1 25 6 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/827bc0ddee0341a70c6bca370563b944.pdf 3d042561711ae3816484ef658df3a134 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 6, 2002 R F P FIV F '» |\jQy - 8 ^non The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. The $hauflt9t£<t;LfcHK that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman RaJphGundennan /Lfy] £jd\^&—^—C^>" i ^ ^ J [ George Lence Absent: f /£/c) Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Doug Maass Also Present: Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The Chair read a letter from George Tanner, Parking Authority Chairman stating that parking rules will be suspended in the immediate area around Village Hall for any Village meeting. Bob Stiloski stated that this is a temporary solution until Tornello Citgo completes paving repairs to his property. Once repairs are completed, Village board members would be allowed to park at the gas station with a permit. Agenda: 1) Gaps in the LWRP coverage 2) CFF Reality 1) Gaps in the LWRP coverage The Chair spoke SEQRA type II actions that are not required to come before the Committee. He spoke about renovations to Pokahoe house as an example. He spoke about the fact that it is being renovated and it is not coming before the Committee although it has been designated by the Village as a local historic landmark. He stated that the property has already been sub-divided so that also would not come before the Committee. Bob Stiloski responded that the sub-division is still in question. The Chair stated that recommendations should be made to the Village Trustees concerning SEQRA type II actions that should be brought before the Committee for LWRP consistency reviews. The Committee reviewed the list of SEQRA type II actions. ^ �The Committee discussed several policies in the LWRP for relevant examples. There was an open discussion as to whether or not this would bring many unnecessary applications before the Committee. It was agreed that the Village Attorney should be consulted. The Chair stated that he would contact the Village Attorney. 2) CFF Reality The Committee looked over the submitted materials. Since nobody was present to represent the applicant, no action was taken. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 8:31 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, <Xv Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 6,2002 2 � 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-2002 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_2002-11-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 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/9caf7fe639864a24ba7454aad6596f74.pdf 244041332612a6400127c8d139a0b8d3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 21, 2002 RECEIVED NOV - 8 ?fW The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 7:34 p.m. The ChaWkAtAPE CLERK that all of the Committee members were present. ^ M _ _ Q Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman KarinAdir George Lence Terence McGlynn Doug Maass Absent: None (ji^2^- lt^r~ /^c^^f^1^^^, / W '/ °f^3 Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Minutes of September 2002 meeting Ichabod's Landing Antonio Rodrigues Revisions to the Waterfront Consistency Review Procedures McMansions 1) Minutes of September 2002 meeting The minutes for the September 2002 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). 2) Ichabod's Landing Bruce Lozito is representing the project along with attorney Henry Hocherman. He gave a brief overview about the site with relation to the GM site. He explained the original planning ideas and their impact to the LWRP. He discussed several previous site plans and how they have developed into the present version. He stated that the residential units have been reduced by 25% and town houses are now proposed. He stated that retail space on River Street has been added. He also spoke about public access to the waterfront. �Bruce Lozito spoke about the linkage study and the concerns addressed by the public as a result of the study. He spoke about how the comments were incorporated into the site plan. The Chair stated that this is not before the Committee for findings. He stated that the applicant is only here tonight for initial comments. Henry Hocherman stated that the applicant has requested a time extension from the Village. He stated that the applicant wants to work with the Committee to reach their findings. Terrance McGlynn asked if some of the renderings shown in the presentation were from the GM site. Bruce Lozito responded yes. He spoke about a possible common road to both properties, which would be an extension of Beekman Avenue. Don Stever asked if the applicant had received a commitment from Roseland (GM developer) concerning the common road. Bruce Lozito responded not yet. He stated that Roseland is not ready to submit yet. He stated that they are not against the idea. He also stated that the property is self-sufficient. He stated that parking is located within the property. He also spoke about access from Beekman Avenue as well. Ralph Gunderman asked for an explanation of the parking and traffic plan. Bruce Lozito stated that cars would park at 90°. He stated that traffic would travel in both directions. Ralph Gunderman stated that 90° parking is not typical. Bruce Lozito responded that it is not a public street. He stated that it is a parking area aisle. The Chair asked if the portion of the promenade that is to be dedicated includes the part of the property that is underwater. Bruce Lozito responded that he was not sure. Doug Maass asked about the life expectancy of steel bulkheads. He stated that riprap should be used wherever a boat will not dock. Bruce Lozito responded that he could change the plan to include riprap. Don Stever stated that riprap should be used on the western edge. He stated that the southern edge could be developed where floats or vessels could be used. There was an open discussion on whether the site must be maintained if riprap is to be used. Doug Maass stated that he preferred the access to the water with the steps. He stated that he would like to see more riprap included in the plan. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 21, 2002 ? �Don Stever stated that access to the river is marginal. He stated that insufficient water (low-tide) makes it useless. He also stated that additional drainage would enhance the existing access and provide a waterfront dependent use. There was an open discussion on boats and other possible methods to access the river. The Chair stated that the site plan is very dense. He stated that it cuts off the Village from the river. Ralph Gunderman asked about the elevations. Bruce Lozito explained the elevations and their relation to the site plan. Doug Maass spoke about the view as they apply to the LWRP. Bruce Lozito referred to 4-50 in the LWRP. Doug Masss stated that River Street has a view of the river. Bruce Lozito responded that the property only borders River Street for 250-feet. He stated that the river is not visible from this portion of River Street. Doug Maass stated that the view that should be maintained is the one at the end of Beekman Avenue. Ralph Gunderman asked about the loft portion (4th story). He asked if the height could be mitigated. Bruce Lozito responded that he would investigate. He stated that it is an integral part of the design. He also stated that they are below the height requirements for a Riverfront district. The Chair stated that the development is too dense. He stated that if there were spaces in between the units, light would be able to get in. The Chair asked if Federal funding is not available, what would happen. Bruce Lozito responded that the applicant would seek alternatives once funding is not available. He stated that the applicant is counting on Federal funding being secured. The Chair spoke about having the lofts restricted so that they are not used as bedrooms. Dave Smith stated that if the Committee provides comments to the Village Trustees by the end of the second public hearing, the applicant must answer as part of the DEIS. The Chair acknowledged Dave Smith's comments. 3) Antonio Rodrigues Sean McCarthy is the project architect. He is representing this application along with Antonio Rodrigues. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 21,2002 3 �Sean McCarthy showed some photos of the present site. He stated that the property has several stone and wood retaining walls. He spoke about the existing delicatessen and abandoned garage. He showed a proposed site plan. He spoke about the parking spaces and proposed traffic flow. Hs also spoke about vegetation and landscaping on the property as well as the proposed building. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board has some concerns related to the flow of traffic. Doug Maass asked if the traffic light would be a 6-way light. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He also stated that a traffic consultant would review the traffic proposal. The Chair asked about one of the existing retaining walls. He asked if it could be made more decorative to mitigate the aesthetics. Sean McCarthy responded that the wall will be stepped down some but aesthetically the walls will remain the same. Doug Maass asked about the loading dock and trash compactor room exteriors. Sean McCarthy responded that they would match the building exterior. Doug Maass asked about the height of the building in relation to the surrounding buildings. Sean McCarthy responded that it would be 10-15 feet below the neighboring buildings. Ralph Gunderman asked what is involved in cutting into the slope for the first floor. Sean McCarthy responded that they would have to be shored-up to construct footings. The Chair asked about the proposed terrace area. Sean McCarthy responded that it would be similar to the other building on the property. He stated that benches and plantings are planned for the area. Karin Adir spoke about recommending that no left-hand turns be allowed into the sir.e. Sean McCarthy responded that the traffic consultant would analyze all traffic information. The Chair stated that two policies apply to this application. He stated that they are policies l(k) and 25(b). The Committee unanimously agreed (7-0) that the application is consistent with the LWRP with regards to policy l(k). The Committee unanimously agreed (7-0) that the application is consistent with the LWRP with regards to policy 25(b). Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 21,2002 �4) Revisions to the Waterfront Consistency Review Procedures Dave Smith spoke about formalizing the process regarding the Waterfront Consistency reviews. Several changes were made to the text. There was an open discussion on how applicants come before the Committee. It was decided by consensus that the applicant of a large development will come before the Committee for initial/preliminary comments. After the lead agency is ready for final EIS approval, the Committee would make an official consistency finding for the lead agency. Don Stever made a motion to find this procedure consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP as amended. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. (7-0). 5) McMansions Dave Smith gave an overview of the McMansions amendment. He spoke about the ordinance in the other local municipalities. Dave Smith reviewed the ordinance. He stated that the ordinance is based on the FloorArea-Ratio (FAR). He stated that new developments would not be so massive. He stated that if two (2) lots were purchased to build one (1) house, the Planning Board would take this into consideration for site plan approval. The Chair asked if an applicant decided to finish their basement, would they have to comply with the ordinance. Dave Smith responded no. He stated that it applies only to what is seen. George Lence made a motion to approve with minor language amendments. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Karin Adir made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 10:03 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ^ A (hi• / - Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 21,2002 5 � 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-2002 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_2002-10-21.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 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/d06242da53ca6af0eaaf0bc8a840676b.pdf 89ca9920a2161cf5cb64db31f77a4706 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 4, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn RECEIVED SEP 1 1 ?0M VILLAGE CLERK Doug Maass Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of July 2002 meetings b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the July 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 2, change: "The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created." To read: "The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created. The Chair stated that any development of this parcel would have to come before the Waterfront Advisory Committee for approval." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Adir not present). b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Vincent Savino is the attorney representing this application along with Vincent Amendola (Engineer). �I D IS IB E 11 V 1 T 2002 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 PI ill OING DEPARTMENT] CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Preliminary Piatt Application- Douglass Hill Subdivision The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") considered, at its meeting on July 10, 2002, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the subdivision of a parcel in the Village of Sleepy Hollow known as "Douglass Hill" (the "Property"). The applicant for the Proposal is the David Rockefeller Fund ("Applicant"). Representing the Applicant at the meeting were Mr. Andrew V. Tung of the firm of Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP, who presented the Proposal, and Mr. John S. Marwell. of the law firm of Shamberg Marwell Hocherman Davis & Hollis, P.C., counsel to the Applicant. Messrs. Tung and Marwell responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed subdivision of the Property would not be inconsistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Property consists of approximately 56.9 acres of unimproved land that is presently open meadow and woodlands. It is zoned R-l. The Applicant wishes to subdivide the Property into two lots, one approximately 33.3 acres and the other approximately 22.2 acres. In addition, the Applicant proposes to transfer to Dr. Peter and Mrs. Carol Zegerelli 1.4 acres of the Property, which would be merged with two building lots now owned by Dr. and Mrs. Zegerelli to create a single building lot, and to acquire from David Rockefeller, the owner of the adjacent property to the north of the Property, approximately one acre in order to bring a driveway now serving the Property entirely within the Property's boundaries. The proposal does not cite any development plans for the Property, although Mr. Tung acknowledged that the two resulting parcels could be sold to developers for eventual residential development. Consistency Findings Although the proposal does not include any specific development plans, it is the policy of the Committee to consider any application for a property subdivision based on the most intensive lawful use that could be made of the land, without further review, in the event that the requested subdivision were approved. The Committee noted that the Property is located in the Sleepy Hollow scenic subunit, protected by Policy 25B and noted that there were other policies applicable to the area east of the Old Croton Aqueduct, where the Property is sited. The Committee noted that the proposed subdivision, by itself, would not have any adverse effect under any policies of the LWRP. The Committee further observed that any commercial development of the Property in the future would require further Planning Board approvals and would, therefore, necessarily have to be presented to the Committee for review of the consistency of that development with the LWRP. The Committee concluded that the only development �action that could take place as a result of the granting of the current application (subdivision of the Property into two lots) would be the construction of one single-family residence on each such lot. The Committee unanimously found that, even if such action were taken, it would not have a materially adverse effect on the Village's Sleepy Hollow scenic subunit (Policy 25B) and that nothing in the proposal or in any action that could be directly taken after implementation of the proposal appeared to be inconsistent with the LWRP. (The Committee observed that, although, no plans have been formulated or sites selected for residential construction, and thus it could not be determined whether any such residences might be visible from the Hudson River, the two homes, even if visible from the River, would not materially impair views from the River (Policy 25A - Protect or enhance views of the Hudson River, the Hudson River Valley, and the Opposite Shore from the immediateriverfrontas viewed from publicly owned properties). The Committee also took note of the facts that Mr. Tung, in his presentation, stated that views from Kykuit would be protected by restrictions that would limit the use of parts of the Property visible from Kykuit. He also stated that it was intended that the trails crossing the Property, which the Applicant currently permits to be used by pedestrians during daylight hours, would remain accessible to the public. As presented, the proposal contemplates that access for the two lots created by the subdivision would be to and from Webber Avenue. However, the Property also abuts a portion of Gorey Brook Road that is in disrepair and, if access to and from Gorey Brook Road for the Property were sought, improvement and maintenance of the roadway could impose a significant burden on the Village and could create a consistency issue under Policies 5 [Encourage the location of Development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate] and 5B [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, therefore, recommended to the Planning Board that, in its consideration of the subdivision application, it fully explore with Applicant any possibility that Gorey Brook Road access might be sought for any part of the Property. Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee # Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 2 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 4,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn RECEIVED SEP 1 * ?0M VILLAGE CLERK Doug Maass Also Present: Anthory DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of July 2002 meetings b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the July 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 2, change: "The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created." To read: "The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created. The Chair stated that any development of this parcel would have to come before the Waterfront Advisory Committee for approval." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Adir not present). b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Vincent Savino is the attorney representing this application along with Vincent Amendola (Engineer). �Vincent Savino summarized thefindingsfromthe December 5, 2001 Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting. He stated that the applicant is seeking a similar recommendation for the application at 28 Beekman Avenue. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant was seeking to install antennas at both location or at either location. Vincent Savino responded that the applicant is seeking approval at either location. He stated that the applicant was referred back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee as per the Planning Board. Ralph Gunderman asked if the application at 95 Beekman would be withdrawn if the application at 28 Beekman Avenue were approved. Vincent Savino responded yes. Ralph Gunderman asked if the coverage was similar. Vincent Savino responded that the coverage would be close but not identical to the proposed coverage at 95 Beekman Avenue. Karin Adir stated that coverage would be needed at the GM site. Vincent Savino responded that this was made clear to the Planning Board. The Chair asked the applicant how this application corresponds to the LWRP. Vincent Savino responded that the antennas would blend in with the existing antennas on 28 Beekman Ave. Ralph Gunderman asked if there were any industrial standards on the proximity to residences concerning the radiation emitted by these antennas. Vincent Savino responded that a Health & Safety report was prepared to show that the antenna proposal would be well below the FCC standards. He stated that this applies to both locations. There was an open discussion on the ways that radiation will be emitted on both proposals. The Chair stated that the previous decision was based on the fact that there was no visible impact. He stated that the current proposal is very visible. George Lence referred to an article from the Wall Street Journal concerning a new technology that could reduce the visual impact on Village Hall. Vincent Amendola responded that he was not aware of this new technology. George Lence stated that he was concerned about having Verizon install an old technology on top of Village Hall. The Chair asked about the height of the antennas. Vincent Amendola responded that they would be 15-feet above the roofline. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 4,2002 2 �The Chair stated that he has a problem with the aesthetics associated with this proposal. Ralph Gunderman spoke about the impact versus the benefits. The Chair asked about the terms of the lease. Vincent Savino responded that the applicant is in negotiations with the Village. The Chair referred to Policies 18 (b), 23 and 25 (b). He summarized the relevance of the LWRP to this application. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find that this application is consistent with Policy 18 (b) and inconsistent with Policy 25 (b). He also stated that Policy 23 does not apply. He stated that his motion is based on the fact that the applicant is not improving the architecture of Village Hall. George Lence seconded. Don Stever stated that it is not visible from the Route 9 - Beekman Avenue intersection. The Chair agreed with Ralph Gunderman. There was an open discussion on Policy 25 (b) and the overall recommendation to the Planning Board. Ralph Gunderman's motion to find the application consistent with Policy 18 (b) was approved unanimously (5-0). Ralph Gunderman's motion to find the application inconsistent with Policy 25 (b) was approved (4-1) (Stever). It was agreed (unanimously) that Policy 23 does not apply to this application. Don Stever made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP based on the positive consideration from Policy 18(b) outweighing the negative impacts from Policy 25 (b). It was approved (3-2) (Gunderman, Chairman Weiss). George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 8:37 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 4,2002 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 RECEIVE crp o L onp •» VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Installation of Wireless Communication Facility at 28 Beekman Avenue (Village Hall) The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on September 4, 2002, a proposal by New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the "Applicant") for the installation of a public utility wireless communication facility (the "Facility") atop Village Hall, at 28 Beekman Avenue in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. (The 28 Beekman Avenue site is hereinafter referred to as "Village Hall" and the Village of Sleepy Hollow is hereinafter referred to as the "Village"). The proposal was presented by Vincent Savino, Esq. of the law firm of Snyder & Snyder, LLP, counsel for the Applicant, with the participation of Mr. Vincent Amendola, an engineer from the H2M Group. Mr. Savino and Mr. Amendola responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee found the proposal consistent in part, and inconsistent in part, with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and concluded, by a vote of three to two, that the proposed installation would, on balance, be consistent with the LWRP. The Proposal The Facility would consist of a panel of antennas that would be affixed to the chimneys above the roofline at the top of Village Hall. Related equipment would not be visible to the public. The proposal is an alternative to a proposal that was made by Applicant in 2001 and was reviewed by the Committee at its meeting on December 5,2001. That earlier proposal contemplated affixing the Facility to decorative cornices on the Van Tassel Apartment Building at 95 Beekman Avenue. The Committee made a determination, at its December 5 meeting, that the proposal for the 95 Beekman Avenue site would be consistent the LWRP. The Village's Planning Board subsequently requested that Applicant consider the use of Village Hall as an alternative site for the Facility. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 18B and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. The Committee determined that Policy 23, one of the policies on which the Committee's December 5 findings were based, was not applicable to the Village Hall site because Village Hall did not have historic and architectural significance to the Village of Sleepy Hollow, as the Van Tassel Apartment Building does. 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 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 Upper and Lower Village, and the twenty-three identified viewsheds of local importance include Beekman Avenue at the intersection with U.S. Route 9.) The Committee, in considering the consistency of the proposal with Policy 18B concluded that the social interests of the Village could be protected by the economic benefit to the Village that would be derived from the project. The installation of the Facility at the Village Hall site would produce rental income for the Village. The Explanation of Policies applicable to this Policy directs that economic interests of the Village should be weighed in considering proposed actions that would affect certain specified areas of concern, such as natural resources and recreation. Although the proposed action does not directly affect any of the areas of concern referred to the Explanation of Policies section, the Committee concluded that the intent of Policy 18B permitted the Committee to take into account the potential economic benefit to the Village that would be derived from installation of the Facility at the Village Hall site. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously found that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 18B. The Committee was, however, unable to conclude that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 25B. Although the Committee recognized that Village Hall does not have any particular historical or architectural significance, the Committee observed that it is an attractive building. Moreover, it is located at a highly visible location near the intersection of Route 9 and Beekman Avenue. The Committee noted that the Beekman Avenue corridor would provide the principal access to the General Motors site, where major development is contemplated for the future and that any adverse visual impact on the area is of concern. Since the antenna array that would comprise the visible portion of the Facility could not be flush mounted (as was proposed for the Van Tassel Apartment Building site), the antennas would rise approximately fifteen feet above the Village Hall chimney, making them very apparent from portions of Route 9 and Beekman Avenue. Although the Village's own antennas for police and fire department communications are visible at their location above the Village Hall roofline. they are less noticeable than the Facility's antennas would be. The visual impact from the Facility was considered significant and undesirable. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of four to one, that the proposal would not be consistent with Policy 25B. After its findings of partial consistency and partial inconsistency of the project with the policies of the LWRP, the Committee considered whether, after weighing the elements of the Project's consistency and inconsistency, the project, on balance, was or was not consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. The Committee took into account the need of the Applicant for enhanced wireless communications coverage and the obligation of the Village, under federal law, to permit antenna placement at suitable locations. The economic benefit to the Village from rental payments by Applicant to the Village was weighed against the severity of the diminution of the aesthetic qualities of Village Hall and Beekman Avenue. It was the finding of the �Committee, by a vote of three to two that, on balance, the proposed placement of the antennas above Village Hall would be consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 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_2002-09-04.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 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/7a441f25b5fb1aba5490300324687d76.pdf 66abf1af2d5826823e0c5fdb416edcd7 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 5,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Terence McGlynn Doug Maass George Lence Absent: Donald Stever Karin Adir Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of May 2002 meetings b) Michael Doorley - 247 Palmer Avenue a) Minutes of May 2002 meeting The minutes for the May 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 3, change "Don Stever stated that he would be removing equipment from the property, which would improve the view shed." To read: "Don Stever stated that the applicant would be removing equipment from the property, which would improve the view shed." On page 3, change "Don Stever made a motion to re-elect Richard Weiss as Chairman. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0)." To read: "Don Stever made a motion to re-elect Richard Weiss as Chairman. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). �Terrance McGlynn made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Michael Doorlev The Chair stated that the Committee would allow the re-presentation of this application. He stated that the Committee would normally not allow an applicant to come before the Committee without a different application. Geraldine Tortorella is the attorney representing this application. She gave an overview of the application with regards to the Waterfront Advisory Committee's previous decision and the current Planning Board application. She stated that she reviewed the LWRP and the applicable policies that the Committee based their recent decision on (Policies 23, 25 and 25 (b)). She spoke about Michael Doorley's report on the history of Phillipse Manor. She stated that based on his research, this house is not one of the original houses in the Phillipse Manor development. She stated that the original house lot was 130 feet x 150 feet. She stated that in 1940, the owner had starting to purchase some of the lots surrounding the property. She stated that the house currently sits on a lot that is 2x larger than any other original Phillipse Manor house. She stated that 53% of the houses in Phillipse Manor have lots similar to the proposed sub-division. Vincent Farrandino is a planning consultant that is representing the applicant. He spoke about his report that discussed the view-shed analysis and the photo simulation of the views that the proposed sub-division would create. He discussed the recent Waterfront Advisory Committee decision with regards to policies 23, 25 and 25(b). He stated that policy 23 does not apply to this application. He stated that policies 25 and 25(b) apply but do not cause adverse impacts to Phillipse Manor. He spoke about the definition of the term "gateway". The Chair stated that the term "gateway" was used only as a metaphor. Vincent Farrandino stated that: 1) Homes built on the proposed sub-division would be the same size as the surrounding homes. 2) There would be no adverse impacts on views from surrounding homes. The Chair responded that the Committee's previous findings did not speak about view sheds but only scenic sub-units. He stated that the Committee agreed that views to and from the Hudson River would not be impacted. He stated that the historical research performed by Michael Doorley was well done. He stated that the Committee was evaluating Phillipse Manor in its current configuration. George Lence asked if there were any similar sub-divisions proposed since the LWRP was adopted in 1997. Michael Doorley responded yes. He stated that on Hunter Ave in 1998-1999. He stated that it was smaller than the proposed lots in this application. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 2 �Geraldine Tortorella stated that this specific site was no mentioned in the LWRP. The Chair agreed. Geraldine Tortorella stated that the proposed lots would not impact any scenic Phillipse Manor resources. She also stated that the applicant would submit to some architectural controls to the limit the types of houses permitted on the lots. Ralph Gunderman spoke about Policies 23 and 25 (b). He stated that the homes on Merlin Avenue and Monroe Avenue were out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that this house on this site with the existing landscaping would be destroyed by the proposed development. He spoke about Figure 6 and Figure 9 (rendering of future development from the submitted report). He stated that the renderings are not accurate with regards to the garage (Fig 6) and the property scale (Fig 9). He stated that he is opposed to the sub-division. The Chair stated that he still finds Policy 23 applicable. Terrance McGlynn stated that in previous discussions, it was stated that the lots might be sold to adjacent landowners to further expand their properties. He stated that the current proposal has renderings of houses. Geraldine Tortorella responded that they are presenting the worst-case scenario. There was an open discussion on selling the property to adjacent landowners. Geraldine Tortorella spoke about identified scenic resources according to the LWRP. She stated that none of the listed scenic resources relate to this site. She stated that this site is not a scenic resource according to the LWRP. She stated that measures could be placed to ensure the landscaping characteristics would be maintained. She stated that after the sub-division, the Doorley's would still have the largest lot among the four proposed lots. Doug Maass stated that Figures 11 and 12 are the same. There was an open discussion on the house renderings. There was an open discussion on the proposed lot sub-divisions. Doug Maass asked about Figure 10. He stated that the proposed curb cut and driveway were omitted. Vincent Farrandino responded that the pictures tried to provide a conceptual view. He stated that they are not perfect renderings. George Lence stated that Policy 25 refers to "protect, restore and enhance". He asked which one the applicant was proposing that the application would achieve. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 3 �Geraldine Tortorella responded that she was referring to "protect". She stated that this sub-division would protect and preserve the Phillipse Manor sub-units. She also stated that the applicant would come up with a landscaping plan. Ralph Gunderman responded that he does not feel that the applicant could come up with a landscaping plan that would maintain the level of landscaping that currently exists. Geraldine Tortorella asked if the Palmer Avenue sub-division was the primary reason that the Committee was not in favor of this application. She stated that if the applicant did not propose the Palmer sub-division, would the Committee approve the application. The Chair responded that the Committee does not respond to hypothetical scenarios. The Chair allowed the public to speak. Pat Pierson (Millard Ave) spoke. She stated hat she opposes the sub-division. She stated that the LWRP was not in place when the original Phillipse Manor was divided. Michael Doorley responded that he could not substantiate the carving of large estates into smaller lots. He stated that there could be one instance or two. The Chair asked if there were any other comments. There were none. Geraldine Tortorella stated that this is private property. She also stated that no variances would be required. Vincent Farrandino stated that the applicant would submit a proposal to place conditions to protect the landscaping and preserve the scenic resources. The Chair responded that the Committee would review the proposal once it is submitted. He stated that the Committee would not comment on abstract proposals. Ralph Gunderman stated that he cannot see any plan that would mitigate the damage that would be caused by the sub-division and potential construction. Vincent Farrandino responded that based on the lot size, the applicant could build a 6000sf house (McMansion) on the lot. He stated that the Village would have no recourse because it would conform to the Village Zoning Code. The Chair asked the Committee for comments. Doug Maass responded that the three lots are in conformance with the Village Zoning Code. He stated that he feels it is consistent with the LWRP. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find the application inconsistent with regards to Policies 23 and 25. George Lence seconded. It was found inconsistent by a 4-1 vote (Maass). Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 4 �Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 9:05 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 �RECEIVED Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 JUL - ? 700? VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Subdivision - 247 Palmer Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") considered, at its meeting on June 5, 2002, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the subdivision of the property located at 247 Palmer Avenue (the "Property"). The Proposal had been previously reviewed by the Committee at its meeting on October 3, 2001 and found to be inconsistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Re vital ization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. Following the Committee's October 3, 2001 meeting, the owners of the Property, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Doorley ("Applicants") presented a Viewshed Analysis and additional materials purporting to demonstrate that the findings of the Committee were erroneous, and requested a reversal of the prior findings. As pointed out to the Applicants at the June 5 meeting, the Committee, in the past, has reconsidered its findings only in cases where an applicant has modified a proposal in order to meet objections raised by the Committee. Where, as in the instant case, a proposal remains unchanged and the grounds for reconsideration are simply the applicant's conviction that the Committee erred in its findings, the applicant's procedural remedy is to seek to convince the entity authorized to act on the application (in this case, the Village's Planning Board) to reject the Committee's advisory findings and to make contrary findings of its own. Nevertheless, despite the lack of any obligation to rehear a proposal previously considered, the Committee, recognizing the substantial time and money invested by the Applicants in developing their Viewshed Analysis and additional materials, and believing that the Planning Board might wish to have the advice of the Committee in light of these materials, agreed to allow the Applicants to present their argument that the Committee's earlier findings were in error. Applicants were present at the meeting and were represented by Geraldine Tortorella, Esq. from the law firm of Shamberg Marwell Hocherman Davis & Hollis, P.C. and Mr. Vince Ferrandino from Ferrandino & Associates Inc., Planning and Development Consultants. At the end of the meeting, the Committee concluded that some details of its prior findings had been in error, but concluded that those findings that the Applicants' Proposal was inconsistent with the LWRP remained valid. 