3 25 58 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/018f984f933e484a0659322b0dc0d7c9.pdf 9d2210f298175c464fdd1dabd6d24f8b PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir «*c»>»*0 _ « g 7(flft W* UH^Ci^* Donald Stever Doug Maass Also Present Dave Smith (Saccardi & SchirT/Village Planner) Shailesh Naik (Charles A Manganaro/Village Engineer) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of January 2001 Meeting b) Fremont Pond Dredging c) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of January 2001 Meeting The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted Ralph Gunderman seconded It was unanimous b) Fremont Pond Dredging Dave Smith spoke about the EAF for this application. He detailed the proposed dredging process and what will be done with the dredged material He also spoke about the applicable LWRP policies. Dave Smith stated that the NY Department of State has approved the item in their LWRP review. He also stated that the material removed is considered clean by the Department of Environmental Conservation. �The Chair asked if this process would result in a more habitable lake for fish and wildlife Dave Smith responded yes The Chair asked about the settling tank Dave Smith responded that the tank would be installed under the road and would be accessed probably once a year Karin Adir asked how long would the dredging process take. Dave Smith responded 10 weeks. Chuck Lancaster spoke about the dredging He stated that the most noticeable sedimentation is from the Southeast corner near Peabody field He stated that this needs to be mitigated to prevent future dredging. He also stated that there is a nest of swans at the Southeast end. The dredging should be coordinated with the nests hatching The Chair asked if the Committee had any other comments. There was none The Board voted unanimously that the dredging was consistent with the LWRP. Kendal-on-Hudson The Chair stated that Dan Pennelia and Shailesh Naik are the Village Engineers assigned to the Planning Board. They will answer any engineering questions that the Committee has concerning the proposed development. Dan Pennelia spoke about the sewer impacts. He used a map to illustrate the current sewer path within Sleepy Hollow Manor. He also stated that the Mount Pleasant Executive Center is contracted to pump 200 GPM into the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewer system. Although the center is vacant now, the model used included the sewage capacity as if the center was occupied. Terrance McGlynn asked if the model included the proposed Kendal usage. Dan Pennelia responded no Terrance McGlynn asked if the system could handle the Kendal volume. Dan Pennelia responded that they would pump the sewage at night so not to interfere with the residents. The Chair asked if Phelps hospital pumps their sewage. Dan Pennelia responded no. It is a gravity feed. Chuck Lancaster spoke about the EIS. He stated that there is no mention of the Sleepy Hollow pumping station and the impact that Kendal will have on it. He also spoke about the Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 7,2001 2 �sewer and storm drain systems He stated that the EIS in very inaccurate regarding both. The Chair asked Dan Pennella about the water pressure and the proposed Northern Loop. Dan Pennella responded that the Northern Loop is still under negotiations. The Chair stated that the uncertainty of the Northern Loop is a major concern. Dan Pennella responded that the water usage for Phelps Hospital has increased in the last few years He also stated that the increased water usage must result in increased sewage usage. The Chair stated that Doug Maass could not be at the meeting tonight but he is in favor of the project but he is not comfortable with the size of the proposed development. Ralph Gunderman stated that he could not find this project consistent with the LWRP for several reasons. Karin Adir stated that the project is important to the community but the potential water and sewer problems area concern. George Lence stated that a number of Policies were impacted by this development. He cited policies 5 A, 7D, 18D, 23 and 25. He stated that he is not comfortable with the proposed development. The Chair stated that he did find some consistency in the LWRP in policies 19 and 21. The Chair also stated that the Kendal presentation did not address the impacts of the mass and scale of the project. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to provide a recommendation that the project is not consistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. Other TOPICS: None Adjourn at 9:24 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 7,2001 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Kendal on Hudson The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at several meetings in 2000, at its March 7, 2001 meeting and its June 13, 2001 meeting, the proposal (the "Proposal") submitted by Kendal on Hudson (the "Applicant") for the development of a continuing care retirement community ("CCRC") on the grounds of the Phelps Memorial Hospital Center ("Phelps") in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village"). At the June 13 meeting of the Committee, Mr. Andy Tung, of Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP and other representatives of Applicant presented modifications that had been made to the Project since the time of the March 7 meeting of the