1 25 9 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/663f18bda2df0d44469ef9f9995de545.pdf 20d13f3b46b42120c807f42113fb72ff PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE-APPROVED February 2, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:01 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Announcements: Dave Smith spoke about scheduling a joint meeting with the Planning Board to discuss the Lighthouse Landing application. It was agreed that February 17, 2005 at 7pm would be the date for the joint meeting. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Minutes of November 2004 meeting Mario Freire Mounco Construction & Development Corp. Anthony Marmo Other 1) Minutes of November 2004 meeting The minutes from the November 2004 meeting were reviewed. Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair requested that the Recording Secretary e-mail the minutes to the Committee members about a week prior to the meeting when the meetings are spaced far apart. 2) Mario Freire Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. �Sam Vieira spoke about the proposed project. He stated that the two lots were merged due to an error at the closing. He spoke about the proposed alterations. He described the proposed parking layout and the required variances. The Chair asked about the scale of the proposed house to neighboring houses. Sam Vieira provided photos of other neighboring homes for comparison. Doug Maass asked if the parking lot could be restricted to passenger cars only. Sam Vieira responded that parking is proposed for tenants only. The Chair stated that the proposed construction does not apply to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). It was unanimously agreed that the Committee does not have jurisdiction over this application. 3) Mountco Construction & Development Corp. Ken Gentile is the Director of the North Tarrytown Housing Authority. He is representing this application along with Neil Conuck. Ken Gentile gave an overview of the housing needs in the Village. Neil Conuck showed the proposed structure via a rendered drawing. He stated that the proposed building is a 9-story building with a 2-story parking level underneath. He stated that the building would contain 65 affordable housing units and one 2-bedroom unit for the building superintendent. He spoke about the status of the NYS grant application. The Chair questioned whether the Committee could give final consistency findings since the plans are not complete. Neil Conuck stated that the general framework is set. He stated that the only outstanding issues are on the façade, parking flow, etc. He stated that the number of units would not change. Ralph Gunderman questioned the number of parking spaces taken away by the building and the number of parking spaces provided. Neil Conuck responded that there are 44 resident spaces on site and 3 parking spaces for the North Tarrytown Housing Authority staff. He stated that the College Arms have some allocated parking spaces as well. He stated that ½ -parking space/apartment is proposed. He stated that based on the parking calculations, 33 parking spaces are required and 81 parking spaces are proposed. Ralph Gunderman asked about the access to the 2nd floor parking level. Neil Conuck discussed the proposed parking lot access. The Chair asked about the impact of the river views from the College Arms. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 2, 2005 2 �Ken Gentile responded that there are no river views from the street level. He showed the location of the site on the Village map. Doug Maass asked why 66 units are proposed. Neil Conuck responded that the original plan had 75 units. He stated that due to Village concerns, the number was reduced. He stated that the number of dwelling units could not be reduced any further for the project to be economically viable. The Chair stated that LWRP policy 1(i) is applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed the policy. Ralph Gunderman stated that the new construction height should not exceed the height of surrounding buildings and the proposed structure meets that requirement. Sean McCarthy stated that this property is in the R-6 zoning district, which is the densest in the Village. Ralph Gunderman asked if there were any problems with water and sewer in the area. Sean McCarthy responded no. He stated that the proposed improvements to the reservoir would handle the increased demand. The Chair asked why a Coastal Assessment Form was not submitted. Sean McCarthy provided a copy to the Committee. Ken Gentile spoke about the need for affordable senior housing in Westchester County. George Lence asked if priority would be given to Sleepy Hollow residents. Neil Conuck responded that preference would be given to people on the waiting list and current occupants of Margotta Courts that would be moving over to the new development. He spoke about how some long-time residents have 2-bedroom units who no longer need the extra space. The Chair inquired about the vacancies that would be created at Margotta Courts. Ken Gentile responded that there are over 150 names on the current waiting list for a 2bedroom apartment. Doug Maass asked if this development would eliminate the need for senior housing at the GM site. Neil Conuck responded that he did not know. Policies 18, 18 (b) and 1 (i) were reviewed by the Committee. The Committee unanimously agreed that Policies 18, 18 (b) and 1 (i) have been satisfied and that this application was consistent with the LWRP (5-0). It was also stated that any noninterior material changes might requires the applicant to return to the Committee for a reevaluation of the proposal. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 2, 2005 3 �4) Anthony Marmo Anthony Marmo is the applicant and is representing this application. Anthony Marmo spoke about the proposed project. He stated that he needs additional storage for his business. He noted the location of the property on the Village map. He described the proposed changes via the submitted drawings. He stated that the existing garage would be demolished and a new larger garage would be constructed. He stated that the new garage would be double the footprint of the original. The Chair asked about the square footage of the existing garage. Anthony Marmo responded less than 1250 square feet. The Chair stated that under the expanded law, accessory structures do not fall within the jurisdiction of the LWRP. It was unanimously agreed that the Committee does not have jurisdiction over this application. 5) Other It was agreed that the Committee would remind other Village Boards to request specific LWRP policies guidance from the Committee. There was an open discussion on the recent Council of Committee meeting. Doug Maass summarized the meeting. The Lighthouse Landing DEIS was distributed to the Committee members. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:34 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 2, 2005 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 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_2005-02-02.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/b726b246864a9d7781931d433bfef8e3.pdf 7dc49ce019f84288f8ab8e19f94284e5 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED March 2, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:10 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Absent: Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting 2) Lighthouse Landing 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting The minutes from the February 2005 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. 2) Lighthouse Landing The Chair referred to Dave Smith. Dave Smith spoke about the sub-committee meetings. He discussed the recent traffic and transportation meeting. He spoke about some of the parking issues. The Chair asked if Beekman Avenue would be widened. Dave Smith spoke about a few of the design options. Jonathan Stein (Roseland) stated that some traffic options were discussed at the sub-committee meeting because the options can help the Village’s existing traffic flow. �Ralph Gunderman spoke about some of the traffic delay times that are listed in the DEIS. Jonathan Stein stated that he is not prepared to discuss the traffic calculations listed in the DEIS because the traffic consultant was not present. There was an open discussion on the build and no-build statistics. Mark Weingarten (Roseland’s zoning counsel) stated that the proposed traffic increase data used to calculate the traffic growth rate in the Village was 2%/year. Jonathan Stein stated that based on the data received from the Village’s and Roseland’s traffic consultants, the Village’s traffic growth over the last 14 years has been only 2% in total. The DEIS estimated a 20% growth over the next 10 years. The Chair referred to the public for comments. Jeffrey Anzavino (Scenic Hudson) summarized his letter (attached). Victor Tafur (Riverkeeper) commended the Village on the thoroughness of its LWRP. He noted three policies that apply to this application. They are policy 1(h), 21 (c) and 22 (a). He stated that policy 1(h) discussed water-dependent uses and there are no water-dependent uses in the DEIS. He referred to page 235 of the LWRP that discussed water-dependent recreational uses. There were no other public comments. The Chair stated that the most effective way to proceed with this application was to review each policy individually. Policy 1 The Committee reviewed policies 1, 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h), 1(i), 1(j) and 1(k). