fence between Rockwood Hall and the Project property would be removed and would permit free movement by wildlife across the boundary. The Committee found that, while there would be some environmental impacts related to the proposed action, including the loss of 5 �existing trees, there will be substantial re-planting of vegetation (including in the wooded buffer between the site and Sleepy Hollow Manor) and there will also be positive benefits by providing much-needed housing for senior citizens (consistent with New York State policy) and positive fiscal contributions related to fees and PILOT payments. The findings of consistency by the Committee with respect to Policies 18 and 18A were unanimous and, with respect to Policies 18C and 18D were by a vote of four to three. Policy 19 - PROTECT, MAINTAIN, AND INCREASE THE LEVELS AND TYPES OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER-RELATED RECREATION RESOURCES AND FACILITIES SO THAT THESE RESOURCES AND FACILITIES MAY BE FULLY UTILIZED BY ALL THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLY ANTICIPATED PUBLIC RECREATION NEEDS AND THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES. IN PROVIDING SUCH ACCESS, PRIORITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC BEACHES, BOATING FACILITIES, FISHING AREAS, AND WATERFRONT PARKS. Policy 19D - ENCOURAGE, DEVELOP, PROTECT, AND MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND LINKAGES BETWEEN KINGSLAND POINT PARK, DEVRIES FIELD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR, DOUGLAS PARK, SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT, THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE LANDS, AND ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 21D - PURSUE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC ACCESS RECREATIONAL TRAIL LINKAGES FROM AND BETWEEN THE TARRYTOWN/SLEEPY HOLLOW VILLAGE BOUNDARY, THE VILLAGE'S RIVERFRONT PARK PROPERTY ON RIVER STREET, KINGSLAND POINT PARK, DEVRIES FIELD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR, DOUGLAS PARK, SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT, THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE LANDS, AND ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE POCANTICO RIVER. The LWRP policies strongly encourage efforts to "increase the general public's access to the waterfront such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas, scenic overlooks and passive recreation areas that take advantage of coastal scenery" (Explanation of Policies 21,21 A, 21B, 21C and 21D), and make the linkage of publicly owned land "with major points of natural and cultural interest and recreation along the Hudson River" a "major goal of the Village" (Explanation of Policies 19,19A, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E and 19F). The Committee recognized that access to the western portion of the Phelps campus is currently limited, due to the private ownership of the land by Phelps and the relative inaccessibility of the site. Moreover, there is no physical river access from the site because of the intervening Metro-North railroad tracks. At present, the site does provide limited visual access to the Hudson River. Because the project's internal network of roadways and walkways will be open to the public, the Project will provide enhanced public visual access to the Hudson River and western shoreline views. The Kendal plan also includes a pedestrian walking system and a 6 �Hudson River promenade and overlook that would be open to the public, both from Rockwood Hall and from Kendal's access road. The members of the Committee all agreed that these features would significantly increase public access to the Hudson River scenic views and would thus be consistent with Policies 19, 19D and 21D of the LWRP. The Kendal site plan incorporates pedestrian connections at two points to existing trails in the Rockwood Hall portion of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve to the north. The Committee members all felt that these proposed trail connections would serve to establish the kind of trail linkages contemplated by Policies 19D and 21D and would make the Project consistent with those policies for that reason, as well. Policy 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE, ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION. Policy 23B - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. The LWRP takes the view that "[a]mong the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those structures or areas which are of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance", and requires that protection include "concern not just with specific sites, but with areas of significance, and with the area around specific sites" (Explanation of Policies 23, 23A, 23B and 23C). The applicable policies demand "[a]ll practicable means to protect structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the Village, the State, or the Nation" as well as prevention of "significant adverse changes to such significant structures, districts, areas or sites" (Id.). Among those "resources" listed as "structures of significance in the history, architecture of culture of the Village" is The James House. The LWRP cites factors that would constitute adverse changes to structures covered by the LWRP policies and standards that are to be applied in proposed activity adjacent to the resource. It states: "Compatibility between the proposed action and the resource means that the general appearance of the resource should be reflected in the architectural style, design material, scale, proportion, composition, mass, line, color, texture, detail, setback, landscaping and related items of the proposed actions" (Id.). The FEIS notes that the Kendal structures, at their nearest point, are approximately 100 feet west of The James House, but concludes that there would be no anticipated significant impacts to historic resources. The Committee appreciated the architectural refinements incorporated into the Proposal in an effort to achieve architectural style, design material, color, texture and detail compatibility with The James House resource, as required by Policies 25 and 25B, and the Committee found that the appearance of the proposed structures was far more aesthetically appealing than the designs originally submitted by the Applicant to the Committee. The Committee equally appreciated the reduction in height of a portion of the Commons Building, capping the structure at five stories rather than seven. Nevertheless, the Committee was unable to conclude that the Project 7 �met other required standards of compatibility, such as "scale", "proportion" or "mass" or that its presence would otherwise be consistent with the preservation or enhancement of The James House. The Committee was also aware that portions of the Rockwood Hall property may have been designed and/or influenced by noted landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead and that the visibility of the CCRC structures from portions of the Rockwood Hall property could also have implications under Policy 23. Although the Applicant has proposed to enhance its vegetative screening program in order to mitigate the visual impact of the Kendal buildings on visitors to Rockwood Hall and, as noted above, has reduced the maximum building height from seven stories to five stories, the impact of the Project on Rockwood Hall was not found to protect, enhance or restore this significant site. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of five to two, that the Project was inconsistent with Policies 23 and 23B. Policy 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. Policy 25A - PROTECT OR ENHANCE VIEWS OF THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY, AND THE OPPOSITE SHORE FROM THE IMMEDIATE RIVERFRONT AS VIEWED FROM PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTIES. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [THE NINE IDENTIFIED SCENIC LANDSCAPE SUBUNITS INCLUDE PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND SLEEPY HOLLOW MANOR]. The Committee noted that the Kendal buildings could have an impact on views of the Hudson River and the Tappan Zee Bridge from portions of Rockwood Hall, a publicly owned property. The Applicant has proposed to incorporate a series of landscaped berms within the easement area located north of, and adjacent to, the Project site. Illustrations provided by the Applicant as part of its Project modifications reveal that the lowered building heights and growth of plantings after a ten-year period would help to soften the building mass when viewed from Rockwood Hall. Although the visual impact of the buildings would not be eliminated, the Committee recognized that it would not be possible to fully screen any development that may occur on the western portion of the Phelps property from this vantage point, and the Committee noted that the Rockefeller State Park Preserve has not objected to the impact. While, as a general matter, preservation and protection of views of the Hudson River is a goal of the LWRP, the Committee also noted that view of the River from the Phelps site is not one of the twenty-three "viewsheds of local importance" specifically recognized by the LWRP. However, there are two scenic resources identified under Policy 25B that are potentially impacted 8 �by the Project - the Sleepy Hollow Manor and the Phelps Memorial Hospital scenic landscape subunits cited in the LWRP. The Committee concluded that the Project would not significantly adversely impact either of those subunits. The residential character and "informal" layout of the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit would not be impacted in any way by the Project and visual impact would be slight. The Project would be potentially visible within Sleepy Hollow Manor only from the northern end of Birch Close and from part of Terrace Close, and the site plan for the Project incorporates a three hundred-foot buffer in the southern portion of the Kendal site, further screening the proposed Project from the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit. The LWRP description of the Phelps Memorial Hospital subunit notes that the site has distinctly different visual characteristics. The area is described in the LWRP's Scenic Resources portion of the Inventory and Analysis Section as being "dominated by the buildings and parking areas" of the hospital and "providing an institutional landscape", while the area to the west of the James House is contrasted as a "rolling estate landscape of lawns and woodlands" with glimpses of Hudson River and the western shoreline. The proposed buildings would be situated between The James House and the Metro-North Railroad tracks to the west. Existing views from The James House present only a seasonal, filtered view of the Hudson River. The Project, as currently proposed, would provide a more open vista of the Hudson River. The proposed buildings and, in particular, their rooftops, would, however, be visible from The James House and, of course, the existing open lawns and woodlands would be lost. The Applicant has proposed a comprehensive landscape planting plan, including plantings between