Committee, and answered questions from the Committee. The modifications to the Proposal were in response to earlier comments by the Committee and by members of the public. The Project The development project (the "Project" or "Kendal"), as presented to the Committee in its modified form, consists of 225 independent living apartments, 24 assisted living apartments and 42 skilled nursing rooms contained within 435,00O± square feet of structures. The proposed CCRC units comprise four buildings. Three of the buildings would contain independent living units (generally referred to in the Applicant's submission documents as ILU East, ILU West and ILU South). The fourth building, the Commons Building, would house community facilities, a health center, assisted living units and skilled nursing facilities, as well as some additional independent living units. The Project would be sited on the western side of the Phelps campus, north of the Sleepy Hollow Manor section of the Village and south of the Rockwood Hall section of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve. The proposed site is located in the Village's H (hospital use) zoning district. The Project contemplates that the H district zoning would be amended to make the CCRC facilities a permitted use within the district and to otherwise accommodate the Project. Access to the site would be provided from NY Route 117 and Rockwood Road (using an easement over lands that were owned by the Laurance S. Rockefeller Fund prior to dedication of the Rockwood Hall property to the State of New York as part of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve) and through a portion of the Phelps property. Signs for the CCRC would direct traffic to the Route 117/Rockwood Road access and it is expected that these signs would minimize access via the main Phelps entrance from Route 9. Parking for 390 vehicles would be provided in structures located beneath the proposed buildings and beneath a Phelps on-grade parking deck. The Project has been modified a number of times since its initial submission to the Committee. These modifications have included a reduction in the number of assisted living units from forty to twenty-four, lowering the height of a portion of the Commons Building from an �originally-proposed seven stories to five stories, provision for additional vegetative plantings and landscape buffer enhancements, and improvements to the sewer and water systems that serve the Phelps Hospital property and the Village. The architecture for the Project has also been modified since the time of the initial submission in order to make the buildings appear less institutional and to achieve greater harmony with the architectural style of The James House, an historic mansion owned by Phelps and adjacent to the Project site. Specifically, the proposed architecture is intended to reflect the Italianate style of The James House, and the building facades would incorporate a mixture of different building materials, varying window treatments and ornamental roof elements to break up the apparent massing of the proposed buildings. The modifications to the Project were based on comments raised as part of the public hearing process on the Project's Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), and in response to concerns raised by members of the Committee during prior meetings at which the Project had been reviewed. A comprehensive landscape program is proposed by the Applicant, which would include the preservation of a three hundred-foot buffer between the proposed CCRC and the Sleepy Hollow Manor neighborhood to the south. This buffer, which presently contains a number of dead or unhealthy trees, would be enhanced by additional reforestation plantings and would be maintained by Kendal. Further, the Applicant proposes a series of landscaped berms within the easement on the north side of the site, adjacent to Rockwood Hall. Landscaping is also proposed between The James House and the proposed ILU East and Commons Building, which is intended to soften the views of the proposed CCRC facility from The James House. Existing views of the Hudson River from The James House are, at present, largely screened by existing vegetation. The proposed plan would remove much of this vegetation, opening up views of the Hudson River and the western shoreline from The James House. The Applicant proposes to connect to existing Village water and sewer service. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its conclusion as to consistency of the Project with the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), considered Policies 5, 5A, 7D, 7E, 17,17A, 18, 18A, 18B, 18C, 19, 19D, 21D, 23, 23B, 25, 25A, 25B, 32A, 33 and 37 of the LWRP as being specifically applicable to the Project. After careful review of the applicable LWRP policies, the Committee found that the Project, as a whole, is consistent with the purposes and polices of the LWRP. Policy 5 - ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE. Both municipal water and sewer utilities are available to service the Project. The Village has recently acquired water rights that should improve the water supply system in the northern portion of the Village, which includes the Phelps site and the Sleepy Hollow Manor residential neighborhood. Connection of the proposed CCRC facility to this "northern loop" of the Village 2 �water supply system will enable the northern loop to back-feed