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. Arguments of the Applicants and Responsive Findings The materials presented by the Applicants and the presentations made by Applicants' counsel and their planning and development consultant contend that the Proposal is not inconsistent with the LWRP for various reasons. The reasons articulated include, among others, assertions that Policy 23, one of the bases of the Committee's October findings, is not applicable to the Proposal, that the proposed subdivision (assuming future construction on the proposed new lots) would not impede views to or from the Hudson River, that the Property is not one of the original Philipse Manor development homes as assumed in the October findings, that the LWRP does not have provisions applicable to a "gateway" (a description applied to the site in the October findings) and that, in any event, the Proposal would not impair views of or from the bridge over the Metro North tracks at the end of Palmer Avenue (which Applicant presumes to be the "gateway" referred to in the Committee's findings). It was further argued that the Proposal is not inconsistent with Policies 25 and 25B, because the elements that are believed by Applicants to have led the drafters of the LWRP to include Philipse Manor as one the Village's scenic subunits would not be impaired by the subdivision. Applicants also noted that more than fifty percent of the residences in Philipse Manor are on lots with seventy-five foot frontage. The Committee discussed and responded to the points raised on behalf of the Applicants. It was noted that the Committee's findings were in no way predicated upon any impact on views to or from the Hudson River and that when the Committee referred to the Property as sitting "at a sort of 'gateway' to Kingsland Point Park, the Philipse Manor Yacht Club, the Metro North Train Station and the Hudson Valley Writer's Center", the "gateway" reference was clearly used as a metaphor for the significance of the Property's location. The Committee agreed with Applicants that their materials did conclusively establish that the Property was not, in fact, one of the original Philipse Manor development properties, but noted that the Property, in its present state, had long been a part of the Philipse Manor area at the time of adoption of the LWRP. The Committee acknowledged that many lots in Philipse Manor might have frontages of only seventy-five feet, but noted that such subdivisions predated the adoption of the LWRP and that the present scarcity of large properties in the Manor gave the Property even greater significance for the quality of the Philipse Manor scenic subunit. The majority of the Committee also agreed that Policy 23 was not properly applicable to the Proposal. Nevertheless, the Committee again concluded, by a vote of four to one, that the Proposal would irrevocably damage the scenic value of the Philipse Manor scenic subunit, and was inconsistent with Policies 25 and 25B. 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 2 �QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. POLICY 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS (citing Philipse Manor as one of nine scenic landscape subunits]. The Committee considered, as it had in October, the scenic assessment of the Philipse Manor subunit in the LWRP "Inventory and Analysis" section, which includes, as scenic components of Philipse Manor, 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 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 also noted once again that the LWRP scenic importance analysis identifies the Philipse Manor subunit as one of the "Identified Landscapes of Statewide Scenic Importance and Landscapes of Regional Scenic Importance", particularly subject to the LWRP provisions protecting overall coastal scenic quality. After thorough consideration, the Committee could not conclude that the subdivision of the Property into four lots (allowing the construction of three new residences, and potentially losing forever the distinctive present vista of the large stone house sited in its large open landscaped setting) would protect or enhance the scenic value of the Philipse Manor subunit. Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee RichardD/Weiss, Chairman 3 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 10,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:17 p.m Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Doug Maass Absent: Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Robert Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of June 2002 meetings b) Douglass Hill sub-division a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the June 2002 meeting were reviewed. Several corrections were noted: Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). b) Douglass Hill sub-division Andy Tung is the project planner. He is representing this application along with attorney, John Marwell. Andy Tung spoke about the proposed sub-division plat proposal. He referred to a map that detailed the existing 57-acre parcel. He stated that the proposal would create two parcels of approximately equal size. He stated that 1.4 acres would be sold to Peter Zegarelli. He stated that Mr. Zegarelli already owns the two adjacent lots and the "U" shaped parcel would be merged to the existing 2 lots to allow Mr. Zegarelli to build one large house on the total combined land. Andy Tung spoke about transferring approximately 1.0 acre from David Rockefeller owned property to allow an existing driveway to fall entirely within upper lot "A". �Andy Tung spoke about adding a no-disturbance line to keep the views from Kykuit intact. Don Stever asked if there are any restrictions that could limit the height of structures that could be built. Andy Tung responded that the Village Zoning Code would restrict the height of any such structures. The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created. Don Stever asked if any part of this parcel is visible from the Hudson River. Andy Tung responded that it should fall below the hills of Kykuit. John Marwell stated that the existing trail would be kept as a formal easement. He stated that it would remain open to the public. Don Stever asked if lot A would be accessed from Gory Brook Road. Andy Tung responded no. Don Stever stated that Gory Brook Road is currently an un-maintained public way. He stated that the Village would then have an obligation to improve the road. He stated this would be in violation of policies within the LWRP. Andy Tung responded that the purpose of transferring the driveway to lot "A" would resolve this potential problem. Don Stever stated that the Planning Board should be notified that a restriction might be needed on Gory Brook Road. The Chair asked if the Committee had any questions for the applicant. There were none. Don Stever stated that he finds this application consistent with the LWRP. The Chair agreed. It was unanimous (4-0) that the application was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourn at 8:47 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 10, 2002 2 � 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-2002 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_2002-07-10.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 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/52ed82a9053792e9b4cf2d1ffff0c5b5.pdf 8afd1bac34902b49377ed1f0ac42af66 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 1, 2002 OPCPIVED MAY i 3 ?nn? f The meeting was called o order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Karin Adir Absent Doug Maass George Lence VILLAGE CLERK Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Bob Stiloski (Director/ Department of Fire & Life Safety) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) b) c) d) Minutes of October 2001 and March 2002 meetings Michael Doorley - 247 Palmer Avenue Karl Dibble - 315 North Broadway Other business a) Minutes of October 2001 and March 2002 meetings The minutes for the October 2001 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as previously amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes for the March 2002 meeting were reviewed. On Page 2, change "Ralph Gunderman stated that all views are from private property. He stated that views from private property are not covered under the LWRP." To read: "Ralph Gunderman stated that all views in the renderings from Architect Lee Kennedy are from private property. He stated that views from private property are not covered under the LWRP." �Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Michael Doorley This was adjourned to the next meeting. c) Karl Dibble Karl Dibble is the applicant and is representing this application. He stated that he has experienced some trouble with materials being stolen from his property. He stated that he wants to store trucks and materials inside. The Chair asked about the distances to other properties in the rear. Karl Dibble responded that the distance is 25-30 feet. Ralph Gunderman asked about the overall height of the structure. He stated that the peak is 40 feet. He asked if the gable could be lowered. Karl Dibble responded that the architect added the roof. He stated that there is no reason unless the architect or engineer has a technical reason. Ralph Gunderman stated that the architect might be trying to match the scale. He stated that he would like to reduce the scale. Karl Dibble asked if there were any height restrictions. Bob Stiloski responded that a commercial property has a height limitation of 45 feet. Don Stever stated that it looks better with the gable. He asked where this application was with the Planning Board and SEQRA. Bob Stiloski responded that the Board would evaluate the application for completeness at the next meeting and proceed with the site plan approval. Ralph Gunderman asked about the space behind the proposed garage. Karl Dibble responded that it space would be unused. He stated that the items that are outside now, would be stored inside and secured. The Chair stated that the scale bothers him. He stated that since the 1st floor is 16 feet tall, the structure is a 3-story structure. Ralph Gunderman stated that the scale bothers him also. He stated that he feels it would screen the car repair business next door. He stated that the proposal would accomplish the applicant's goals. Don Stever stated that policy 25-l(j) is the only policy that applies to this application. He stated that it is consistent with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, May 1,2002 2 �Ralph Gunderman stated that it is consistent. He stated that the proposed structure does not block any views. Don Stever stated that he would be removing equipment from the property, which would improve the view shed. Terrance McGlynn stated that the proposed structure is very large. He stated that he agrees with the Chair that the proposed structure is a 3-story structure. The Chair asked about the size of the existing house. Karl Dibble responded that it is 24'x 24'. Karin Adir stated that the applicant could erect an ugly structure instead of the proposed structure. Don Stever stated that he would like to see something nice. Ralph Gunderman asked who would be living in the house. Karl Dibble responded that the house would be rented out. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). d) Other business At 8:34 pm, the Chair made a motion to go into executive session. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). At 9:02 pm, the Committee reconvened. No action was taken. The Committee needed to elect a Chairman. Don Stever made a motion to re-elect Richard Weiss as Chairman. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 9:05 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, May 1,2002 3 �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 At its meeting on December 5, 2001, the Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed 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"). At that meeting, 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. However, the Committee declined to make any finding as to the part of the proposal relating to construction of an additional building at the rear of the Site, since the Committee determined that it did not have sufficient information at that time to make a consistency finding on that element of the proposal. At its meeting on May 1, 2002, the Committee reviewed plans provided by the Applicant for the proposed building and concluded that, with the addition of the building, Applicant's proposal would still be consistent with the LWRP and its goals and policies. The Proposal The Site is located on the south side of Route 9 and is being developed to accommodate Applicant's landscaping business. A structure that now occupies the Site houses the business as well as a residential apartment. The proposed new building at the rear of the Site would be two and one-half stories, with a garage on the lower level to accommodate Applicant's business vehicles and equipment, and a residential apartment on the second floor which would be occupied by the Applicant. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies IK and 25B, the same policies considered principally applicable by the Committee in its consideration of the Applicant's proposal in December. 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)]. The Committee commented once again on the general improvement of the appearance of the Site over its pre-existing condition and the resulting enhancement of the Route 9 scenic viewshed. However, members of the Committee expressed some concerns over the size of the proposed building. Nevertheless, after considerable discussion, it was concluded that the building dimensions were necessary in order to house the vehicles and equipment required for Applicant's business and to provide the residential space he needs. Although a smaller structure would be desirable, it did not seem to the Committee that a smaller building could adequately meet the reasonable needs of Applicant at the Site. The Committee felt that much of the bulk of the building would be screened from Route 9 by the existing structure at the front of the Site and by other site improvements that were part of the proposal that had been presented to the Committee in December. The Committee also noted that, currently, Applicant's vehicles and equipment sit in plain view at the rear of the Site. The Committee concluded that any visual impact on the Route 9 viewshed that might result from construction of the building would be less adverse than the continued presence at the Site of these vehicle and equipment sitting in the open. It was also noted with approval that the design of the building would complement the existing structure. Thus, it did not appear to the Committee that the addition of the proposed building would result in deterioration of the Route 9 corridor and its scenic viewshed. The proposed structure, like the remainder of Applicant's proposal reviewed in December, was found to be consistent with Policies IK and 25B. The Committee did not consider the application to the proposal of the Village's zoning and other land use laws, and leaves determination of any such matters to the responsible Boards of the Village, including the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board and the Architectural Review Board. 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-2002 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_2002-05-01.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 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/6689703bcae308a461b0d08e2bfae603.pdf d5e98f1463a44a0b7d0dba3eda17273f PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 6, 2002 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 1 * / ' / * < * A3-JZ-B— OM^-c^La^- Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of October and December 2001 Meeting b) Knopper property - 2 Highland Lane *«4 •O* ' too? <** * * a) Minutes of October 2001 Meeting The minutes for the October 2001 meeting will be addressed at the next meeting since not enough members would be able to vote. The minutes for the December 2001 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Knopper property The Chair stated that this is an application that would raise the roofline of the property located at 2 Highland Lane. Daniel Pozin is the attorney representing this application. He introduced Lee Kennedy who is the project architect. The Chair stated that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) referred the matter. The Chair stated initially that the application was not applicable to the LWRP but it is before the Committee due to the neighbor's complaints. �Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant met with the ARB in February 2002. Lee Kennedy responded no. He stated that the ARB is awaiting the decision of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Lee Kennedy gave an overview of the proposed project. He gave a description of the existing house layout in detail via photos. He stated that the roofline increase has been kept to a minimum. He stated that he was aware of the sensitivity concerning the roofline and this was taken into account during the design stages. He showed the increased roofline rendering with the Pierson's property. He also showed the Knopper's property on the scaled map of the Village. Karin Adir asked about the total increase roof height. Lee Kennedy responded 20-27 feet. Ralph Gunderman stated that all views are from private property. He stated that views from private property are not covered under the LWRP. Lee Kennedy stated that he spoke to the Department of Fire and Life Safety concerning all building code issues as well as the Highland Lane easement. He stated that Highland Lane is not mentioned in the LWRP. He also stated that the Village does not own Highland Lane. Ralph Gunderman stated that it is publicly used. There was an open discussion on the ownership of the Right-of-Way. The Committee allowed public comments. The Chair referred to letters from Mr. & Mrs. Robinson and Michael Bogin (attached). Michael Bogin spoke. He is an attorney representing several neighbors. He spoke about the Right-of-Way on Highland Ave. He stated that it is public. He stated that on page 280 of the LWRP, it refers to a view shed that is within 100-feet of the Knopper's property. He showed a photo of the existing view. He stated that the visual impact is significant. He stated that this project is not consistent with Policy 25 and will disrupt a public view shed. The Chair asked Michael Bogin to cite exact policies to support his claims. Michael Bogin responded Policy 25(b). He read the policy aloud. Michael Bogin stated that this policy is applicable for 2 reasons: 1) It significantly impairs the scenic view shed as listed in the 5th bullpoint. He referred to map #6. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6, 2002 2 �2) He stated that the house is out of scale with the neighboring homes under Policy 25(b). He also stated that it is an impairment of the Philipse Manor train station, which is a scenic sub-unit. The Chair asked the applicant about the current status of the application before the ARB. Lee Kennedy responded that the ARB referred the application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He stated that at the January 2002 meeting, there was a motion to approve and no second. He stated that there was a motion to deny and no second. He stated that they adjourned the application unanimously until they receive the recommendations from the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Ralph Gunderman asked if the ARB gave any guidance towards the approval. Lee Kennedy responded no. Dan Pozin requested to speak in order to address the LWRP issues raised by Michael Bogin. The Chair allowed him to speak. Dan Pozin stated that the specific view sheds are identified and Highland Lane is not one of them. He asked for clarification concerning the Philipse Manor train station. The Chair explained the scenic sub-unit issue to Dan Pozin. Pat Pierson spoke. She stated the ARB directed the applicant to lower the roof height, talk to the neighbors and change the style. She stated that nobody has spoken to them concerning the proposed changes. She stated that the neighbors have been refused any information on this project. She also stated that this project can be achieved by using alternative methods. The Chair stated that he appreciated her response but the Committee is bound to the LWRP. Bob Joyce spoke. He stated that he has lived in his house for 50 years. He stated that the increased roofline would place windows in an attic that nobody would ever use. He showed views of his property via photos. Michael Bogin referred to a previous Waterfront Advisory Committee decision on Palmer Ave. He stated that no alternatives have been proposed but alternatives are available. The Chair responded that the Committee made the reference to alternatives after the decision was made. Lorie Fox spoke. She stated that she moved to Philipse Manor because of the neighborhood. She stated that the views on Highland Lane are better than the views from her property. She said that there is a lot of construction in the neighborhood and none of the renovations come close to the height of this proposal. She stated that the size and Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 3 �scope of this house is out of character with neighboring houses. Lastly, she stated that the cathedral ceiling is strictly decorative. John Baran spoke. He stated that he walks past this area everyday. He stated that the view is used daily by the public. James Pierson spoke. He stated that once the view is lost, it is lost forever. He thanked the Committee for their attention that they are giving to this application. Warren Groger spoke. He stated that is lives in Webber Park but jogs through the area everyday. He stated that this might set a precedent for other applications. Dave Warren spoke. He stated that the reason that he purchased his house is because of the views. He stated that the views are personal and that they mean a lot to him. Since there were no further comments, the Chair closed the public comment period. Lee Kennedy spoke about the roofline with regards to zoning. He spoke about the panoramic view. He stated that the impact to the entire view is small. He stated that the view is primarily impacted from the neighbor's first floor view. The Chair stated that the Committee is only concerned with street views. Lee Kennedy stated that the new roofline will be the same height as the Knopper's existing TV antenna. There was an open discussion on the sight line impact in relation to the antenna. There was an open discussion on the ownership of the street (Highland Lane). Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant is willing to concede that the street is a public roadway. Daniel Pozin responded no. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn until ownership of the street is confirmed. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Daniel Pozin agreed that the ownership needs to be determined. The Chair stated that if the street is public, the Committee would visit and re-convene. If the street is private, the only topic still in questions is the scenic sub-unit (Philipse Manor train station). The Chair stated that the next meeting would be held on April 10, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 4 �George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 9:42 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, * Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 �S I V E , P A G E T & R I E S E L , P.C STEVESBAHSHOV 4 - 6 0P A H K A V E N U E MICHAEL S. BOOIN ERIC BREOMAK WOUAM B. OlmBCRO ARTHTTH J. JtfOBSON NEW PAtnt D . C A S O W T T Z * Y O S K , N E W YORK 10022-1906 COTTSSK. MARX A. CHERTOK ; ^ E V ^ ^ X A K " T E X E P H O N E : (212)421-2150 SUZANNE JOYCE FACSIMILE: ( 2 1 2 ) 4 2 1 - 2 0 3 3 DAVID PAOET B,HJUH nrnnr-avrrm^s W K I T B PLAINS. N.Y,O«OI TELEPHONE <9t« « a » N 4 4 ELIZABETH A. READ DANIEL RDSEL STEVEN C.HCSSO HILARY SEMEL KATESINDINO DAVID SIVE DAVXD S. YTXDELSON ALLISON WALSH W E B S1TB: WWW *PfUw COm E - M A H ; «prtaw»iprtaw com March 4, 2002 ' ALSO ADMITTED IN N J By Fax (203) 552-2869 And Overnight Mail Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Application of Knopper/Propertv at 2 Highland Lane Dear Mr. Weiss Members of the Committee: This firm represents Mr. And Mrs. James Piereson, Robert Joyce, John Baran and Loren Fox, whose properties lie alongside a public right of way in the same view corridor as the above-referenced project. This public right of way is an extension of Highland Lane and a passage way for daily commuters to and from the Philipse Manor Train Station. Therightof way provides a panoramic view of the Hudson River and distant hills—a view which will be seriously disrupted by the above project as now proposed. We understand that, as the entity primarily responsible for implementing the policies, purposes and projects contained within the village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), the Waterfront Advisory Committee (the "Committee") has been asked to make a recommendation to the Town Architectural Review Board ("ARB") on whether the above project is consistent with the LWRP. We respectfully submit that the LWRP Policies, which were adopted for the explicit purpose of protecting the scenic resources of the Town, including the Hudson River viewshed, require the Committee to make a negative recommendation in this instance. The Current Proposal The above project is located on Highland Lane between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue on a prominent location directly overlooking the Hudson River. The �SIVE, PAGET & R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page 2 application seeks a building permit to construct a second story addition with a 26'-27' high twin peaked "cathedral" roofline. This is actually the second submission for this project, the ARB having essentially rejected the first. At that time the ARB instructed the applicants to speak with their neighbors, lower the roof line (which the architect said was possible) and alter the style. Instead, without any discussion with their neighbors, the applicants have now proposed an even higher roof line and the addition of 2 windows in the garage. Aside from showing bad faith, this revised application demonstrates that the project is wholly inconsistent with the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and, accordingly, warrants that the Committee recommend to the ARB that the project be redesigned or rejected. The project is in the Village's "coastal area", and thus, the Village Waterfront Consistency Review Law (WCRL") prohibits the ARB from authorizing a building permit for this project unless it determines that the project is consistent with the LWRP. Before doing so, however, the ARB must first refer a complete a Coastal Assessment Form ("CAF") to the Committee for a LWRP consistency recommendation. 59A-5.B,C. "Consistent" as defined in the Sleepy Hollow Code ("Code") means "[t]hat the action will fully comply with the LWPR policy standards and conditions and, whenever practicable, will advance one or more of them." Code § 59A-3. This project does neither. The Proposed Project Is Inconsistent With LWRP Policy 25 LWRP Policy 25 requires the "protection, restoration or enhancement of 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." LWRP ni-49. The LWRP further requires that, "[w]hen considering a proposed action which would affect a scenic resource not of Statewide significance, agencies shall ensure that the action will be undertaken so as to protect, restore or enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. 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." LWRP III-51 (emphasis added). Because of its "siting" and "scale", the proposed project will impair and degrade a unique public view of the Hudson River in the Village, and contradict the stated goals of this Policy. The proposed project is within a scenic viewshed listed in the LWRP as "Panoramic Views of the Hudson River and beyond from the following streets:...Kelbume Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Palmer Avenue." Policy 25-B mandates protection of these viewsheds. The LWRP further provides that: [fjrom the above streets...parts or all of the Hudson River and the opposite shore can be seen. The only obstructions �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page3 and discordant features within the views are the utility lines and poles situated along the railroad tracks. Except for certain park lands there are no other locations within the village where such a substantial stretch of land along the Hudson River from which such views can be seen. Thus, the above streets... are very important visual access sites for the public to view [sic] be able to view the Hudson River. Future development actions should be undertaken in a manner that recognizes the importance of this viewshed and provides for its enhancement and protection. LWRP 11-80. The right of way runs between the Piereson, Joyce, Baran and Fox properties between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue, and is apparently an extension of the mapped public right of way known as Highland Lane (which also runs between these streets and serves as a public access road). From the right of way, one sees a panorama of the Hudson to the North and South to the Tappan Zee Bridge.1 The twin peaks of the proposed project would destroy this uninterrupted view, and dissect the river line and mountains into several small sections. But because it is within the viewshed and scenic corridors identified in the LWRP, this view is entitled to the protections of LWRP 25-B.2 In addition, the height, bulk, materials and design of the proposal are inconsistent with the characteristics of the scenic quality of the neighborhood of Philipse Manor, identified under LWRP Policy 25 as being a scenic subunit in which "lawns, shrubs and garden trees combin(e)... with mature street trees to form a vegetative canopy that screens development from the adjacent U.S. Route 9 and the Hudson River. LWRP II71. Aside from obstructing the view of the Hudson River from the public access right of way, the proposed project, because of its height, scale and materials, would be plainly visible from both Highland Avenue and Millard Avenue as well as from Riverside Drive and the Historic Landmark Property of the Philipse Manor train station. In other words, it would stick out like sore thumb. With the adjacent homes facing squarely on the river, at most 23 feet height, the height of the proposed addition is out of scale with these other Indeed, the view from the right of way is barely 100 feet the view at the end of Highland Avenue depicted in the LWRP. " The Committee has recently invoked LWRP Policies 23, 25 and 25B to find proposed private developments inconsistent with the LWRP. (See, e.g., Consistency Findings in Re: Application for a Subdivision at 24" Palmer Avenue, within a protected viewshed, and within Philipse Manor, also eligible for the general protections of Policy 23). �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page 4 houses, and clearly would not enhance, but rather detract, from the scenic qualities that the LWRP mandates be preserved. Taken together, these significant visual impacts demonstrate that this project is inconsistent with the LWRP. Moreover, they warrant a through review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). In fact, we are frankly perplexed as to how this project has progressed this far without even so much as an environmental assessment form ("EAF") being prepared to date. Mitigation Of Visual Impacts The LWRP requires that "within the identified viewsheds and scenic corridors" projects (such as this one) must be designed and constructed "in a manner that will not obstruct the view and identified important elements of that view to the maximum extent practicable." The LWRP thus mandates mitigation of visual and scenic impacts by: • siting structures and other development....back from shorelines or in other inconspicuous locations to maintain the attractive quality of the shoreline and to retain views to and from the shore; • clustering or orienting structures