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 1, 1(a), 1(f), 1(g), and 1(h) were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(i), 1(j), and 1(k) were not applicable to this application. The Chair spoke about the reference of water related and water dependent uses. He stated that the proposed fishing pier is the only water-dependent use in the plan. Jonathan Stein spoke about how the parcel’s recreational use was view comprehensively. The Chair stated that he would like to see more water-dependent uses at the waterfront. Doug Maass strongly agreed. Jonathan Stein stated that the applicant would endorse other Village waterfront recreational uses. He stated that the plan is only a draft. He stated that the Village should make APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 2 �recommendations on potential uses and the applicant will respond. Ralph Gunderman noted inconsistency with policy 1(h). He stated that the proposal is too dense and does not keep with the existing character of the Village. Jonathan Stein stated that the proposal is based on the linkage study and the RF district zoning code. He stated that the analysis was done on the inner Village. He noted that the density of the inner Village is 15.6 units/acre and the proposal is 15.5 units/acre. He also stated that the density numbers do not include the large apartment buildings located in the inner Village. Ralph Gunderman stated that he would like to see a reduction in the scaling and massing. The Chair noted that although the exteriors are different, the buildings still give a massing effect. Jonathan Stein reviewed the overall plan. He stated that the building density proposed 36 acres of the 94 acres to be saved for open space. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 1, 1(a), 1(f) and 1(g) were consistent with the LWRP. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant should create a shuttle to run up and down Beekman Avenue. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 1(h) was not consistent with the LWRP. Policy 2 The Committee reviewed policies 2 and 2(a). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 2 and 2(a) were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 2 and 2(a) were not consistent with the LWRP. Jonathan Stein asked if the Committee approved of the fishing pier proposal. The Committee agreed that the pier should not be eliminated but that the applicant should provide more water-dependent recreational activities. Policy 3 The Committee reviewed policy 3. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 3 was not applicable to this application. Policy 4 The Committee reviewed policy 4. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 4 was not applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 3 �Policy 5 The Committee reviewed policies 5, 5(a) and 5(b). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 5 and 5(a) were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 5(b) was not applicable to this application. Ralph Gunderman thought that the proposal would benefit without the train station. He stated that shuttles to the Tarrytown and Philipse Manor train stations would help. Mark Weingarten stated that the proposed mixed-use is the least impacting use on traffic that could be developed. George Lence asked about the reference to “sufficient funding” for the train station. Jonathan Stein spoke about possible public and private funding sources. He stated that efforts to securing funding would proceed if Metro-North allows the train station to be built. He stated that Metro-North has not made a decision regarding the train station as of yet. George Lence asked when the development is expected to be fully occupied. Jonathan Stein responded that they expect phased occupancy starting in 2007 and being fully occupied by 2012. George Lence asked about water impacts based on the Village’s current reservoir capacity. Dave Smith spoke about the Westchester County requirement to increase the Village’s water storage capacity. He stated that the Village must be able to accommodate its current users. Jonathan Stein stated that the reservoir is only used for water storage. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 5 and 5(a) were not consistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass asked if there were any plans to increase the gas usage. Jim Derito (Divney, Tung, Schwalbe) responded no. Policy 6 The Committee reviewed policy 6. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 6 was not applicable to this application. Policy 7 The Committee reviewed policies 7, 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d) and 7(e). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 7, 7(a), 7(c) and 7(e) were not applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 7(b) and 7(d) were applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 4 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 7(b) and 7(d) were consistent with the LWRP. Policy 8 The Committee reviewed policies 8, 8(a) and 8(b). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 8 and 8(a) were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 8(b) was not applicable to this application. There was an open discussion on how decreasing the amount of impervious area would decrease the amount of pollutants. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 8 and 8(a) were consistent with the LWRP. Policy 9 The Committee reviewed policy 9. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 9 was applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that based on policy 1(h) and other general discussions regarding waterfront recreational uses, policy 9 was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Committee discussed the size and location of the proposed fishing pier. Ralph Gunderman recommended that the pier be as capacious as possible. There was an open discussion on the size of the proposed fishing pier. Policy 10 The Committee reviewed policy 10. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 10 was not applicable to this application. Policy 11 The Committee reviewed policy 11. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 11 was applicable to this application. Doug Maass asked about the elevations of the proposed structures. Jim Derito stated that there is a little differential between the Hudson River elevation and the elevation of the proposed structures. Doug Maass asked if basements are proposed. Jim Derito responded no. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 11 was consistent with the LWRP. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 5 �Policy 12 The Committee reviewed policy 12. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 12 was not applicable to this application. It was agreed by the Committee and the applicant that a special session would be held on March 15, 2005 at 7pm to continue the LWRP consistency review of this application. George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 10:32 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 6 � 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-2005 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_2005-03-02.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/016bd76888d7d393fcf2a9b95bf85698.pdf 9dfc18d4d1a3c31fb740b236141b2339 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED March 15, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 7:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman George Lence Absent: None Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dwight Douglas (Village Administrator/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting 2) Lighthouse Landing 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting The minutes from the February 2005 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) (Lence, Adir not present). 2) Lighthouse Landing The Chair asked the applicant if there was any additional information to be presented. Jonathan Stein responded no. The Committee continued this application with the review of policy 13. Policy 13 The Committee reviewed policies 13, 13a, and 13b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13 was not applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed policy 13a. �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13a was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that additional reinforcement would be needed for the bulkhead. Andy Tung responded that it is generally in good condition. The Chair asked if the applicant would repair the bulkhead. Andy Tung responded yes. There was an open discussion on the life expectancy of the riprap for a new construction project. Don Stever responded that typical life expectancy is 30 years. Andy Tung showed photos from the DEIS indicating where riprap is proposed. The Committee agreed that policy 13a was conditionally consistent with this application. The Committee indicated that the applicant must make all necessary repairs. The Committee reviewed policy 13b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13b was applicable to this application. Jonathan Stein referred to public comments regarding having the proposed stairs treated for ice build-up. Dave Smith spoke about possibly providing a boathouse near Kingsland Point Park. He spoke about other water-dependent uses. Dwight Douglas stated that he would like to get the Committee’s recommendations for waterdependent uses. Don Stever stated that policy 13b is conditionally consistent based on what the applicant is proposing and how the applicant plans to protect the activity. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13b was conditionally consistent with this application. Policy 14 The Committee reviewed policy 14. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 14 was applicable to this application. Don Stever asked if the sloped streets would increase the potential for erosion. He also asked if the proposal would increase the flooding of the Pocantico River. He also asked about the calculations used for the 100-year flood. Andy Tung stated that the lowest structure was at an elevation of 11-feet. He stated that the freeboard used was 4-feet high. He stated that the 100-year flood elevations are at 7-feet high. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 14 was consistent with this application based on the proposed plan. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 2 �Policy 15 – The Committee reviewed policy 15. Doug Maass stated that although there is no proposed dredging, the applicant should consider dredging the area to make water-dependent uses more available. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 15 was not applicable to this application. Policy 16 The Committee reviewed policy 16. Doug Maass spoke about the Boating Infrastructure Grant (BIG). Jonathan Stein stated that if public funds become available, the applicant would return with necessary information. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 16 was not applicable to this application. Policy 17 The Committee reviewed policies 17 and 17a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17 was applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17 was conditionally consistent with this application. The Chair asked about non-structural measures proposed to prevent erosion. Andy Tung spoke about some of the measures proposed to minimize erosion in the Philipsburg Manor area. The Committee reviewed policy 17a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17a was applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17a was conditionally consistent with this application. Policy 18 The Committee reviewed policies 18, 18a, 18b, and 18c. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 3 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 18, 18a, 18b, and 18c were applicable to this application. Don Stever asked if this development would be a gated community. Jonathan Stein responded no. Ralph Gunderman stated that he was concerned with the proposed project and the proposed scale. He stated that he is also concerned with the traffic impacts. Mark Weingarten stated that the LWRP refers to new roads not existing roads. There was an open discussion on the interpretation of policy 18b. Jonathan Stein stated that the Committee should look at the entire package and not one negative issue. He stated that the positive issues should also be factored into the Committee overall decision. He stated that over 30 acres would be dedicated to public use. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 18 and 18a were consistent with this application. The Committee agreed that policy 18b was consistent with this application (6-1 Adir). The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 18c was consistent with this application since it had no negative impacts on any natural resources. Policy 19 – The Committee reviewed policies 19, 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d, 19e, and 19f. Don Stever stated that the public could walk along the water but could not access the water. Doug Maass stated that he was opposed to finding this application consistent with policy 19 based on the lack of water-dependent uses. The Chair stated that the applicant should look at each sub-policy individually. Mark Weingarten stated that the applicant is meeting with the Committee at this early stage to get feedback only. He stated that the applicant is not seeking approval at this time. The Committee agreed that policy 19 was consistent with this application (5-2 McGlynn, Maass). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 19a, 19b, 19c, and 19d were consistent with this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 19e, and 19f were not applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 4 �Policy 20 The Committee reviewed policies 20 and 20a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 20 and 20a were applicable to this application. Andy Tung stated that there is no publicly owned foreshore. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 20 and 20a were consistent with this application. Policy 21 – The Committee reviewed policies 21, 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 21, 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d were applicable to this application. Don Stever spoke about the public access facilities and water-dependent uses. The Committee agreed that policies 21 and 21a were consistent with this application (5-2 Maass, McGlynn). The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 21b was consistent with this application. The Committee agreed that policy 21c was consistent with this application (5-2 Maass, McGlynn). The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 21d was consistent with this application. Policy 22 The Committee reviewed policies 22 and 22a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 22 and 22a were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 22 and 22a were consistent with this application. Policy 23 The Committee reviewed policies 23, 23a, 23b, and 23c. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23 and 23a were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23b and 23c were not applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 5 �Don Stever stated that the lighthouse is a historic structure. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23 and 23a were consistent with this application. Policy 24 The Committee reviewed policy 24. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 24 was not applicable to this application. Policy 25 The Committee reviewed policies 25, 25a, and 25b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 25, 25a, and 25b were applicable to this application. There was an open discussion on the former GM plant and its scenic impact on the Hudson River views. Andy Tung showed two photos. The first photo was of the current GM site. The second photo was a rendering of the proposed development. Jonathan Stein reviewed the renderings of the development from the Hudson River. He spoke about the planned density and the relation to the Ichabod’s Landing site. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 25, 25a, and 25b were consistent with this application. Policy 26 The Committee reviewed policy 26. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 26 was not applicable to this application. Policy 27 – The Committee reviewed policy 27. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 27 was not applicable to this application. Policy 28 The Committee reviewed policy 28. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 6 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 28 was not applicable to this application. Policy 29 The Committee reviewed policy 29. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 29 was not applicable to this application. Policy 30 The Committee reviewed policy 30. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 30 was not applicable to this application. Policy 31 – The Committee reviewed policy 31. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 31 was not applicable to this application. Policy 32 The Committee reviewed policies 32 and 32a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32 was not applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32a was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that the applicant must comply with this policy since it is a NY State law. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32a was consistent with this application. Policy 33 – The Committee reviewed policy 33. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 33 was applicable to this application. Doug Maass asked if any storm water runoff east of the Metro North tracks would be directed into the Pocantico River. Andy Tung responded that all of the runoff would be directed into the Pocantico River. He stated that the pavement in the area would be removed. He spoke about the proposed storm water management plan in detail. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 33 was consistent with this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 7 �Policy 34 The Committee reviewed policies 34 and 34a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 34 and 34a were not applicable to this application. Policy 35 – The Committee reviewed policies 35, 35a, 35b, 35c, 35d, and 35e. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 35, 35a, 35b, 35c, 35d, and 35e were not applicable to this application. Policy 36 The Committee reviewed policy 36. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 36 was not applicable to this application. Policy 37 The Committee reviewed policy 37. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 37 was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that this policy is regulated by the NYSDEC SPDES permit. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 37 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 38 The Committee reviewed policy 38. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 38 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 39 – The Committee reviewed policy 39. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 39 was applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 8 �The Committee agreed that Policy 39 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Committee reviewed policy 39a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 39a was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 40 The Committee reviewed policies 40 and 40a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 40 and 40a were not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 41 – The Committee reviewed policies 41 and 41a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 41 and 41a were applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Committee agreed that policies 41 and 41a were consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 42 The Committee reviewed policy 42. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 42 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 43 The Committee reviewed policy 43. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 43 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 44 The Committee reviewed policy 44. There was an open discussion on whether or not to make an overall consistency finding with regards to the DEIS. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 9 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 44 was applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Don Stever stated that the Pocantico River area is a tidal wetland. He stated that the west side of the development would not affect the wetlands. He expressed concerns with the locations of the proposed Village DPW area near the Pocantico River wetlands. The Committee agreed that policy 44 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Chair summarized the policies that the Committee found inconsistent with this application. The policies were: Policies 1(h), 2, 2(a), 5, 5(a) Mark Weingarten stated that a recommendation is not needed at this time. Ralph Gunderman stated that the Committee should make an overall consistency finding on the Final EIS. He stated that a preliminary overall consistency finding on the Draft EIS seems inappropriate. The Chair stated that recommendations would provide guidance to the applicant. There was an open discussion on whether a formal recommendation should be made. Don Stever expressed concerns over a possible vote of inconsistent. He stated that he would rather see a recommendation of consistency with specific recommendations. Jonathan Stein stated that a recommendation is not required at this time. He summarized the DEIS process to date. He spoke about the linkage study and the exhaustive research effort that the applicant has done to prepare the DEIS. The open discussion on whether a formal recommendation should be made continued. The Chair made a motion to make a formal consistency finding. Terence McGlynn seconded. It was approved (6-1 Stever). George Lence stated that he saw more positive aspects than negative but the negatives are too big to overcome. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Terence McGlynn stated that the inconsistencies with the LWRP outweigh the consistencies. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 10 �The Chair made two general recommendations. He stated that the development needs additional water-dependent uses and that the density of the site needs to be decreased. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass complimented the applicant on the thoroughness of the proposal. He stated that not enough attention has been paid to the waterfront. He stated that he is concerned with the density and the height of the proposed structures. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. He recommended that the applicant add other water-dependent uses to the application. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant needs to address the bottleneck ingress/egress of the site. He also stated that the development needs to be reduced in scale. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Don Stever abstained from voting. He stated that the committee members are to keep the Village’s interests in mind. He stated that too much emphasis is being placed on waterdependent uses of the development. He expressed concern over the density of the site determining a vote of inconsistency with policy 5. The DEIS was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP by a vote of 6-0 (Stever abstained). The Chair stated that written findings would be provided. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 10:18 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 11 � 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-2005 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_2005-03-15.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/80160c18fed9adbc463fa369b7ff58ad.pdf 530ebc271233168343d0cce8744f6cfd PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED April 6, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Absent: George Lence Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of March 2, 2005 and March 15, 2005 meetings 2) Miller 1) Minutes of March 2, 2005 and March 15, 2005 meetings The minutes from the March 2, 2005 meeting were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The minutes from the March 15, 2005 meeting were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Miller Markus Luck is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Markus Luck stated that the pool is 16’x 8’. He stated that the site is covered by several large trees but only one tree is planned to be removed. He stated that the main concerns are the view shed, the potential construction erosion and post construction runoff. He stated that the original plan proposed a larger pool and a spa but the revised plan reduces the size of the pool and eliminates the spa. He stated that native vegetation would be used to stabilize the slope. He reviewed the planting plan. �The Chair stated that screening would have to be used. Markus Luck responded that the applicants would install screening to reduce the visual impacts of the retaining wall. Markus Luck spoke about the erosion during construction. He stated that a double silt fence would be used to control erosion. Don Stever asked for clarification on the silt fence. He asked if hay bales would be used. Markus Luck responded that a geo fabric would be used along with hay bales. Don Stever stated that the Village spent monies to dredge the pond and extra measures should be taken by the owners to protect it. Terrence McGlynn asked about the possibility of chlorinated water entering the lake. Markus Luck responded that the Village Engineer proposed a drywell to offset any spillage from usage or heavy rainfall. The Chair asked the applicant to explain the impacts to the wetlands specifically the substrate composition. Marcus Luck responded that the soil is bound to be compacted because of the construction. There was an open discussion on the sensitivity of the wetlands. Don Stever stated that the lake is at elevation 75-feet. He stated that the proposed location of the pool does not appear to be located on an active vegetative wetland. The Chair stated that if the wetlands are not impacted, then the application is not in the Committee’s jurisdiction. The Committee referred to the Village Architect. Sean McCarthy responded that the property is within 100-feet of a wetland. He stated that the proposed construction is within the 100-foot buffer. Don Stever stated that if the applicant were mitigating the impacts sufficiently, then it would be consistent. Doug Maass further added that the Building Department needs to ensure that the construction of the project not adversely affect the wetlands. Sean McCarthy stated that when a retaining wall is constructed on a steep wall, special attention is paid to the footings so that the wall is structurally sound. The Chair stated that building department must be satisfied with the construction. The Chair stated that three policies are applicable: Policies 7(a), 11, 29(e) APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 6, 2005 2 �Don Stever spoke about potential flood zones. He stated that the proposed storm water management plan must be robust enough to withstand floodwaters. The Chair stated that the proposed screening should be sufficient. Don Stever stated that screening should be included in the site plan. Doug Maass asked about policy 13 regarding erosion protection structures. The Committee agreed that policy 13 is not applicable. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There was none. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is consistent with the LWRP. Adjourned at 8:27 pm APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 6, 2005 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 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_2005-04-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/1c36ff67a122372cc5355bae4e075c33.pdf 0341f13c6e4a1384bb5720223eef862a PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED July 13, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Absent: George Lence Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Owen Wells (Saccardi & Schiff / Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Minutes of April 6, 2005 meeting Inner Village Zoning changes Kennedy Construction Corp. 300 North Broadway, LLC Russell – Terrace Close Other 1) Minutes of April 6, 2005 meeting The minutes from the April 6, 2005 meeting were reviewed. Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Terence McGlynn seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Inner Village Zoning changes Owen Wells summarized some of the proposed zoning changes. He spoke about the reasoning behind the proposed changes. He stated that based on recent building department applications that few properties were able to comply with the current zoning code. He spoke about the C-2 zoning district. He spoke about the revised mixed-use standards and Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) requirements that are proposed as part of the zoning changes. �The Chair stated that the language in the proposed zoning amendment is ambiguous. Owen Wells responded that the language would be clarified. There was an open discussion on the intent of the existing Village zoning code. Don Stever expressed concerns on the conversion of C-2 to R-4. He stated that the overall concept was intended to transition the new commercial district with the old commercial district. He stated that if commercial development would be eliminated from the lower portion of Beekman Avenue, it might more harmful than beneficial. Ralph Gunderman stated that Policy 1(i) mentions the central business district on Beekman Avenue. Don Stever stated that a barrier should not be placed between the commercial and residential districts on Beekman Avenue. There was an open discussion on allowing home profession use in the C-2 district. The Chair asked about the action that is before the Committee. Owen Wells responded that the Village Trustees are asking for recommendations. Don Stever stated that he has concerns about the conversion of the C-2 zone to an R-4 zone near the railroad. Ralph Gunderman read Policy 1(i) of the LWRP regarding the central business districts along Beekman Avenue. Don Stever stated that the development at the Riverfront would not be at the expense of the business district corridor. Terence McGlynn stated that Policy 1(g) notes commercial development on Beekman Avenue. Owen Wells spoke about the reasons behind the proposed zoning changes. He stated that the Trustees want to revitalize the core of the business district. Don Stever stated that Cortlandt Street should be re-zoned to place businesses on Beekman Avenue. The Committee unanimously agreed that since the information was received tonight, the Committee would not make a recommendation this evening. 3) Kennedy Construction, LLC Emilio Escaladas is representing this application. Emilio Escaladas spoke about the site layout. He spoke about the topology of the site and the steep drop in grade towards the rear of the house. He stated that the site plan has been modified APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 13, 2005 2 �to keep all construction activities out of the wetlands buffer. He spoke about the architectural features of the house. Don Stever stated that this application was referred to the Committee for the construction of a wall in the wetlands buffer. Emilio Escaladas responded that the previous designs included a stone stabilizing wall at the end of the disturbance area. He stated that the wall would stabilize the site and control drainage. He stated that all work within the buffer area including the proposed wall has been removed. Don Stever asked if the application was valid. Sean McCarthy responded that the applicant’s attorney wanted to proceed anyway. There was an open discussion on whether this application still required the Committee’s recommendations. Emilio Escaladas stated that the applicant wants to proceed with the Planning Board’s review. He also stated that a few trees are proposed to be removed. He stated that a fence would be installed at the buffer line and that the area would not be entered. Don Stever stated that the application should be sent back to the Planning Board. The Committee unanimously agreed that this application was not within their jurisdiction. 4) 300 North Broadway, LLC Kyle McGovern is representing this application along with Dan Beaton. Kyle McGovern summarized the application to date. He spoke about the Planning Board application and the proposed zoning variances sought. Dan Beaton spoke about the existing site. He spoke about the residential and commercial zones in the surrounding area. He spoke about the proposed home profession use of the property. He described the six home profession units and the two residential units. He spoke about architectural appearance of the structure. Dan Beaton spoke about the green space on the property. He spoke about the proposed parking for the residential units and the commercial units. He spoke about the proposed flow of traffic. Doug Maass asked if the parking lot would be constructed to permit only right-hand turns out of the parking lot. Dan Beaton responded that only a sign is proposed. Dan Beaton stated that the storm water management has not been finalized. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 13, 2005 3 �Don Stever asked where the application currently stands. Sean McCarthy responded that the application has a current application before the Planning Board and is appearing before the Zoning Board this month. There was an open discussion on the architectural features of the proposed structure. The Chair stated that Policy 1(k) and 25(b) are applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed Policy 1(k) The Chair read item (d) of Policy 1(k) regarding the deteriorated and underutilization of the site. He expressed some concerns on the scale of the proposed structure. Ralph Gunderman stated that the proposed structure is out-of-scale with the surrounding structures. Kyle McGovern stated that the commercial side is more out of line with other commercial properties on Route 9. Ralph Gunderman asked if any modifications to minimize the façade on Route 9 should be considered. Dan Beaton responded that the lower commercial level is below ground. He stated that the additional floor is needed to allow for eight units in total. He stated that the eight units are needed for financial reasons. The Chair spoke about the right-hand turn out of the parking lot. It was agreed that a recommendation would be made to the Planning Board to include proper signage as part of the site plan approval. The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 1(k) was consistent with the LWRP with the condition that only right-hand turns are allowed out of the parking area on Route 9. Adequate signage is required. The Committee reviewed Policy 25(b). The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 25(b) was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is consistent with the LWRP. 5) Russell – Paul Pettretti is the engineer representing this application on behalf of the owners. Paul Pettretti spoke about the proposed structure. He stated that the proposed structure complies with the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) and all zoning requirements. He spoke about the Tree Commission application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 13, 2005 4 �The Chair referred to the Coastal Assessment Form. He referred to steep slopes on the site and how the applicant will handle the grade changes. Paul Pettretti responded that the basement would be below grade so that minimal fill will be required. He stated that there would be no deck on the back. He stated that there a rear patio will be constructed. The Chair stated that it is hard for the Committee to realize the impacts to the river views without elevations. It was decided that the Committee could not make a recommendation without elevations of the proposed structure particularly showing the views from Terrace Close. The Chair stated that policy 25 (a) is applicable to this application. Paul Pettretti spoke about a dam that was created on the site about 30 years ago to divert an existing stream. He spoke about the proposed storm water management plan. This item was adjourned until more detailed plans are available. 6) Other a) Application lead-time - The Chair spoke about the postponement of the meeting from July 6 to July 13 since applicable materials were received the weekend prior to the meeting. He stated that sufficient lead-time is required to properly review materials prior to the meeting. The Committee agreed that all materials need to be submitted to the Building Department 2-weeks prior to the meeting in order to be placed on the agenda. b) Videotaping of meetings – Don Stever spoke about the Planning Board and Architectural Review Boards have adopted. He stated that the Village Attorney has deemed that the policy is compliant with the Open Meetings Law. No action was taken. Don Stever made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 9:50 pm APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 13, 2005 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-2005 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_2005-07-13.