Sleepy Hollow Manor, and is expected to increase pressure to this portion of the Village, which has long been plagued by low water pressure. Similarly, the Applicant proposes to connect to an existing sewer main serving Phelps which, in turn, connects to sewer mains running through Sleepy Hollow Manor to a pump station located on Riverside Drive. The Committee, at several of its meetings considering the Project, had expressed concerns that the Project could adversely impact the Village's sewer system and aggravate existing capacity problems in Sleepy Hollow Manor. However, the County of Westchester has committed to making improvements to portions of the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewage lines as part of a county-wide program relating to sewer inflow and infiltration, and the Applicant has committed to provide three hundred thousand dollars to the Village to fund improvements to other relevant parts of the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewer lines and manholes and upgrades to the existing Riverside Drive sewage pump station. The Village Engineer has reported to the Committee that these sewer system improvements will allow the Village sewers to accommodate the additional sewage flow from the CCRC without adverse impact and the Committee concluded that these improvements would sufficiently mitigate any potential adverse effects from the Project. Based on these considerations, the Committee concluded unanimously that the Project would be consistent with Policy 5. However, the Committee expressly made its finding with respect to Policy 5 conditional. Accordingly, the Committee recommends to the Village's Board of Trustees that any approval by the Village of the Project and any related zoning changes be expressly made conditional upon (a) completion of the sewage line improvements that are to be undertaken by the County of Westchester and the Village, (b) the provision by the Applicant of the sum of three hundred thousand dollars to finance additional sewage line and manhole improvements and pump station upgrades, and (c) the completion of all such sewage line, manhole and pump station upgrades and improvements, before the CCRC may be occupied. Policy 5A - DISCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF USES WHICH, BY REASON OF THEIR DEMAND FOR NEW COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES OR THEIR IMPOSITION OF BURDENS ON EXISTING SERVICES AND FACILITIES, WOULD REQUIRE DISPROPORTIONATE PUBLIC COST IN COMPARISON TO PUBLIC BENEFITS. The Committee concluded that the proposed Project would impose little burden on existing Village services and facilities. The proposed CCRC will provide its own private ambulance service, have twenty-four hour security, maintain its own grounds and roads and provide for its own private collection of trash and recyclable materials. The facilities are not likely to add any school age children to the community and, thus, should not burden the local school district. Although the Village's fire department will serve the CCRC, the building heights of the Kendal buildings, as presently proposed, are well within the capacity of the Village's existing fire equipment, the buildings will be constructed with sprinklers, as required by a mandatory sprinkler law in the Village, and the type of use contemplated by the Project does not carry an enhanced risk of fire. Village police will be responsible for law enforcement, but the CCRC type of use is believed to be 3 �inherently a low-crime use, and vehicular ingress and egress will be, principally, from the Town of Mt. Pleasant rather than from Village streets. Parking availability at the Village's Philipse Manor train station is already over-burdened, but Kendal will provide shuttle buses to allow access to Metro-North train service without the need for additional train station parking. Development fees, recreation fees and an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), which will be allocated to the Village, the Town of Mt. Pleasant and the School District of the Tarrytowns, will be payable by Kendal. And, based on experience at other, similar, facilities, Kendal residents are thought likely to involve themselves in the provision of services to the community. Accordingly, the Committee found, unanimously, that the Project would not overwhelm or significantly burden existing services and facilities and would provide economic and social benefits to the Village, making the Project consistent with Policy 5A. Policy 7D - THE HUDSON RIVER IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND WITHIN 1000 FEET OF THE VILLAGE'S SHORELINE SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED AND, WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT. The Committee gave consideration to the applicability of Policy 7D to the Project and concluded that the proposed CCRC development would not impact the Hudson River or its shoreline, or its viability as a locally significant habitat. The western edge of the Project site is separated from the Hudson River by the Metro-North railroad tracks. However, the Committee recognized that development of the property does have the potential to produce contaminated storm water runoff that could adversely impact the River. The Applicant has developed, and would have to implement, a storm water management plan that, under New York State law, must be adequate to minimize any such impacts. Accordingly, the