to retain views; • using appropriate scales, forms, and materials to ensure that buildings and other structures are compatible with and add interest to the landscape; and • using "natural materials and colors.. .to the maximum extent practicable in construction such that structures are not discordant with the landscape." LWRP 111-52 - UI-53. In this instance, the identified scenic and visual impacts could be easily mitigated, and consistency readily achieved. If the twin "peaks" of the project roof were slightly lowered to a point below the river line, the uninterrupted view from the right of way would still be available to the public (though it would remain impaired on certain private properties including the Pierson's, Joyce's, Baran's and Fox's). The project would then also be in scale with other neighboring homes when viewed from the Philipse Manor train station. Conclusion In sum, the proposed project does not conform to the policy mandates or design and siting guidelines of the LWRP, and will cause significant visual impacts that mandate �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4,2002 Page 5 a full environmental impact statement under SEQRA. However, by slightly lowering the roof, and thereby reducing the scale of the addition, it is entirely practicable for the project to be modified to comply with the LWRP and SEQRA. Because the project is inconsistent with the requirements of the LWRP, the Committee should not recommend its approval as currently proposed. Sincerely, Mark A. Chertok Michael S. Bogin c: Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor Architectural Review Board Edward Lammer, Esq. P:\4364\Wciss.doc �63/06/2002 12:34 (tfjuz FAX 9146311440302 Nicholas arLcLSheUey ftobinjoyi/ 258 KjtUjurrvB'AveiUAM' SUtpyHoUow, Nvu York 10591 March 4,2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Bcckman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Members of the Waterfront Advisory Committee: We appreciate your careful consideration of the protection of our invaluable view shed of the Hudson River. We have walked along the sidewalks and roads of Philipse Manor since we moved here in 1972. Highland Lane between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue, just a block from our house, has some of the most beautiful and expansive views of the Tappan Zee and the sunset beyond the hills of Nyack. It is a quiet little lane where a baby carriage, a dog walker or an evening stroller are a more likely sight than a car. The views from public paths and roads are critical areas of concern for Village government under our local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. Every Board in the Village has a duty to protect these views. With respect to the proposed addition to the house in the middle of Highland Lane, we would recommend that the roofline be kept to a modest height, no taller than the house immediately to the north. It should certainly not obstruct the horizon linefromthe top of the Highland Lane hill. A decision that allowed a new roof to intrude on the sunset view from this scenic spot would be a disgrace. Thank you for your careful look at this matter. Sincerely vours, ' Nicholas and Shelley Robinson �March 4, 2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: We live (with our two daughters) on New Broadway Avenue in the Webber Park section of Sleepy Hollow. We frequently walk through various areas of the Village, including Philipse Manor, where we can enjoy some spectacular views of the Hudson River. We are therefore concerned about the proposed addition to the house at 2 Highland Lane in the Manor, which is currently under review by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. In ourfrequentvisits to the area to see friends, we often walk through the public access road that connects Highland Avenue with Highland Lane in order to enjoy the spectacular views of the River that are available from the top of the hill on that public right of way. From that vantage point, one has a wonderful view of the river over the current roof line of this particular structure. The current proposal would elevate this roof line so that it blocks views of the river from this right of way. We believe that, in order to protect this view, the Waterfront Committee should require a modification of this proposal. As we understand it, the purpose of the Waterfront Advisory Committee is to make certain that new construction is undertaken in ways that minimize obstructions of scenic views of the Hudson River. If this is so, then we feel that the Committee should reject this proposal. Sincerely Warren W. Groeger Anna Abelaf 58 New Broadway Sleepy Hollow, NY -JO \> �March 4,2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Members of the Waterfront Advisory Committee: We are writing to urge you to either reject or advise revision to the proposed addition at 2 Highland Lane. Highland Lane is a beautiful, quiet lane set right at the River's edge in Philipse Manor. We live about 200 feet from the Lane. Every morning Tom uses the Right of Way from Highland Ave down to the train station. He says that the view from the top of Highland Lane Hill is breathtaking and is the highlight of his day. It would be a travesty to take this expansive view of the Hudson away from the public. As proposed, the height and scale of the house would obstruct the river line and the distant mountains. It would be a shame to lose such a scenic treasure. The views from public roads are supposed to be protected by the Waterfront Board. We are so lucky to live alongside such a road with such a magnificent view of the Hudson. Please do all you can to protect this view. Once someone blocks this view it is gone to all of us now, and for all years to come. Thanks for all your time and all the work you do for our village. Sincerely, �March 4, 2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: I live at 217 Highland Avenue in Philipse Manor, some 150 feet from the house at 2 Highland Lane, whose new owners have submitted a building proposal now under review by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. I urge the Committee to reject this proposal, and to ask for changes in the style and height of the project. My wife and I (along with our children)frequentlywalk along the public access road that connects Highland Avenue to Highland Lane in order to enjoy the spectacular views of the Hudson River that are available from the top of the hill along that road. I also commute to work in New York City, and walk to the train station every day through that public corridor. The view of the river from that spot on Highland Lane Hill is a public treasure not only for us, but also for the Village and the entire area. This proposed construction at 2 Highland Lane is objectionable because it will impair the scenic views of the River from this public vantage point, and also because the style of the new construction (with its high triangular peaks) is not in keeping with other designs in this particular area. The Committee should request a revision in the design so that the new building minimizes any obstruction of river views, and is more consistent with other homes in the immediate vicinity. Sincerely, AMm^m^— David Warren 217 Highland Ave. Sleepy Hollow, NY �Jane Dubin 255 Highland Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 March 6,2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 RE: Knopper Property at 2 Highland Lane, Sleepy Hollow Dear Mr. Weiss and members of the Committee: I live adjacent to the southern end of the Knopper property in Philipse Manor, with similar river views. Like my neighbors, I cherish the beauty of the Hudson River and believe in the mission of the Committee to preserve the scenic resources of our Village. Like my neighbors, I had hoped that the new owners of this property would consider the spirit, style and beauty of the neighborhood when presenting plans for building. In particular, I had encouraged discussion of portions of the plans that would impact the views from public (and private) access points in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, discussions have been held in public forums, such as the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and now the Waterfront Advisory Committee. I would like to suggest that the parties discuss the modifications already proposed by the ARB at its last meeting as a solution to preserving the view, namely lowering the roof line a modest amount. This modification was put forward by the Knopper's architect as possible without jeopardizing the integrity of the project. I welcome new neighbors to our block and encourage discussion among the parties as a way of reaching a compromise acceptable to all. I hope that the Committee and Knoppers will recognize that while improvements to this house are needed and welcomed, the almost unparalleled beauty of the River and River views are not replaceable. Jane/Dubin �^Td? *-6 Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: I am writing to support the request of Mr. and Mrs. James Piereson, Robert Joyce, John Baran and Loren Fox that he proposed addition at 2 Highland Lane be either rejected or revised . I live directly to the north of the proposed addition at 270 Millard Ave. I am concerned that due to the proposed addition's siting and scale, the addition will impair a beautiful view of the Hudson available to all who walk our lovely lane and the right of way above. Moreover, because of its scale, and materials and design, it will detract from the line of houses, of which mine is a part. The scale of the proposed addition will serve to diminish the existing houses alongside it. Moreover, the design of the house is completely out of keeping with the feel and the esthetics of the existing homes. The design is a very modern, and asymmetric and is not in keeping with the existing homes. Based on design, scale, siting and height I urge the committee to recommend rejection or revision of the plans. The neighbors have tried to meet with the applicants and indeed the applicants were directed to meet with us but to date the applicants have decided not to meet. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. Sincerely, Barbara Fink 270 Millard Ave. - ^ � 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-2002 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_2002-03-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 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