The James House and the CCRC units to soften the impact of the proposed structures, and the lowered building heights as now proposed would provide for increased visibility of the Hudson River. With respect to the views from the Hudson River, it was noted that the Project as now proposed has attempted to incorporate a distinct architectural character by incorporating an ItaJianate influenced design to make the construction more stylistically sympathetic to the architecture of The James House and less institutional in appearance. The architectural treatment includes the use of different building materials, window treatments and roof articulation. Although the Committee believed that further reducing the bulk of the proposed structures would minimize the visual impact of the project from the River, the Committee was aware that virtually any building of significant size would be visible from the River. The Committee noted that the Explanation of Policies applicable to Policies 25, 25A and 25B includes a number of standards for minimizing scenic impairment. The Committee concluded, by a vote offiveto two, that any scenic impairment from the Project had been substantially minimized and that, accordingly, the Project was consistent with those policies. Policy 32A - FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO USE STATE OF THE ART LOW FLOW WATER FIXTURES AND WATER SAVING DEVICES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR WATER AND REDUCE THE FLOW TO THE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES. WHERE PRACTICABLE, THE GUIDELINES IN THE NEW YORK STATE MUNICIPAL MODEL WATER CONSERVATION PLAN SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. The Committee unanimously concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 32A. The 9 �Applicant has committed to incorporating low-flow water fixtures and other water saving devices throughout the proposed community to promote water conservation. Policy 33 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE CONTROL OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS. The Applicant has incorporated a storm water management system that includes two separate storm water detention facilities. The Committee noted that the Applicant is required, by New York State law, to implement the best management practices as to storm water runoff, as contemplated by Policy 33. The Committee also reviewed the projected storm water impacts outlined in the Applicant's updated storm water management report, which was submitted to the Village and the Committee. The updated storm water report indicates that, due the storm water detention basins, the peak rate of runoff during a 100-year storm event will actually decrease slightly from the predevelopment levels associated with the site. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed storm water management system should adequately control storm water runoff and that the Project will be consistent with Policy 33. Policy 37 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE NON-POINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS, ORGANICS AND ERODED SOILS INTO COASTAL WATERS. The Committee concluded, unanimously, that the Project is consistent with Policy 37. The Project will incorporate several design measures to mitigate potential impacts. These features include the use of dry swales, anti-vortex manholes and the two water quality detention basins referred to in the discussion of Policy 33. In addition, Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control will be utilized during the construction process. The Committee recognized that any construction, and the resulting creation of additional impervious surfaces, is likely to create some increase in non-point discharge, but felt that the proposed storm water quality system would minimize such discharge into coastal waters. Summary After its detailed consideration of the foregoing policies of the LWRP, the Committee noted that the Project was found to be consistent with most, but not all, of such policies. The Committee then considered whether, after weighing the elements of the Project's consistency and inconsistency with the policies of the LWRP and weighing the relative impacts of those elements, the Project, on balance, was or was not consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. It was the finding of the Committee, by a vote of five to two, that, on balance, the Project was consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 10 � 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-2001 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_2001-03-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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/faabc9a8ebd956c3950b863d8c51fd91.pdf 593e4725baeb462657c25ad9a8affe60 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING April 4, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. RECEIVED Present: APP f 9 ?flfl1 Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Donald Stever Doug Maass VILLAGE CLERK None Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti & Associates, LLC) Announcements: None A2enda: a) b) c) d) Minutes of February 2001 Meeting Mr. & Mrs. Welch Kendal-on-Hudson WAC procedures a) Minutes of February 2001 Meeting The minutes were reviewed and the following correction was noted: On page 3, change: "George Lence stated that a number of Policies were impacted by this development. He cited policies 5A, 7D, 18D, 23 and 25." To read: "George Lence stated that a number of Policies were impacted by this development. He cited policies 5A, 7D, 18C, 23 and 25." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0 Stever and Maass abstained). �b) Mr. & Mrs. Welch Sean McCarthy is the architect representing the applicant Sean McCarthy stated that the property is located at 260 Kelburne Ave. He stated that the majority of the work is done to the back of the house. He detailed the 2nd floor addition to the existing one-story structure. He also spoke about the addition of a 4'x4' vestibule Sean McCarthy detailed the interior changes within the footprint of the property He also detailed the changes to the roof and attic He supplied photos of the property and stated that the intent was to minimize the changes to the existing footprint. Sean McCarthy summarized the zoning requirements and stated that all zoning requirements have been met. He also stated that the distance from the immediate neighbor's property is 16 feet. Ralph Gunderman asked about the elevation of the peak of the new gable on the South side Sean McCarthy responded 4'-6". Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant could build on other parts of the house that would have had a greater visual impact than the proposed changes. This was further illustrated with photos of the property The Chair read a letter from the applicant's neighbor that referenced policies 23 and 25. The Committee agreed that Policy 23 does not apply to this application. The Committee discussed Policy 25 and its relation to this application. Sean McCarthy provided photos to demonstrate the visual impact to the Hudson River. Ralph Gunderman stated that he visited the property and makes a motion to find consistency with the LWRP. Doug Maass stated that the LWRP does not cover views from private property and seconded. It was unanimous Ralph Gunderman stated that the Committee's jurisdiction should be discussed. Don Stever stated that any Village Board that required a LWRP consistency determination must refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 4, 2001 2 �The Chair stated that every project should not be referred to the Committee He also stated that there should be criteria for referring an applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee c) Kendal-on-Hudson The Chair stated that Jerome Fine (Village Engineer) will further clarify any Engineering questions that the Committee might have. Jerome Fine first discussed the sewage concerns He summarized the flow of sewage from Phelps Hospital, Sleepy Hollow Manor and part of Philipse Manor. He also stated that the pumping station is located at Hunter Ave. and Riverside Ave. Jerome Fine stated that there is plenty of sewer capacity at the Kingsland and Fremont section. He stated that Kendal would increase the pumping station to accommodate the increased capacity. Don Stever stated that there are problems with the sewer lines currently. He also stated that without these sewer improvements by Kendal, and without fixing the current problem, it would worsen. Jerome Fine discussed the proposed sewer repair procedure that involves inserting a plastic sleeve into the existing clay pipe and expanding it. George Lence asked if there were any options for bypassing Sleepy Hollow Manor. Jerome Fine responded that there were three options. (1) To go along the westside of Sleepy Hollow Manor. This was not accessible due to the rocks and the cliff. (2) To go along Route 9. This was also not used because there are too many obstacles (utilities, etc.) (3) To go through the manor using the existing sewer system. The Chair asked how much capacity is being used. Jerome Fine responded 50%. Terrance McGlynn asked what is the peak flow. Jerome Fine responded that the calculations assumed all peaks from the Manors, Phelps Hospital, Kendal and IBM George Lence asked if there is any documentation on the sewer capacity. Jerome Fine responded that there are reports submitted by the applicant. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 4, 2001 3 �Karin Adir asked about the proposed pumping station that would pump sewage off-hours. There was an open discussion on the proposed pumping station. Doug Maass asked if the pumping station would be increased. Jerome Fine responded no The pumps would have a larger capacity and an emergency generator would be added The Chair read previously submitted documents that the applicant would be pumping stored sewage off-hours Andy Tung stated that although moving the tie-in will not impact the sewage system, Kendal will still have the option to pump the sewage off-hours The Chair asked how would this be determined. Jerome Fine responded visually by the Village DPW. He also stated that the system could handle the increased capacity with the proposed improvements. Karin Adir asked about rainwater and its impact to the sewer system. Jerome Fine discussed sanitary sewers and storm water sewers. The Chair asked if there was a full commitment from the County on the sewage improvements. Jerome Fine responded not 100%. Jerome Fine detailed the water system through Sleepy Hollow and how Kendal expects to tie-in. The Chair asked if the Northern Loop was set to be done. Jerome Fine responded yes. Jerome Fine discussed in detail how the Kendal tie-in will increase water pressure to Sleepy Hollow Manor. There was an open discussion on the Committee's recommendation process. It was determined that the Waterfront Advisory Committee and SEQRA process would be brought to the lead agency (Village Board of Trustees) for their advice. The Committee voted not to hear any public comments (4-3). Al DelBello stated that the applicant would meet with the Board of Trustees at their next meet i ng/worksession. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 4, 2001 4 �d) WAC Procedures There was an open discussion on the Waterfront Advisory Committee's role with the SEQRA process as well as the Committee's procedures with regards to smaller projects. It was agreed that a procedural agreement would be sent to the Board of Trustees. There was an open discussion on a possible application fee for the Waterfront Advisory Committee Other Topics: None Adjourn at 11:01 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 4,2001 5 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Addition to Residence at 260 Kelburne Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on April 4, 2001, a proposed addition to the residence of Mr. Robert Welch located at 260 Kelburne Avenue (the "Project"). The review of the Project by the Committee came in response to a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Robinson, which asserted that the Project violated a number of the policies under the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"). The Plans for the Project were provided to the Committee by Mr. Sean McCarthy, the architect for the Project. Mr. McCarthy described the Project, and he and Mr. Welch, the owner of the residence, responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed construction was consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP and not in violation of the policies thereof. The Proposal The site at 260 Kelburne Avenue is a residential structure that sits high above Riverside Drive facing the Hudson River. There is one other house between it and the River. The proposed addition would add a second story above a portion of the existing structure. There would be almost no change in the current "footprint" of the structure. The architectural plans indicate that the addition will follow the existing architectural style of the residence. Nonetheless, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson have asserted that the Project must be submitted to the Committee and have concluded that it violates Policies 23,23A, 23B, 23C, 25,25A and 25B and should be revised so as not to violate those policies. Consistency Findings The Committee concluded that Policies 23,23A, 23B, 23C and 25 were inapplicable to the Project and that the only Policies of the LWRP that had any application to the Project were Policies 25A and 25B. The Committee reached a determination that the Project was consistent with these policies. Policy 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION. Policy 23A - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT ARE CURRENTLY LISTED ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. �Policy 23B - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. Policy 23C - ENCOURAGE THE RESTORATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS SUCH AS THE PHILIPSE MANOR TRAIN STATION. The Committee has determined that Policies 23, 23A, 23B and 23C are inapplicable to the Project. The residence at 23 Kelburne Road is not listed or eligible for listing on any register of historic places and is not an historic building. Nor is it a site that is of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of New York, its communities or the United States. If the language of these policies were not otherwise absolutely clear as to their scope, the applicable Explanation of Policies explicitly lists the types of historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural resources intended to be protected by these policies. In addition, "[t]he structures of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the Village" are enumerated (although it is noted that the policies apply throughout the Village and not only to these specific sites). The Welch residence meets none of the criteria that would make any site "of significance" for purposes of application of these policies. Policy 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COAST AREA. Policy 25A - PROTECT OR ENHANCE VIEWS OF THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY, AND THE OPPOSITE SHORE FROM THE IMMEDIATE RIVERFRONT AS VIEWED FROM PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTIES. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE. The Committee has determined that Policy 25 is not applicable to the Project, since the location of the Welch residence makes it all but invisible, except to its nearest neighbors and it does not, therefore, make any contribution to the overall scenic quality of the coast area. However, the Committee did give specific consideration to the effects of the Project under Policies 25A and 25B, both of which are applicable. The Robinson letter claims that the Project will obscure views of the Hudson from the Robinson home and from a public lane. The protection of views of the Hudson from private property are not within the scope of the LWRP, but Policy 25A specifically affords protection to views of the River "from the immediate riverfront as viewed from publicly owned properties". The public lane is clearly "publicly owned property" and the location of the Welch home and the lane on the east side of Riverside Drive position the relevant site above the "immediate riverfront". The applicable Explanation of Policies, in citing standards for minimizing scenic impairment and visual access, notes that �"Particular attention must be paid to views from public parks and public rights of way." However, it did not appear to the Committee that the proposed construction would interfere in any material respect with views toward the River from the lane. Such views are already obscured by the existing one-story portion of the home, above which the second story addition is to be built. Similarly Policy 25B is technically applicable to the Project since Philipse Manor, where the Welch residence is located, is identified in the LWRP as one of nine scenic landscape subunits of the Village. However, the residence is largely invisible vithin tbs limits of the Philipse Manor subunit and the proposed addition, architecturally cot vstent with the existing structure, does not appear to obstruct views of the subunit in any signilicant ma;iner. Accordingly, the Committee finds the Project consistent with the applicable polices of the LWRP, Policies 25A and 25B. Richard D. Weiss, Chairm RECEIVED APR 1 6 2001 VILLAGE CLERK � 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-2001 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_2001-04-04.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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/e03fbe0929e4a13ea62b1feae96670a6.pdf e5a3b2c1aa050f088b60c1586d9ded47 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING May 2,2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Karin Adir Doug Maass Absent: Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Announcements; None. Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) Minutes of April 2001 Meeting 45 Amos St. 250 Kelbourne Ave. George Zoumboulis WAC procedures a) Minutes of April 2001 Meeting The minutes were reviewed and the following correction was noted: On page 4, change: "The Chair asked if the Northern Loop was set to be done." To read: "The Chair asked if the Northern Loop contract was executed?" On page 5, change: "It was agreed that a procedural agreement would be sent to the Board of Trustees." To read: "It was proposed that a member of the Waterfront Advisory Committee should meet with the Chairs of the other Village agencies to discuss the referrals of smaller projects." �Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous. b) 45 Amos Street Chris Ghari is the applicant. He gave an overview of the proposed project. He submitted photos of the existing house. Doug Maass asked when was the house built. Chris Ghari responded 1910. Ralph Gunderman stated that there are no relevant LWRP policies except for the policies involving viewsheds. There was an open discussion on specific viewsheds. Ralph Gunderman stated that the LWRP is not limited to views from public property. It was unanimous that the application is consistent with the LWRP. The Chair stated that a letter would be sent with the Committee's recommendations. c) 250 Kelbourne Ave. Andrew Ward is representing this application. He gave an overview of the proposed project. He stated that the elevation would be the same as the current elevation. He also stated that he is not building towards his neighbor's property. The Chair stated that Philipse Manor is one of the viewsheds in the LWRP. Andrew Ward responded that the addition is not visible from the street. Doug Maass asked if a plot plan was available. Andrew Ward submitted a plot plan for the Committee to review. The Chair asked if any members had any other questions. Ralph Gunderman stated that this application is not relevant to the LWRP. The Chair responded that policy 25b would be applicable but since the proposed work is not visible from the street, there is no impact. It was unanimous that the application is consistent with the LWRP. d) George Zoumboulis/Horseman Diner George Zoumboulis is representing this application. He stated that a new awning was Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, May 2,2001 2 �recently installed at the diner and the owner wants to add the words " and pizza" to the awning. Ralph Gunderman asked if the Committee has any jurisdiction for a sign. The Chair responded that it is covered under policy l(k). The Chair asked which Village Board has jurisdiction over signs. Jim Margotta responded the ARB. It was unanimously determined that there is no negative impact. The Chair stated that the Committee's advice would be sent to the ARB. Other Topics: The Chair stated that all Boards will be notified that in order to refer an item to the Waterfront Advisory Committee, they must cite the applicable LWRP policy that is relevant. George Lence asked when would an applicant fill out a Coastal Assessment Form. Jim Margotta responded that it is filled out for the Planning Board only. There was an open discussion on the zoning code for McMansions. There was an open discussion whether or not to accept public comments. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to allow public comments with the following conditions: 1) speak only once 2) limit to 3 minutes 3) time limit can be extended by the Committee 4) Chair will make a determination at the beginning of the public comment period on the length of the comment period. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous. The Chair will send a letter to the other Village Boards on the Waterfront Advisory Committee's guidelines as stated above. Adjourn at 9:35 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio • Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, May 2,2001 3 � 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-2001 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_2001-05-02.