Committee found that if Policy 7D is, in fact, applicable to the Project, the Project is consistent with that policy. Policy 7E - THE LANDS IN STATE OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE AND OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT TRAIL SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT. The Project would have an impact on the lands of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve because a portion of the access road from Route 117 would traverse a corner of the Park Preserve's Rockwood Hall property. The Applicant has proposed to restore the areas to be disturbed with landscaping comparable to that already existing. The existing fence between Rockwood Hall and the Phelps property would be removed, allowing free access by wildlife between the Rockwood Hall site and the remaining wooded areas of the Project site. All of the members of the Committee, therefore, found that the Project would be consistent with Policy 7E. Policy 17 - NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND EROSION SHALL BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 4 �Policy 17A - PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPES AND HILLSIDES THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE THROUGH THE USE OF NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES, WHEN PRACTICAL, TO PREVENT EROSION, ESPECIALLY THROUGH RETENTION, OR PLANTING OF VEGETATIVE COVERS. The Committee found, unanimously, that the Project is consistent with Policies 17 and 17A. Although parts of the Project's construction site would include steep slope areas, the FEIS notes that the Project incorporates stringent soil erosion and sediment control measures and its erosion and sediment control plan includes a variety of mechanism to attain these goals, including sediment traps, silt fence barriers and straw bale barriers. The Applicant has proposed vegetative cover in the form of a comprehensive landscaping and restoration program for the balance of the property. Policy 18 - TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND OF ITS CITIZENS, PROPOSED MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THOSE INTERESTS, AND TO THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT VALUABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS. Policy 18A - PROTECT THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE IN THE EVALUATION OF ANY PROPOSAL FOR NEW ROADS, ROAD WIDENING OR INFRASTRUCTURE. Policy 18B - TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE SUCH RESOURCES SUPPORT. Policy 18C - TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON VALUABLE AND SENSITIVE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE. The Committee could find, with respect to the Project, no adverse impact on the economic, social and environmental interests of the state and its citizens with respect to valuable coastal resources, no failure to protect economic, social, cultural and environmental interests of the Village as to road construction relating to the Project, no failure to provide adequate consideration of impact on the Village's community and cultural resources and no failure to consider and protect environmental interests and natural resources of the Village. An environmental analysis prepared as part of the Project's environmental impact statement indicated that there are no sensitive natural resources found at the site and, as noted in the discussion of Policy 7E, an existing fence between Rockwood Hall and the Project property would be removed and would permit free movement by wildlife across the boundary. The Committee found that, while there would be some environmental impacts related to the proposed action, including the loss of 5 �existing trees, there will be substantial re-planting of vegetation (including in the wooded buffer between the site and Sleepy Hollow Manor) and there will also be positive benefits by providing much-needed housing for senior citizens (consistent with New York State policy) and positive fiscal contributions related to fees and PILOT payments. The findings of consistency by the Committee with respect to Policies 18 and 18A were unanimous and, with respect to Policies 18C and 18D were by a vote of four to three. Policy 19 - PROTECT, MAINTAIN, AND INCREASE THE LEVELS AND TYPES OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER-RELATED RECREATION RESOURCES AND FACILITIES SO THAT THESE RESOURCES AND FACILITIES MAY BE FULLY UTILIZED BY ALL THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLY ANTICIPATED PUBLIC RECREATION NEEDS AND THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES. IN PROVIDING SUCH ACCESS, PRIORITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC BEACHES, BOATING FACILITIES, FISHING AREAS, AND WATERFRONT PARKS. Policy 19D - ENCOURAGE, DEVELOP, PROTECT, AND MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND LINKAGES BETWEEN KINGSLAND POINT PARK, DEVRIES FIELD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR, DOUGLAS PARK, SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT, THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE LANDS, AND ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 21D - PURSUE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC ACCESS RECREATIONAL TRAIL LINKAGES FROM AND BETWEEN THE TARRYTOWN/SLEEPY HOLLOW VILLAGE BOUNDARY, THE VILLAGE'S RIVERFRONT PARK PROPERTY ON RIVER STREET, KINGSLAND POINT