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/e7978465ef2a216b62359d9cff615b45.pdf c64006af10518c8068eb7408e533de76 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED September 14, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:30 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir George Lence Ralph Gunderman Absent: Don Stever Terence McGlynn Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff / Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) Presby-Leyland Mausoleums Video taping of meetings Proposed Zoning amendments Minutes of July 13, 2005 meeting 1) Presby-Leland monuments Nancy Dillon from Presby-Leland Monument Company is representing this application. Nancy Dillon stated that the mausoleum can accommodate 6 burials. She stated that the total lot size is 33,000 SF. She stated that the proposed structure is 1300sf. She stated that the proposed material is granite which is consistent with other mausoleums. Ralph Gunderman asked about the elevation of the proposed structure. Sean McCarthy responded that there is a 25-foot change from the height of the structure to the road. Nancy Dillon stated that the proposed structure is about 140-feet away from the Pocantico River. The Chair asked if there are any construction runoff concerns. Sean McCarthy responded that Dolph Rotfield Engineers is looking into the matter. He stated that there based on the large lot area there is still going to be plenty of absorption area. �Vito Sorrentino responded that the Rockefeller mausoleum is much larger than the proposed structure. He noted other existing mausoleums in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery that are larger than the proposed structure. George Lence asked if the construction had started. Nancy Dillon responded yes. She stated that since a building permit was required, the work was stopped. The Chair asked if this is the only proposed structure on the lot. Nancy Dillon responded yes. She also stated that the owner has no plans to sub-divide the lot. The Chair stated that Policies 23 and 25(b) apply to this application. The Committee reviewed Policy 23 and determined that the Policy was applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed Policy 25(b) and determined that the Policy was applicable to this application. The Chair stated that he was concerned with the potential visibility from Route 9. He also stated that it is not visible from the Pocantico River. He stated that he was concerned with the size of the structure in comparison to other structures in the cemetery. The Chair referred to page III-51 (scale of materials to diminish the scenic quality). George Lence asked if the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery review Board has reviewed and approved of the mausoleum. Nancy Dillon stated that the cemetery has approved of the proposed construction. Karen Adir asked if Architectural Review Board approval is required. Sean McCarthy responded no. He stated that the Architectural Review Board’s jurisdiction is limited to public streets. It was stated that the Sleepy Hollow cemetery should be notified that a building permit is required for all structures proposed on the site. Ralph Gunderman asked about the limitations of the jurisdiction of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair responded that the proposal of a structure triggers the Committee’s review. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application was consistent with the LWRP. 2) Video-taping of meetings – APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 14, 2005 2 �The Chair submitted a proposed procedural Resolution for video-taping of the Committee’s meetings. It was decided that the Committee would review the Resolution and discuss it at the next meeting. 3) Proposed Zoning amendments Dave Smith spoke about the proposed C-2 zoning changes. Dave Smith spoke about the proposed zoning map amendments. He spoke about the zoning text amendments and the zoning map amendments. He stated that the Village Trustees are asking for recommendations from the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair stated that he has no objections with the proposed changes. The Chair stated that the Committee had requested the actual proposed text amendments to fully understand the full impact of the text changes. Dave Smith provided a copy of the proposed amendments to the zoning tables. He discussed the potential impacts of the proposed text changes. He discussed rear yard requirements, parking, and the creation of restaurant establishments. He stated that the requirement will remain in place for delicatessens and bars but will be lifted for restaurant establishments. The Chair asked if formal findings are needed. Dave Smith stated that the public hearing is still open. He stated that the application is still ongoing but the Trustees would like formal Waterfront Advisory Committee input. There was an open discussion on whether Policies 1(g) and 5 were applicable. It was agreed that the Committee would inform the Trustees that it has concerns about the lower Beekman Ave region. 4) Minutes of July 13, 2005 meeting The minutes from the July 13, 2005 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. The Chair made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:25 pm APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 14, 2005 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 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_2005-09-14.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/691ad8f106fdec474d9343b29fa31b2a.pdf 9cb8f57d9784361550a38a54a035ee78 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED October 6, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:17 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir Absent: George Lence Don Stever Terence McGlynn Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff / Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Minutes of July and September 2005 meetings Video-Taping policy Phelps Memorial Hospital Master Plan Carol Lyden New Stable construction Doorley Four lot sub-division 1) Minutes of July and September 2005 meetings The minutes for July 2005 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Policy on video taping The Committee reviewed the policy that was distributed at the last meeting. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adopt the policy. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) 3) Phelps Memorial Hospital Center Andy Tung is representing this application along with Phelps CEO, Keith Safian, hospital counsel Bruce Allen and special counsel Steve Silverburg. �Keith Safian spoke about the proposed changes to the previous site plan. He stated that the parking garage would allow Phelps to provide parking closer to the Medical Center in order to allow patients easier access to the building. Andy Tung spoke about the Planning Board meeting. He spoke about the previously approved site plan and the proposed changes to the site plan. He discussed the proposed parking garage and the reduction of impervious areas around the site. He showed the changes to the on-grade parking lot, Robin’s Nest parking lot and the connecting roads. He provided several renderings of the proposed parking structure. He spoke about the changes to the storm water system. He stated that an additional sand filter and catch basin would be added. Karin Adir asked about the number of proposed parking spaces. Andy Tung responded 750 proposed spaces on four parking levels. The Chair asked the applicant to discuss the visual impacts to Rockwood Hall. Andy Tung stated that when the foliage is gone (winter), the top of the structure is visible. The Chair stated that the original proposal included additional parking that would be available to Rockwood Hall visitors. Andy Tung responded that the additional parking would still be available. Doug Maass asked if there was any way to orientate the parking garage to create a shorter walk from the garage entrance and the entrance of the medical services building. Andy Tung responded that the proposed garage is in close proximity to the emergency room. Doug Maass spoke about the construction phasing. Andy Tung responded that the Northeast lot is Phase 1. The parking garage construction is Phase 4. Ralph Gunderman asked why the entrance to the parking garage on the North side cuts into the existing vegetation. He asked about having the entrance constructed more directly into the road on the East side of the garage. Andy Tung responded that the grade issue between the two areas is too steep. Doug Maass asked if parking would be free. Keith Safian responded that there is no plan to charge for parking at the present time. The Committee unanimously agreed that the revisions to the site plan do not change the Committee’s previous decision on the plan. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is still consistent with the LWRP. 4) Carol Lyden – Bob Snyder is representing this application on behalf of the applicant. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 6, 2005 2 �Bob Snyder stated that the owner wants to construct a horse stable on her property. He stated that the stable is for personal use and will not be open to the public. He stated that the carriage and hay storage areas and the stable are separate. The Chair asked about the size of the stable. Bob Snyder responded that the stable building is about 4000sf and the carriage and hay storage areas are about 2400sf. Karin Adir asked about the plumbing. Bob Snyder responded that a bathroom is proposed. He stated that a 6-inch water main is proposed for fire protection. The Chair asked about the size of the parcel. Bob Snyder responded that the parcel is about 35 acres. He spoke about the environmental restrictions on the parcel. He stated that the Westchester Land Trust has approved of the proposed plan. The Chair stated that Policy 5(b) applies to this application. The Committee agreed. The Chair stated that this building would not place any burden on Village services. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find this application consistent with Policy 5(b) and consistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 5) Doorley – The Chair stated that the Doorley application is before the Committee for reconsideration. He discussed with the Committee whether the application should be re-reviewed. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application has not changed and that they would not re-review their previous findings. Geraldine Tortanello is representing this application along with Michael Doorley. She stated that the applicant did not want to re-appear before the Committee. She requested that the Committee inform the Planning Board of their decision. The Chair stated that the Committee will not serve as the Board of Appeals for the Planning Board by reviewing the Committee’s decision on this application for the third time. Geraldine Tortanello reviewed the submitted materials before the Committee. She stated that the materials expand the potential build out of the development of the lots. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 6, 2005 3 �The Chair responded that the Committee is not willing to review potential development of the site. Michael Doorley stated that site plans with larger developments have been approved by Village Boards. He stated that Ichabod’s Landing and Kendal on Hudson are significantly larger developments and was approved. He stated that he feels that he is being singled out for trying to sub-divide this property. The Chair responded that the Committee has no malice towards the applicant. He stated that each application is under different zoning restrictions. Michael Doorley responded that Ichabod’s Landing has significant visual impacts. The Chair responded that the Committee can only review the material that is presented. Michael Doorley stated that only one neighbor has shown opposition to the application. He stated that the Phillipse Manor Improvement Association (PMIA) did not oppose the subdivision. Karin Adir responded that each application is reviewed independently. Michael Doorley showed several photos of other developments in Sleepy Hollow. He stated that the developments of Ichabod’s Landing, County House Road and Kendal-on-Hudson are more significant that this application. The Chair stated that the Planning Board needs to make their own determination. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant could have made adjustments in the application that would have been more favorable to the Committee. He stated that application has not changed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:14pm. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 6, 2005 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 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_2005-10-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/7c37ba70cdfcf5167df4651db05c67c5.pdf fa909b906c735e9374378a87277a7615 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED November 9, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Don Stever, Acting Chairman, at 8:17 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: George Lence Don Stever, Acting Chairman Doug Maass Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Terence McGlynn Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of October 2005 meeting 2) Cortese 3) Other Terrace Close –new construction 1) Minutes of October 2005 meeting The minutes for the October 2005 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. 2) Cortese Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application along with the owner, Andrew Cortese. Richard Blancato reviewed a package of photos that was submitted to the Committee. He showed the proposed building elevations from several angles as well as the proposed building footprint via an aerial photo. He also showed a rendering of the front elevation of the proposed house. Doug Maass asked about the grade changes shown on the submitted topographical maps. Richard Blancato responded that the submitted maps are taken from the Google Earth website and might be a little outdated. Karen Adir asked about the size of the house. �Richard Blancato responded 5200 sf. Doug Maass asked how the width of the lot is calculated as 151.4-feet. Sean McCarthy responded that the width is determined from the face of the setback. Doug Maass asked about the height of the structure. Sean McCarthy responded on how the height is calculated. The Committee reviewed the applicable LWRP policies. They unanimously agreed that Policy 25A is applicable to this application. Ralph Gunderman stated that the width of the proposed structure blocks a significant portion of the winter views of the river. Don Stever responded that the lot is a legal sized lot. Ralph Gunderman stated that the house does not have to be as wide as proposed. Richard Blancato responded that in the wintertime, the most that can be seen is the opposite side of the river. Doug Maass responded that the views on the opposite side of the river are the views that the Committee is trying to protect. Andrew Cortese responded that the only views are through the trees and there is not a clear view of the river. Richard Blancato asked if the applicant should appear before the ARB prior to the WAC making a decision since the structure might change. Don Stever responded that although the Planning Board made the referral, it might be more logical for the applicant to secure ARB approval first, then return to the WAC and finally return to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Don Stever asked the applicant to take some winter view photos and superimpose the photos on the rendering. George Lence asked about Policy 25B. It was agreed that this view shed was not an identified scenic resource. Richard Blancato stated that on each side of the house there are trees that could be removed to create a view shed. Don Stever responded that the applicant would have to apply to the Tree Commission for removing the trees. Don Stever asked if the rendering shows the entire lot. Sean McCarthy responded that the lot is a little wider that is shown in the photo. Don Stever recommended placing the rendering on a wintertime background and showing the entire width of the lot on the drawing. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 9, 2005 2 �Doug Maass stated that the scale of the house as compared to other homes in the area need to be carefully reviewed. He also suggested moving the house back farther on the lot. Richard Blancato responded that he would have to check with the engineer on whether moving the house back could be accomplished. Doug Maass asked about the maximum slope on a driveway. Sean McCarthy responded 10%. Don Stever asked if the Committee had any other questions. There were none. It was unanimously agreed that the applicant would be referred to the ARB for approval. 3) Other – There was an open discussion on the enforcement of the LWRP on the Metro-North property. It was agreed that Metro-North would be contacted to appear before the Committee to discuss the reconstruction of the Philipse Manor train station. Sean McCarthy would inform MetroNorth. Doug Maass stated that none of his documents on Kendal-on-Hudson contain any information on the large masonry wall that is constructed on the site. Sean McCarthy responded that the wall is a pre-cast concrete wall and is on the approved site plan. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 8:54 pm. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 9, 2005 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 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_2005-11-09.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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/9b4038ee756c7d2facbd1ba659734ba7.pdf e4c5ac55327be43ae34a42c93a831851 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED December 7, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:08 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Doug Maass Ralph Gunderman Richard Weiss, Chairman Karin Adir Absent: George Lence Don Stever Terence McGlynn Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Minutes of September, October and November 2005 meetings Terrace Close KWD Realty Rey Agency Sleepy Hollow Cemetery Other 1) Minutes of September, October and November 2005 meetings The minutes for September, October and November 2005 meetings were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Terrace Close There was nobody present to represent this application. 3) KWD Realty – �Karl Dibble is the owner and is representing this application. Karl Dibble stated that he wants to open up a retail garden center at the property. He stated that he owns the adjacent lot and the lots would be combined. The Chair asked if the lot was currently a parking lot. Karl Dibble responded yes. He stated that the site would be landscaped. He stated that a privacy wall would be constructed to screen the property from the neighbors. Ralph Gunderman asked for clarification on the location of the privacy wall. He was concerned with the visual impacts when pulling onto Route 9. Karl Dibble further described the location of the privacy wall. The Chair asked that the applicant provide a rendering of the property from Route 9. He expressed concerns about the views from Route 9. Karl Dibble responded that he would provide a rendering for the next meeting. Doug Maass stated that the privacy wall of 8-feet tall is a concern. Sean McCarthy responded that the wall can be only 6-feet tall. Karl Dibble tried to describe to the Committee how the property would appear from Route 9. He discussed the differences in elevations and the proposed privacy walls. The Chair asked about the height of the garage structure. Karl Dibble responded 8-feet tall. The Chair stated that the garage would be visible from the street. He stated that the visual impacts from Route 9 are of concern to the Committee. Karin Adir stated that there should be no left turns into or out of the property. The Chair stated that it is an enforcement issue. Karl Dibble responded that he still needs DOT approval. Ralph Gunderman asked about the proposed 8-foot retaining walls. Karl Dibble responded that since the adjacent property is at a higher elevation, a retaining wall is needed to level his property. The Chair asked about the materials of the privacy walls. Karl Dibble responded stone. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicants engineer needs to address the height of the retaining walls. The Chair asked what kind of traffic the applicant will expect to generate. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 7, 2005 2 �Karl Dibble responded that he does not know what to expect. He spoke about his experiences with selling pumpkins and Christmas trees last year and this year. He stated that he has not had any problems with traffic or parking. Doug Maass asked about the proposed trees. Karl Dibble responded that he is trying to match what is currently installed in the Village. He stated that he is adding a significant amount of landscaping. The Chair stated that the increased landscaping is helpful. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 4) Rey Agency Frank Rey is the owner and is representing this application. Frank Rey stated that he has been operating in the Village for over 25 years. He stated that his office needs to expand and he has purchased the property at 219 Broadway. The Chair asked who referred this application to the Committee. Sean McCarthy responded the Planning Board. He stated that since this is a change of use, it requires site plan approval. The Chair asked if the Planning Board had a specific policy in mind when they referred this application to the Committee. Sean McCarthy responded no. Frank Rey stated that the property will not look any different than it currently looks. Ralph Gunderman made a motion that there is no inconsistency with any LWRP policy as it applies to this application. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 5) Sleepy Hollow Cemetery Ed Napoleon is representing this application on behalf of the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery. He was accompanied by project engineer, Dan Penella. Ed Napoleon described the proposed mausoleum. He discussed the location of the mausoleum and its proposed size. He also spoke about the proposed materials. Dan Penella discussed the proposed site issues that included the removal of trees, storm water management, parking and site access. He produced a rendering of the proposed mausoleum. The Chair asked if the rendering is typical of the view from Route 9. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 7, 2005 3 �Ed Napoleon responded no. He stated that the presented rendering was done by another architect over 3 years ago. He discussed the differences between the rendering and the current plan. Ralph Gunderman stated that the topology from the mausoleum towards Route 9 would be helpful. There was an open discussion on the view of the structure from Phillipse Manor. The Chair stated that a rendering from Route 9 would be helpful. Dan Penella responded that the view from Route 9 would not show anything other than the existing dense trees. He asked for clarification on the requested rendering. There was an open discussion on the proposed rendering. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 6) Lighthouse Landing Dave Smith is appearing before the Committee on behalf of the Village Trustees. Dave Smith stated that the applicable sections from the preliminary FEIS have been forwarded. He stated that the preliminary FEIS is still not a public document since it is still under review by the Village Trustees. He stated that the Village Trustees are seeking input from the Village Boards on the preliminary FEIS. The Chair stated that since the document is not available to the public, he recommended that the discussion take place in closed session. Ralph Gunderman asked whether the Village Trustees are responsible for the response to public comments since they are the lead agency. He asked if the applicant has changed the plans enough regarding water-dependent uses to satisfy the Committee’s comments to the DEIS. Dave Smith responded that the plan has been modified to add water-dependent uses. He stated that there exists the potential for additional off-site improvements as part of a comprehensive package. Ralph Gunderman asked about the next steps in the EIS process. Dave Smith stated that the Village Trustees have gone beyond how the lead agency would normally review the document. He stated that the Village Trustees have formed subcommittees to address extra steps to address all concerns. He stated that the Village Trustees have the ultimate control in the content of the FEIS. Ralph Gunderman asked that once the FEIS is deemed complete, would the Committee be then asked to make a consistency determination. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 7, 2005 4 �Dave Smith responded yes. Ralph Gunderman stated that once the FEIS is approved by the Village Trustees, it will then forward to the Committee for a consistency determination. Dave Smith responded that the FEIS might not be consistent with the LWRP. He stated that the Village Trustees are looking for input from the Committee. The Committee agreed that there was not a need to discuss the matter in a private session. Ralph Gunderman stated that the revised plan has many water-dependent improvements. He stated that the building heights have also been revised to lessen the mass impact on the Hudson River. He commented on the plans presented by the Village consultants. Dave Smith responded that the Committee should focus their comments at this time on the FEIS only. Ralph Gunderman stated that he still has a problem on the scale of the project and the impacts to the Village’s infrastructure. He stated that a very detailed traffic analysis was provided in the DEIS but was not included in the Committee’s FEIS package. He stated that the number of units and the density have been reduced by the applicant. He stated that the applicant has failed to address the project without the proposed train station. He stated that the concept of a train station needs to have alternatives to get residents to the other two train stations (Tarrytown & Phillipse Manor) in case the train station proposal is eliminated. He stated that the applicant should provide an example of another development of this size that has only one-way in and one-way out of the site. Dave Smith responded that the potential jitney service question was asked in the DEIS. He stated that he would investigate if the information was provided in the submitted FEIS information. The Chair stated that the proposal seems to have a few water-dependent uses. He stated that the development is primarily a residential and commercial development. He commented on the townhouses on the water-side. He stated that with the exception of the hotel, all of the wateredge area is proposed to be used for residential housing. Doug Maass stated that the bath house located off of the GM site could be used as a waterdependent use. He also stated that the proposed boathouse does not have to be located on the water. He stated that the boathouse could be moved inward as long as the boats could be carried or easily transported. Dave Smith stated that to date, the applicant has only considered uses on their site. Ralph Gunderman asked about the indicated green space part of the GM site. Dave Smith responded that the green space described belongs to the applicant. Ralph Gunderman stated that a boat house could be built on that site. Dave Smith responded that the plans refer to an interpretative center which could include a boat house. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 7, 2005 5 �Doug Maass asked about maps submitted by Historic Hudson Valley. Dave Smith referred to Figures 2-12 and 2-13 in the FEIS. He responded that the maps show a plan prepared by Historic Hudson Valley for a possible expansion of Historic Hudson Valley activities. He stated that the applicant has indicated that except for the proposed parking area, the balance of the east parcel will be dedicated to the Village. Ralph Gunderman stated that the affordable and senior housing were reduced. Dave Smith responded that the original proposal included 200 senior housing units. He stated that since then, the Village has investigated building affordable senior housing thru another entity and the amount of affordable senior housing on the GM site was lessened. He stated that the applicant has eliminated the affordable housing component and proposed providing a discount on a limited number of units for work-force housing residents. The Chair stated that a $500,000 price tag is hardly affordable. The Chair stated that the Village should make a commitment to maintain the floating pier. Dave Smith responded that the proposal includes two seasonal piers that can be removed from the water. Doug Maass asked about the increased building height on the East side of the development. Dave Smith responded that a variance is needed for the increased height. He stated that the Village’s consultants have included some varying height to increase the water views in the inner units. Doug Maass stated that there is a statement about the Village not using property donated to it, that the developer could take the property back. Dave Smith responded that the topic is a legal issue. There were no further comments. It was agreed that the minutes would serve as the Committee’s comments to the Village Trustees. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:47 pm. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 7, 2005 6 � 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-2005 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_2005-12-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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