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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/f13366ddcc2cc0945aba8dd1a9b28515.pdf 4e1ed0c0d35f605b57afa81e35ae7632 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING June 13, 2001 ^7^/u-L^^^ A V^-ftls-^C ^^t>0^ The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Donald Stever Doug Maass RECEIVED JUL t 1 >nm VILLAGE CLERK None Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti & Associates, LLC) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of May 2001 Meeting b) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of May 2001 Meeting The Chair stated that the minutes were not received. They will be reviewed at the next meeting. b) Kendal-on-Hudson Andrew Tung is representing the applicant. He will discuss the proposed revisions. The topics are: 1) affordability 2) Landscaping. 3) Storm water management. He discussed the size, scale and density of the project. He also stated that the buildings would follow the design of the slope. The buildings originally were proposed to range from 2 to 7 stories tall. The building heights were reduced to be less visible. They will now be 2 to 5 stories tall. He stated that the top level of the Commons and Center buildings are to be removed. Andy Tung discussed different views of the proposed project changes. He also discussed the open views of the Hudson River from the James House. �Andy Tung also stated that the project has eliminated 16 units. This will result in an approximate 2-5% reduction in water and sewer requirements. Don Stever stated that the changes are a direct result of the Mayor and Board of Trustees comments. He stated that there are other alterations that could be mentioned. They are storm water management, sewage, existing tree quality, what will be preserved as a wooded buffer. He also stated that the wooded buffer must be maintained by the hospital. Ralph Gunderman asked what improvements have been proposed to the Village water and sewer systems. Andy Tung illustrated via a map of the Village sewer system. He discussed the four main lined labeled A through D. He discussed the conditions and fixes for the system. He stated that there are four contributing groups to the flow station. He stated that Kendal would contribute 12-15% to the sewer system. He discussed the A-C route via Kingsland Ave. and the D route via Fremont Ave. Andy Tung stated that the sewer fix would be accomplished in two efforts via Kendal and Westchester County. George Lence asked if this was documented. Jerome Fine stated that the contract is informally expected to be completed in Sleepy Hollow in Spring 2002. The work is currently being performed in Yonkers. Karin Adir asked if the Kendal sewer work is contingent with Westchester County's work. Andy Tung responded no. He stated that it is independent. He also stated that improvements to the pumps are needed. An emergency generator is needed for pumping station as part of the municipal sewer system. He stated that the proposed Kendal improvement to the Village is estimated to be $300,000. George Lence asked about the total number of gallons that comes down through Kingsland. Jerome Fine responded that 114 gallons/minute would be from Kendal and 250 gallons/minutes from Phelps hospital. He stated that the residents produce a small amount. Jerome Fine also stated that the current daily flow is not known exactly at this time. He stated that the worst case scenario from IBM, Kendal, Phelps and residents would be 856 gallons/minute. He discussed the improvements to widen the sewer system and the pumping station. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Art McKinley asked about the hospital and IBM's future growth. He also asked about the odors from the pumping station. Jerome Fine responded that the pumps are very quick. He also stated that he was not aware of any odors. He stated that they are adding extra capacity for the expansion of the hospital and the IBM site. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting. June 13,2001 2 �Ralph Gunderman asked about the increased storm water and how it would be mitigated. Andy Tung spoke about how the holding basin would somewhat mitigate the run-off. He detailed how Kendal would control the additional volume. Kendal will provide retention basins. He also stated that the peak rate would be the same as before. Ralph Gunderman asked about the measurements of natural residues for car and machinery residue. Andy Tung responded that there is no way to calculate the petroleum waste. Doug Maass asked what happens to the Calcium Chloride for snow removal. Andy Tung responded that it would be deposited in the basins. The storm water discharge will be monitored by the DEC. Doug Maass stated that it is a safety concern and needs a back-up system. Andy Tung responded that it is the responsibility of the site to clean basins. Doug Maass asked if the central heating plant was fueled by oil. Andy Tung responded yes. George Lence asked what other public benefits are there from this project besides a $300,000 sewer system. The Chair stated that the PILOT program has been resolved. Al DelBello discussed the PILOT program. George Lence asked what is the Village's recourse if there is a sewage problem. Al DelBello responded that it is not a private sewer system. The Chair stated that Kendal should pay taxes for the public's benefit. Andy Tung responded that there is no school system impact. He also stated that there are no municipal services except for police and fire. Doug Maass asked to hear more CCRC benefits. David Jones responded that seniors could help middle school and teenagers as a grandparent role. He also stated that there are other programs to involve seniors in the community. The Chair and Don Stever stated that they wanted to examine the materials further. The Chair stated that they would invite public comments. It will be limited to 3 minutes per person. Tim Murphy spoke. He stated that Kendal is demanding a great deal of Village and the environment. He also stated that only 6 Sleepy Hollow residents will reside at Kendal. Art McKinley spoke. He stated that the proposal of Scenic Hudson was to relocate this to a site East of the Hudson. Don Stever responded that the Board of Trustees would address the applicant's supplemental alternative. He also stated that the submissions are public documents. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 13,2001 3 �Art McKinley stated that the project violated the current zoning code and the LWRP. He also stated that the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association votes in majority against the project. Jim Lehr asked if the project could be scaled back. He also asked if Kendal sewage could be collected at the pump station. Jerome Fine responded that there is no need to store it. Jim Lehr stated that there are questions that are still unanswered. He also asked what was the attraction to Sleepy Hollow. Karin Adir stated that the applicant has taken into account the Village's comments. She also stated that the applicant is trying to address the Village's concerns. Ralph Gunderman stated that the Committee should examine and vote on each policy for consistency with the LWRP. Art McKinley read a letter from Edward Barrows of the Westchester County Planning Board. He also read several LWRP policies that conflict with this project. He also stated that the steep slopes impair the scenic value. End of public comments. The Chair stated that the Committee would have ongoing discussions on several issues. He also stated that the proposal before the Committee would be reviewed and that the process stops due to the July 17, 2001 decision. Other Topics: The minutes for May 2001 were not available. They will be reviewed at the next meeting. The next meeting will be a Special meeting to be held on Monday, June 18,2001 at 8:00pm. Adjourn at 10:20 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 13,2001 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-2001 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_2001-06-13.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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/0c4909a01198bb49825493a583cd79ff.pdf 86720fea3d6545ce27fe14ef50868af4 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING June 18,2001 r^7? The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Donald Stever Doug Maass RECEIVED JUL 1 1 > w VILLAGE CLERK None ^\lsp Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Scruff/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti & Associates, LLC/Village Engineer) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of May 2001 Meeting b) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of May 2001 Meeting The minutes were reviewed and the following correction was noted: On page 2, change: "Ralph Gunderman stated that the LWRP is not limited to views from public property." To read: "Ralph Gunderman stated that the LWRP is limited to views from public property." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (4-0 Stever and McGlynn abstained. Adir not present). S£o2* �Dave Smith spoke about the Lincoln Study Grant. He stated that it calls for the formation of a task force. It would involve three public meetings around the end of July. Ralph Gunderman asked about the mission of the task force. Dave Smith stated that it relates to the GM site and how it relates to the inner Village. He stated that the task force would recommend height requirements, etc. Ralph Gunderman asked if the task force would review the work of the Village Planner. Dave Smith responded yes. The Chairman suggested that members of the Architectural Review Board and Waterfront Advisory Committee be put on the task force. It was agreed that the entire Waterfront Advisory Committee should not be on the task force due to possible conflicts of interest. Ralph Gunderman stated that if it were a joint committee between the different Village Boards, he would be interested. The Chair stated that he would like to limit the membership to one member from the Waterfront Advisory Committee. b) Kendal-on-Hudson The Chair stated that the Committee will go through the LWRP for consistency review one policy at a time. 1) Policy 5 Ralph Gunderman asked if there was one connection to be made through Kendal to connect the new water supply loop. Dave Smith responded yes. He also stated that it is the second connection. The Chair asked about the new sewer liner that is to be used. Jerome Fine responded that the product to be used is HDPE (High Density Polyethylene). He stated that it is being used all over the County and it has been available for 20 years. Ralph Gunderman asked if the sewer work is split between the County and Kendal, can the County make repairs without Kendal. Jerome Fine responded no. The Chair asked who would perform the work. Jerome Fine responded that a contractor would perform the work. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 2 �2) Policy 5(a)Ralph Gunderman asked if there would be access to the CCRC through Route 9. Dave Smith explained the proposed entrance to the CCRC. He also stated that the applicant has committed to making a dedicated right-hand turn lane. George Lence asked about the impact on the Philipse Manor train station. He also asked if there was anyway to prevent residents of Kendal from obtaining a parking permit and adding to the train station congestion. Andy Tung stated that there is no impact. Kendal would have a shuttle to the train station and back. Don Stever stated that the parking permit could also be denied since the parking area is currently overcrowded. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 3) Policy 7(d) The Committee agreed that this policy is not applicable. 4) Policy 7(e) Don Stever spoke about the policy. He stated that the grantors of this property to the State granted an easement since they knew this project was being considered. The Chair responded that the easement was not relevant to the LWRP. Don Stever responded that the State did not object. There was an open discussion on Policy 7(e). Don Stever expanded on the habitat aspect of the policy. He stated that it would improve the habitat of the wildlife in the area by removing the existing fence. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 5) Policy 17(a) Doug Maass stated that over 50% of the area will be impervious. Don Stever spoke about the storm water management. He also stated that the storm water management runoff should be added as a condition. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 3 �6) Policy 18The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 7) Policy 18(a) The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 8) Policy 18(b)The Chair stated that this policy is not consistent with the LWRP. Ralph Gunderman stated that he feels this policy is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever, Karin Adir and Doug Maass agreed with Ralph Gunderman. The Committee voted (4-3) for consistency with the LWRP. 9) Policy 18(c)Don Stever stated that there were no natural resources. Ralph Gunderman responded that he disagreed. Don Stever spoke about the Storm Water Retention program to substantiate his opinion. Doug Maass asked Dave Smith if there were any sensitive resources found on-site. Dave Smith responded that the applicant hired a well-known consultant to look at the habitat, trees and DEC files for rare or endangered species. A report was submitted to the DEC for comments. Karin Adir stated that she feels this policy is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever, Doug Maass and Terrance McGlynn agreed with Karin Adir. The Committee voted (4-3) for consistency with the LWRP. 10) Policy 19Don Stever stated that this policy is either not applicable or consistent. He also stated that the property is not providing access to the riverfront. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 4 �11) Policy 19(d)The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 12) Policy 21(d) The Chair stated that this policy has the same impact to policy 19(d). The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 13) Policy 23 + 23(b) There was an open discussion on whether or not policy 23 and 23(b) are the same. It was agreed that they are. Karin Adir asked if it is within 100 feet. The Chair responded that the James House does not have a property boundary. The Chair spoke about the scale, proportion and mass. Don Stever stated that you cannot see the James House from the Hudson and vice versa. He also stated that the applicant reduced the building heights to minimize the visual impact. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant has taken significant measures to reduce the impact to the James House. He stated that there are costs and benefits to any development. Karin Adir stated that she feels this policy is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever agreed with Karin Adir. The Chair, Ralph Gunderman, Doug Maass, Terrance McGlynn and George Lence stated that the policy is inconsistent with the LWRP. The Committee voted (5-2) for inconsistency with the LWRP. 14) Policy 25 Doug Maass stated that this development would not be as bad as some of the other structures on the Hudson. Ralph Gunderman stated that the view shed is not listed on the specific view sheds in the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 5 �Don Stever stated that more than 30% of the Village is dedicated open space. Dave Smith stated that the applicant submitted an environmental review. He also stated that the hospital has stated that it must do something with the property to ensure its financial stability. The hospital has also stated that without the CCRC, it will build another medical building that is within its current zoning. Karin Adir stated that she feels this policy is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever, Doug Maass, George Lence and Ralph Gunderman agreed with Karin Adir. The Committee voted (5-2) for consistency with the LWRP. 15) Policy 32(a) The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 16) Policy 3 3 Don Stever referred to the applicants Storm Water Management Plan. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 17) Policy 35(c)The Committee agreed that this policy is not applicable. 18) Policy 37 Don Stever referred to the Storm Water management plan. Ralph Gunderman stated that as per the Policy, he finds it inconsistent with the LWRP. Don Stever stated that on any construction site, there will be more runoff than naturally present. He also stated that the wording is inappropriate. He stated that the best management practices should be looked at. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 19) Policy 44 The Committee agreed that this policy is not applicable. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 6 �The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Ralph Gunderman referred to an article written by Scenic Hudson on how some agencies are opposed to this project. He also stated that he has spoken to Scenic Hudson on the new proposal. He stated that Scenic Hudson would not oppose the project based on the new proposal. He also stated that he finds the application to be consistent with the LWRP. The Chair stated that he finds it inconsistent with the LWRP. He stated that the mass and scale are his concerns. Don Stever stated that he finds it consistent with the LWRP. He stated that the applicant has mitigated many of the Villages concerns. Doug Maass stated that he finds it consistent with the LWRP based on the overall public benefit. Karin Adir stated that she finds it consistent with the LWRP. She stated that the water pressure and sewer issues will benefit the Village. George Lence stated that he is changing his vote on Policy 23 to consistent. The vote for Policy 23 is now 4-3 (inconsistent). He stated that he finds it inconsistent with the LWRP. Terrance McGlynn stated that he finds it consistent with the LWRP. He stated that it will benefit Phelps and the community. He would rather see a CCRC built than another medical use. The overall vote was 5 votes for consistent and 2 votes for inconsistent. The Chair thanked the members for their efforts. Don Stever thanked the Chair for his efforts and the Committee for their service to the Village. Adjourn at 10:53 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, 1 LrfffitW l)J /la/^oD Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 � 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-2001 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_2001-06-18.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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/724e0973e9821ff4f2fd1fe7ac60eecf.pdf ec43919bd4a6820ab22dd6701e1ab3d7 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE August 8, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Doug Maass Absent: Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Bob Stiloski (Department of Fire and Life Safety) Announcements: None. Aeenda: a) Minutes of June 2001 Meeting b) Dolphin Fitness a) Minutes of June 2001 Meetings The minutes for June 13, 2001 were reviewed. Doug Maass made a motion to approve as submitted. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. The minutes for June 18, 2001 were reviewed and the following correction was noted: On page 7, change: "George Lence stated that he is changing his vote on Policy 23 to consistent. The vote or Policy 23 is now 4-3 (inconsistent)." To read: "George Lence stated that he is changing his vote on Policy 25 to inconsistent. The vote for Policy 25 is now 4-3 (consistent)." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). �b) Dolphin Fitness Sam Vieira is the project architect. He stated that the building footprint is not changing. He addressed the parking layout via a sketch. He stated that the former used car lot structure would be torn down and re-paved for parking. He also stated that 48 parking spaces are needed and 48 spaces are being provided. Sam Vieira detailed the proposed gym layout with regards to egress and equipment. He also discussed the proposed awning. Ralph Gunderman asked if there were any discussions on pedestrian traffic crossing Route 9 to access the facility. Sam Vieira responded yes but it is the only solution to accommodate the parking requirements. George Lence asked if a left-hand turn would be permitted from the parking lot. Sam Vieira responded that it had not been addressed yet. Terrance McGlynn asked about the maximum number of people allowed under the fire code. Bob Stiloski responded that the number had not been calculated yet. The Chair asked if the equipment would be screened near the front glass windows. Sam Vieira responded that it would remain open. Doug Maass stated that he was concerned about the storm water runoff from the newly paved lot. Sam Vieira responded that the engineer would address this. Karin Adir asked if the sidewalks would be re-done. Sam Vieira responded yes. Doug Maass asked if the parking lot would be lit. Sam Vieira responded yes. Doug Maass stated that he was concerned about the light spilling onto Route 9. Bob Stiloski stated that it would permitted according to the Village Code. There was an open discussion on Policy l(k) and Policy 23. Ralph Gunderman asked about the number of parking spaces needed. Sam Vieira detailed the Village Board of Trustees parking requirements and the proposed fitness Center. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, August 8,2001 2 �The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There were none. Doug Maass made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP with the following restrictions: 1) Buffer plantings are required. 2) No left-hand turn for ingress or egress from either parking lot. 3) Adequate provisions for correcting storm water runoff. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn at 8:58 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Him })Jr Ifodw Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, August 8,2001 3 �4 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Dolphin Fitness Center on Route 9 The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on August 8, 2001, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the development of a fitness center on the site of the former Tappan Motors showroom at the intersection of Route 9 and New Broadway (the "Site"). The proposal was presented by Mr. Samuel Vieira, the architect for Dolphin Fitness Center ("Applicant"). Mr. Vieira also responded to questions from the members of the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed use of the Site would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. However, the Committee's finding was made subject to a number of specific recommendations to Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village") and to the Village's Planning Board (the "Planning Board"), which are set forth below. The Proposal The Site sits at the intersection of Route 9 and New Broadway and has been unused for some time. Its last permanent use was as an automobile showroom. Recently, it was used, briefly, in the filming of a movie. The proposed use would involve conversion of the building into a fitness center with facilities each of its two floors. The fitness center would be entirely contained within the footprint of the existing structure and no significant change would be made in the building's exterior, other than the addition of an awning above the large glass windows and front entrance. The building has already been repainted a beige shade. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave particular consideration to Policy IK of the LWRP. Policy IK - Restore, revitalize, and redevelop the area along, and on both sides of NY Route 9 (North Broadway) with appropriate consideration given to landscaping and scenic viewshed protection, between its intersection with Beekman Avenue and the bridge crossing the Pocantico River. The Committee noted that the applicable Explanation of Policies section of the LWRP identifies a number of sites "as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of the three." One of these sites is "[t]he area along, and on both sides of Route 9 (North Broadway) between its intersection with Beekman Avenue and the bridge crossing the Pocantico River." �The Committee in considering the Proposal reviewed the various standards for suitability of proposed developments, as set forth in the Explanation of Policies section of the LWRP. (Although these standards are principally applicable to proposed actions on the Village's waterfront, the Committee found that a number of the standards provided guidance for the Committee's determination as to the consistency of the Proposal with the LWRP.) The Committee noted standard "d" ("The action should improve the deteriorated or underutilized condition of a site and, at a minimum, must not cause further deterioration".) The Committee felt that the conversion of the Site would, at worst, maintain the existing appearance of the area and that, in fact, some affirmative improvements might reasonably be expected - both visual improvement from the placement of the awnings and the newly painted exterior, and commercial benefit to the Village from the replacement of an unused location with an active business. (See also, standard "f' - "The action should have the potential to improve the existing economic base of the community, and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize this base.") The Proposal includes parking lots on both sides of Route 9, one directly behind the Site and the other across the street where a used car lot is now located. The Committee made note of a number of standards relating to parking requirements. Standard "i" ("Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for all uses. Parking areas shall be sufficiently drained so as to contain all drainage on a site and to prevent ponding. Whenever feasible, parking areas shall be placed at the rear of buildings and/or screened by plantings so as [not] to be highly visible from the waterfront and Village streets") received much attention from the Committee. [It was recognized by the Committee that, as printed, standard "i" erroneously lacks the word "not", which has been inserted in brackets in the text above.] Mr. Vieira explained that the Village had recently enacted legislation applicable to the number of parking spaces required for a fitness center, and that the Dolphin Fitness Center would have "adequate" off-street parking under the new Village requirements. Mr. Vieira acknowledged, however, that the fitness center's parking area sited across Route 9 from the Site currently has problems with stormwater drainage. Accordingly, it is the recommendation of the Committee that any approval of the Proposal by the Planning Board should include the requirement of arrangements for installation of adequate drainage facilities at this parking site. The Committee also noted that Policy IK, standard "i" (above) and standard "1" ("Screening with trees or other plantings may be required for parking and other disturbed areas which are created and are not already screened adequately. A landscaping plan demonstrating that suitable vegetation will be planted and nurtured may be required. Such a plan shall become a part of the approved site plan.") make adequate landscaping for the Proposal a priority. It was noted, too, that Policy 25B makes U.S. Route 9 (Broadway) a viewshed "of local scenic significance, similarly making adequate screening of parking areas a significant concern. Although the parking diagram that was submitted to the Committee on behalf of the Applicant for one of the proposed parking lots shows plantings at the corners alongside Route 9, much of the frontage currently appears to be open to the street. It is therefore the recommendation of the Committee 2 �to the Planning Board that, to the extent feasible, appropriate plantings be required along the street line to provide a visual buffer of vegetation (to be sized and/or maintained so as to avoid impairment of sight lines) between the street and parked vehicles. It is further recommended to the Village that it consider the placement of one or more trees within the Village sidewalk space adjacent to the parking areas, particularly the area across Route 9 from the Site. Finally, the Committee considered standard " j " ("Vehicular ingress and egress, interior traffic circulation, parking space arrangement, loading facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be planned and built so as to promote safety and efficiency.") The Committee expressed concerns over the safety of ingress and egress from the fitness center parking lots, due to the traffic flow on this portion of Route 9. It is the recommendation of the Committee that the Village require that, with respect to the two fitness center parking lots, left turns be prohibited both for ingress and egress. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Fire & Life Safety MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Waterfront Advisory Committee FROM: Sonja Goldstein-Suss DATE: August 29, 2001 RE: September Meeting There will not be a Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting in September. The next meeting is scheduled for October 3,2001. An agenda will be forwarded in late September. Please find enclosed a copy of the August 8, 2001 minutes for the Waterfront Advisory Committee together with a copy of the July 19, 2001 minutes for the Planning Board. Cc: Angela Everett � 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-2001 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_2001-08-08.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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/d72b21e8ec77b88d53197a2aa09bbe33.pdf 6a220eb51c47da1a966e8531a743bec8 PDF Text Text i VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 3. 2001 ' ' Vy^cP lhe meeting was called loordei by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8.04 p.m Piesent Absent Richaid Weiss, Chan man Kaiph Guilder man Teience MeGlynn Kann Adii Donald Stcvcr ^^£?/Vgn OCT | o m WLLAQj CLBRff Doug Maass George Lence Also Present Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of June 2001 Meeting b) Doorley sub-division a) Minutes of June 2001 Meeting Ralph Gundeiman made a motion to appiove the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. b) Doorley sub-division Michael Doorley is the applicant. He described the project in detail. It involves subdividing a large parcel into thiee conforming lots. Lot # 1 shown as a 150 x 150 would be subdivided into 2 lots 75x 75 each I here was an open discussion on the actual lot sizes a number of lots being created. Don Stevei asked the applicant why they were subdividing. Michael Doorley responded because if they ever want to sell, they would have the option to do so. He also stated that they have no intention to sell any lots at the present time Don Stever responded that the Village must assume that you will build in their decision concerning the LWRP The Chair referred policy 23,25 and 25B Don Stevei agreed �Ralph Gunderman explained the role of the LWRP to the applicant Don Stever stated that he does not feel to plot on Palmer Ave. is consistent with policy 23. He stated that the two lots on Highland are ok. He also stated that Palmer Ave. is a highly visible street for the V illage. Ralph Gunderman agreed with Don Stever He stated that the subdivision is inconsistent with policy 23. Don Stever stated that this subdivision could affect property values in Phillipse Manor. 1 he Chair referred to page II- 15 in the LWRP. The Chair asked the applicant if they had any comments. Michael Doorley spoke about Lot # 1. He staled that they are not visible from Palmer Ave. Don Stever agreed. Ralph Gunderman stated that he would vote on what is in front of him this evening. He also stated that he would find more consistency with one lot of 150-foot wide. Don Stever asked if the Miller House is split into two lots. Michael Doorley responded yes. He stated that the property falls between 75 and 150 feet. [here was an open discussion on the traffic on Palmer Ave The Chair referred to policy 23, 25 and 25B 1 he Chair stated that this property is the quintessential Phillipse Manor property. I errance McGlynn stated that he finds this application inconsistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir, Ralph Gunderman, Don Stever and the Chair agreed. It was unanimous (5-0). Don Stever stated that he has no problem with lots I and lot 1A on Highland Ave. with keeping Palmer Ave. intact. Ralph Gunderman agreed. He stated that he has no problem with a 150-foot lot on Highland Ave. The Chair agieed with Ralph Gunderman. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn at 9:08 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DeiVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 3,2001 2 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Subdivision - 247 Palmer Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on October 3, 2001, a proposal for the subdivision of the property located at 247 Palmer Avenue (the "Property"). Present at the meeting was Mr. Michael Doorley, the owner of the property, who responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed subdivision of the Property would not be consistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Property consists of approximately 1.5 acres, abutting Palmer Avenue to the south and Highland Avenue to the north. There is a two and one-half story stone residence and a separate stone garage situated on the Property. The proposed subdivision would create two lots abutting Highland Avenue, as well as one lot on the Palmer Avenue side of the Property, to the east of the remaining portion of the Property on which the residence and garage are located. Each of the proposed lots would have a frontage of seventy-five feet and would be approximately one hundred fifty feet deep, and would be conforming lots under zoning requirements of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Consistency Findings Although correspondence from the owners of the Property asserts that they have no present plans to sell or build upon the subdivided Property, the Committee concluded that, since there could be no other realistic purpose for the subdivision other than to enable, at some time, construction at the site, it was appropriate and necessary for the Committee to consider the proposal as if it presently contemplated such construction. The Committee, in reaching its determination that the proposed subdivision would not be consistent with the LWRP, gave particular consideration to Policies 23,25 and 25B of the LWRP. POLICY 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURE, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITES OR THE NATION. POLICY 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE �SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. POLICY 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS [citing Philips Manor as one of nine scenic landscape subunits]. The Committee observed that the Property is notable as one of the few remaining examples of the original Philipse Manor development style, which consisted of an "estate" setting with large residences on large properties. It was also noted that the Property sits at a sort of "gateway" to Kinglsand Point Park, the Philipse Manor Yacht Club, the Metro North Train Station and the Hudson Valley Writer's Center. The scenic assessment of the Philipse Manor subunit in the LWRP "Inventory and Analysis" section, cites, as the scenic component of this subunit, the following characteristics: "The residential neighborhood is laid out in a formal grid, and appears more open than the adjacent residential development in the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit. The houses are designed in a variety of styles and are set in landscaped settings, with lawns, shrubs and garden trees combining with mature street trees to form a vegetative canopy that screens development from the adjacent U.S. Route 9 and the Hudson River. " . . . The formal grid setting of the residential neighborhood leads to long and wide vistas along the residential streets.... "The Philipse Manor subunit was also identified as part of the candidate Haverstraw Bays Park SASS. The subunit features a variety of contrasting housing styles set in a distinctive landscaped setting...." The Committee noted the comment in the "Analysis of Elements of Scenic Importance Within Sleepy Hollow" portion of the LWRP "Inventory and Analysis" section, that the LWRP scenic assessment had "considered how the many and varied scenic components of the subunits contribute to the aesthetic quality of the Village of Sleepy Hollow." Among the components utilized to identify the "salient characteristics of the landscape" of each subunit are "cultural character" and "views". The LWRP scenic importance analysis categorizes the Philipse Manor subunit as one of the "Identified Landscapes of Statewide Scenic Importance and Landscapes of Regional Scenic Importance", and advises that the identified areas "are afforded protection under Policy 25 of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, which addresses the protection of overall coastal scenic quality." The goal of this protection is clearly articulated in the LWRP: "The Village of Sleepy Hollow is in a position, through the use of their LWRP and exercise of local land use authority, to protect and improve the scenic quality of the identified scenic resources within their municipal boundaries." Similarly, since Philipse Manor is identified as a candidate for inclusion the 2 �Haverstraw Bay SASS (Scenic Area of Statewide Significance), the LWRP scenic assessment specifically includes the Philipse Manor subunit as one of the areas of "very important scenic values of regional and local significance" and eligible for "a significant measure of recognition and protection" under Policy 25. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that to carve away three additional lots from the Property (with the presumed subsequent construction of three new residences) would irreparably impair the scenic value of the Philipse Manor subunit and, thus, would not be consistent with the policy of protection and enhancement of resources which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area (Policy 25) or of protection and enhancement of an identified scenic resource (Policy 25B). The Explanation of Policies applicable to Policies 25 and 25B explicitly recognizes that: "Activities which could impair, or further degrade scenic quality are . . . the addition of structures which because of siting or scale will reduce identified views or which because of scale, form or materials will diminish the scenic quality of an identified scenic resource." Similarly, the Committee determined that such a subdivision would irrevocably impair an historic resource of the Village, one of the last remnants of the original Philipse Manor development, and would, therefore, be contrary to the principals of enhancement of a site deemed to be of significance in the history, architecture and culture of the Village of Sleepy Hollow and the Philipse Manor community (Policy 23). Although no alternative subdivision proposal was before the Committee, the members of the Committee felt that it might be helpful to the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board if the Committee provided advice as to whether or not there might be another possible subdivision of the Property that would be consistent with the policies of the LWRP. After consideration, a majority of the Committee concluded that it could find that a subdivision of the Property that would result in one new lot, with a frontage of one hundred fifty feet frontage on Highland Avenue, would have a far less dramatic scenic impact on the Philipse Manor subunit and a much less damaging effect on the historic value of the Property to the Village and the community. Such a subdivision could be accepted as consistent with the LWRP. Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee B ^r*L U / A> X Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Fine & Life Safety MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members Edward Lammers, Esq. David Smith Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers FROM: Sonja Goldstein-Suss (914)366-5116 DATE: October 12, 2001 RE: Consistency Findings - Waterfront Advisory Committee Doorley - 247 Palmer Avenue - October 3,2001 The Chairman of the Waterfront Advisory Committee requested that I enclose the October 3,2001 Consistency Findings for the Doorley Application for Subdivision of 247 Palmer Avenue. The original has been filed with the Village Clerk. CC: James T. Margotta Angela Everett (original) Michael Doorley � 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-2001 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_2001-10-03.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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/e617f62ca43736ca446d67238f52608c.pdf 0f6c4798c6988387a9663de46c2d41d1 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Doug Maass George Lence Karin Adir Absent: Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Bob Stiloski (Department of Fire and Life Safety) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) b) c) d) Minutes of October 2001 Meeting Verizon Wireless/SMSA LLC Karl Dibble Ethics memo a) Minutes of October 2001 Meeting 1) On page 1, change: "Michael Doorley is the applicant. He described the project in detail. It involves subdividing a large parcel into three conforming lots. Lot #1 shown as a 150 x 150 would be subdivided into 2 lots 75x 75 each." To read: "Michael Doorley is the applicant. He described the project in detail. It involves subdividing a large parcel into three conforming lots. Lot #1 shown as a 150 x 150 would be subdivided into 2 lots 75x 150 each." 2) On page 2, change: "Ralph Gunderman agreed with Don Stever. He stated that the subdivision is inconsistent with policy 23." To read: �"Ralph Gunderman stated that the subdivision is inconsistent with policy 23." 3) On page 2, change: "There was an open discussion on the actual lot sizes a number of lots being created." To read: "There was an open discussion on the actual lot sizes and number of lots being created." The minutes will be addressed at the next meeting since Doug Maass and George Lence abstained. b) Verizon Wireless/SMSA LLC Vincent Savino is representing this application. He stated that Verizon Wireless is trying to install a wireless communication facility on top of 95 Beekman Avenue. He summarized the proposed project as well as the Planning Board meeting from November 15,2001. Ralph Gunderman asked for a visual of what the proposed impact would be. Vincent Savino showed the visual impact of the antenna in the submitted package. The Chair asked about the composition of the antenna. Vincent Savino responded that they would be made out of metal. Karin Adir asked if tenants have access to the roof. Bob Stiloski responded yes but only for emergencies. Vincent Savino responded that the equipment would be locked up. The Chair stated that policy 25(b) in the LWRP applies and there doesn't appear to be an impact. Vincent Savino submitted a letter from the NYS Historic Preservation Society stating that there is no visual impact. The Chair also referred to Policy 18(b) and stated that there is no significant impact. The Chair asked if the Committee had any questions. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant must go before the ARB. Vincent Savino responded yes. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find this application consistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5, 2001 2 �c) Karl Dibble Richard Blancato is representing this application with Karl Dibble. He summarized the application to date. Richard Blancato submitted to the Committee a more final set of plans for their review. He also stated that the containers on the property have been eliminated. He summarized the plans and gave a detailed the layout of the house including the office. Richard Blancato detailed the parking and gate that will surround the property. He stated that the gate would also serve as a screening. Lastly, he stated that the retaining walls are being analyzed and as a result, the grade of the property might change. Karin Adir stated that drainage was an issue. Richard Blancato responded that the architect designed a drywell system and a filtration system to serve as an oil separator. The Chair stated that the rendering of the proposed 2-story building is not included in the plans submitted to the WAC. Richard Blancato responded that the building is in the preliminary stage. He stated that he thought only a footprint was required. He described the proposed 2-story building to the Committee. The Chair wanted to know the height of the building in relation to other neighboring buildings. The Chair stated that the Committee could still approve the application without the 2story building. Richard Blancato responded ok. The Chair referred to Policy l(k). The Chair asked about the lighting layout. Karl Dibble responded that only the front would be illuminated. Karin Adir referred to Policy l(j). She stated no vehicles should be allowed to make a left-hand turn onto Route 9 from the property. Richard Blancato stated that the railroad-tie frontage might also be removed for fear that water might be getting behind it. Ralph Gunderman asked if the oil residue tank is for residue from parking. Richard Blancato responded yes. The Chair referred to policy 25(d). The Chair asked if the Committee had any other comments. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5, 2001 3 �Ralph Gunderman asked about the materials to be used for the retaining wallfrontageon Route 9. Karl Dibble responded that he could stucco and paint it. A stucco style block could also be used. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP without the 2-story rear addition until plans are submitted. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). d) Ethics Memo The Committee reviewed the memo. There was an open discussion on the memo. The Committee asked Bob Stiloski for the existing Village Code of Ethics to compare. It was decided to wait for the entire Committee to formally review. George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn at 8:52 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, 1 ai^uf -^ A ' J.XH^UJJ'^ Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5,2001 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Installation of Wireless Communication Facility at 95 Beekman Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on December 5,2001, a proposal by New York SMS A Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the "Applicant") for the installation of a public utility wireless communication facility (the "Facility") on the building located at 95 Beekman Avenue in the Village of Sleepy Hollow, commonly known as the Van Tassel Apartment Building (the "Building"). The proposal was presented by Vincent Savino, Esq. of the law firm of Snyder & Snyder, LLP, counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Savino 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 Facility would consist of a panel of antennas that would be affixed to a decorative cornice at the top of the Building, facing Beekman Avenue. In order to minimize the visual impact of the antennas, the panel would be painted to closely match the color of the cornice. Related equipment would be installed behind the cornice and would not be visible to the public. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 18B, 23 and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy 18B - TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE SUCH RESOURCES SUPPORT. Policy 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE, ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The nine identified scenic landscape subunits include the Lower Village]. �The Committee recognized that the Van Tassel Apartments are both a striking visual component of the Beekman Avenue landscape and, as a unique residential structure developed by the Rockefellers, a site of historic and architectural significance to the Village of Sleepy Hollow. However, the Committee could find no significantly adverse visual impact from the installation of the Facility. It was also noted that the Village's Architectural Review Board would have the opportunity to review the proposed installation and, if it found any adverse effect, could consider whether any changes were needed to further minimize that effect. The growing need for wireless communication facilities was recognized by the Committee and the Committee felt that the proposed installation of the Facility could address this need without harm to the Village or the policies of the LWRP. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that the proposed construction is consistent with the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Site Improvements at 315 North Broadway Avenue \ / The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on December 5, 2001, a proposal by Mr. Karl Dibble (the "Applicant") with respect to certain site improvements at 315 North Broadway in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Site"). The proposal was presented by Richard Blancato, Esq., counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Blancato and Mr. Dibble responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed site improvements would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof, except that the Committee concluded that, as to one element of the proposal, the proposed construction of an additional building at the rear of the Site, the Committee did not yet have sufficient information to make a consistency finding. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer its consideration of the consistency of that part of the proposed action until further data was furnished by the Applicant. The Proposal The Site is located on the south side of Route 9 along the corridor commonly referred to in the Village of Sleepy Hollow as "gasoline alley". The Site is being developed to accommodate Mr. Dibble's landscaping business, which will be housed in a portion of the structure that now occupies the Site. The proposed action at the Site includes landscaping and grading and installation of drainage facilities and lighting. As proposed, the site improvements would also include the construction of a two-story building at the rear of the Site, to be used as a garage and office on the first floor, and to contain a residential apartment on the second floor. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies IK and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy 5 was also considered. Policy IK - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP THE AREA ALONG, AND ON BOTH SIDES OF NY ROUTE 9 (NORTH BROADWAY) WITH APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO LANDSCAPING AND SCENIC VIEWSHED PROTECTION, BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH BEEKMAN AVENUE AND THE BRIDGE CROSSING THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The �Twenty-Three Identified Viewscapes of Local Importance Include U.S. Route 9 (North Broadway)]. Policy 5 - ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE. The Committee observed that Mr. Dibble had already made improvements at the Site that were a welcome improvement to the "gasoline alley" streetscape, and observed that, in general, the proposed work at the Site would continue to promote the visual improvements that had previously been implemented. The Committee considered a number of standards included in the Explanation of Policies applicable to Policy IK. The proposed actions seemed to provide adequately for off-street parking and drainage, with appropriate landscaping to screen parking areas, consistent with standard "i" ("Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for all uses. Parking areas shall be sufficiently drained so as to contain all drainage on a site and to prevent ponding. Whenever feasible, parking areas shall be placed at the rear of buildings and/or screened by plantings so as [not] to be highly visible from the waterfront and Village streets"). Proposed landscaping and fencing would similarly provide a buffer for adjacent residential properties as contemplated by standard "m" ("When a proposed nonresidential development activity is located adjacent to residences or a residential district, appropriate buffer landscaping, natural screening and fencing are to be provided in order to protect neighborhood tranquility, community character, and property values"). In addition, planned lighting was designed to avoid disturbance to other properties as required by standard "n" ("Lighting facilities and lighted signs shall be placed and shielded in such a manner as not to create direct light to shine on other properties, and shall not be permitted to create a hazard on public streets"). The Committee noted that, although planned drainage facilities appeared to be suitable for the Site, the Committee did not have the competence to definitively make that determination (and, thus, to determine, definitively, the consistency of those drainage facilities with LWRP Policy 5). However, the Committee was satisfied that the Village Engineer had carefully reviewed the drainage plan and found it to be appropriate. The visual improvements for Route 9 promised by the Applicant's plans and the promotion of a viable, non-automotive, business operation in this area appeared to satisfy standard "d" ("The action should improve the deteriorated or underutilized condition of a site and, at a minimum, must not cause further deterioration"), as well as standard "f' ("The action should have the potential to improve the existing economic base of the community, and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize this base.") The visual improvements for Route 9 promised by the Applicant's plans and the promotion of a viable, non-automotive, business operation in this area were felt by the Committee to meet the goals of Policy IK and Policy 25B, and the proposal was thus determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The Committee, however, expressed a concern with respect to vehicular ingress and egress from the Site under standard " j " ("Vehicular ingress and egress, interior traffic circulation, �parking space arrangement, loading facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be planned and built so as to promote safety and efficiency"). These concerns result from the traffic flow on this portion of Route 9. Although the Committee recognizes that turns from and onto Route 9 are within the jurisdiction of the New York State Highway Department and not the Village of Sleepy Hollow, it is the recommendation of the Committee that the Village take any actions that it can to discourage left turns into and out of the Site. In making its finding, the Committee imposed a limitation on its consistency determination for the proposal. As previously noted, the proposed action would include the construction of a two-story structure at the rear of the Site. Although the plans submitted by the Applicant show the "footprint" of the proposed building and contain a brief description ("Proposed 2 Story Building Apt. 2nd Floor Garage/Office 1st Floor"), the plans contain no elevations or other information that would allow the Committee to assess the impact of the proposed building and its consistency with the LWRP's policies. Thus, the Committee makes no finding at this time as to the consistency of the proposed building with the LWRP. The Applicant has been directed to submit appropriate plans for the proposed building to the Committee, when those plans are available, for a subsequent consistency determination. 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-2001 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_2001-12-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 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