PARK, DEVRIES FIELD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR, DOUGLAS PARK, SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT, THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE LANDS, AND ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE POCANTICO RIVER. The LWRP policies strongly encourage efforts to "increase the general public's access to the waterfront such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas, scenic overlooks and passive recreation areas that take advantage of coastal scenery" (Explanation of Policies 21,21 A, 21B, 21C and 21D), and make the linkage of publicly owned land "with major points of natural and cultural interest and recreation along the Hudson River" a "major goal of the Village" (Explanation of Policies 19,19A, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E and 19F). The Committee recognized that access to the western portion of the Phelps campus is currently limited, due to the private ownership of the land by Phelps and the relative inaccessibility of the site. Moreover, there is no physical river access from the site because of the intervening Metro-North railroad tracks. At present, the site does provide limited visual access to the Hudson River. Because the project's internal network of roadways and walkways will be open to the public, the Project will provide enhanced public visual access to the Hudson River and western shoreline views. The Kendal plan also includes a pedestrian walking system and a 6 �Hudson River promenade and overlook that would be open to the public, both from Rockwood Hall and from Kendal's access road. The members of the Committee all agreed that these features would significantly increase public access to the Hudson River scenic views and would thus be consistent with Policies 19, 19D and 21D of the LWRP. The Kendal site plan incorporates pedestrian connections at two points to existing trails in the Rockwood Hall portion of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve to the north. The Committee members all felt that these proposed trail connections would serve to establish the kind of trail linkages contemplated by Policies 19D and 21D and would make the Project consistent with those policies for that reason, as well. Policy 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE, ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION. Policy 23B - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. The LWRP takes the view that "[a]mong the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those structures or areas which are of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance", and requires that protection include "concern not just with specific sites, but with areas of significance, and with the area around specific sites" (Explanation of Policies 23, 23A, 23B and 23C). The applicable policies demand "[a]ll practicable means to protect structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the Village, the State, or the Nation" as well as prevention of "significant adverse changes to such significant structures, districts, areas or sites" (Id.). Among those "resources" listed as "structures of significance in the history, architecture of culture of the Village" is The James House. The LWRP cites factors that would constitute adverse changes to structures covered by the LWRP policies and standards that are to be applied in proposed activity adjacent to the resource. It states: "Compatibility between the proposed action and the resource means that the general appearance of the resource should be reflected in the architectural style, design material, scale, proportion, composition, mass, line, color, texture, detail, setback, landscaping and related items of the proposed actions" (Id.). The FEIS notes that the Kendal structures, at their nearest point, are approximately 100 feet west of The James House, but concludes that there would be no anticipated significant impacts to historic resources. The Committee appreciated the architectural refinements incorporated into the Proposal in an effort to achieve architectural style, design material, color, texture and detail compatibility with The James House resource, as required by Policies 25 and 25B, and the Committee found that the appearance of the proposed structures was far more aesthetically appealing than the designs originally submitted by the Applicant to the Committee. The Committee equally appreciated the reduction in height of a portion of the Commons Building, capping the structure at five stories rather than seven. Nevertheless, the Committee was unable to conclude that the Project 7 �met other required standards of compatibility, such as "scale", "proportion" or "mass" or that its presence would otherwise be consistent with the preservation or enhancement of The James House. The Committee was also aware that portions of the Rockwood Hall property may have been designed and/or influenced by noted landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead and that the visibility of the CCRC structures from portions of the Rockwood Hall property could also have implications under Policy 23. Although the Applicant has proposed to enhance its vegetative screening program in order to mitigate the visual impact of the Kendal buildings on visitors to Rockwood Hall and, as noted above, has reduced the maximum building height from seven stories to five stories, the impact of the Project on Rockwood Hall was not found to protect, enhance or restore this significant site. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of five to two, that the Project was inconsistent with Policies 23 and 23B. Policy 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. Policy 25A - PROTECT OR ENHANCE VIEWS OF THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY, AND THE OPPOSITE SHORE FROM THE IMMEDIATE RIVERFRONT AS VIEWED FROM PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTIES. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [THE NINE IDENTIFIED SCENIC LANDSCAPE SUBUNITS INCLUDE PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND SLEEPY HOLLOW MANOR]. The Committee noted that the Kendal buildings could have an impact on views of the Hudson River and the Tappan Zee Bridge from portions of Rockwood Hall, a publicly owned property. The Applicant has proposed to incorporate a series of landscaped berms within the easement area located north of, and adjacent to, the Project site. Illustrations provided by the Applicant as part of its Project modifications reveal that the lowered building heights and growth of plantings after a ten-year period would help to soften the building mass when viewed from Rockwood Hall. Although the visual impact of the buildings would not be eliminated, the Committee recognized that it would not be possible to fully screen any development that may occur on the western portion of the Phelps property from this vantage point, and the Committee noted that the Rockefeller State Park Preserve has not objected to the impact. While, as a general matter, preservation and protection of views of the Hudson River is a goal of the LWRP, the Committee also noted that view of the River from the Phelps site is not one of the twenty-three "viewsheds of local importance" specifically recognized by the LWRP. However, there are two scenic resources identified under Policy 25B that are potentially impacted 8 �by the Project - the Sleepy Hollow Manor and the Phelps Memorial Hospital scenic landscape subunits cited in the LWRP. The Committee concluded that the Project would not significantly adversely impact either of those subunits. The residential character and "informal" layout of the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit would not be impacted in any way by the Project and visual impact would be slight. The Project would be potentially visible within Sleepy Hollow Manor only from the northern end of Birch Close and from part of Terrace Close, and the site plan for the Project incorporates a three hundred-foot buffer in the southern portion of the Kendal site, further screening the proposed Project from the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit. The LWRP description of the Phelps Memorial Hospital subunit notes that the site has distinctly different visual characteristics. The area is described in the LWRP's Scenic Resources portion of the Inventory and Analysis Section as being "dominated by the buildings and parking areas" of the hospital and "providing an institutional landscape", while the area to the west of the James House is contrasted as a "rolling estate landscape of lawns and woodlands" with glimpses of Hudson River and the western shoreline. The proposed buildings would be situated between The James House and the Metro-North Railroad tracks to the west. Existing views from The James House present only a seasonal, filtered view of the Hudson River. The Project, as currently proposed, would provide a more open vista of the Hudson River. The proposed buildings and, in particular, their rooftops, would, however, be visible from The James House and, of course, the existing open lawns and woodlands would be lost. The Applicant has proposed a comprehensive landscape planting plan, including plantings between The James House and the CCRC units to soften the impact of the proposed structures, and the lowered building heights as now proposed would provide for increased visibility of the Hudson River. With respect to the views from the Hudson River, it was noted that the Project as now proposed has attempted to incorporate a distinct architectural character by incorporating an ItaJianate influenced design to make the construction more stylistically sympathetic to the architecture of The James House and less institutional in appearance. The architectural treatment includes the use of different building materials, window treatments and roof articulation. Although the Committee believed that further reducing the bulk of the proposed structures would minimize the visual impact of the project from the River, the Committee was aware that virtually any building of significant size would be visible from the River. The Committee noted that the Explanation of Policies applicable to Policies 25, 25A and 25B includes a number of standards for minimizing scenic impairment. The Committee concluded, by a vote offiveto two, that any scenic impairment from the Project had been substantially minimized and that, accordingly, the Project was consistent with those policies. Policy 32A - FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO USE STATE OF THE ART LOW FLOW WATER FIXTURES AND WATER SAVING DEVICES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR WATER AND REDUCE THE FLOW TO THE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES. WHERE PRACTICABLE, THE GUIDELINES IN THE NEW YORK STATE MUNICIPAL MODEL WATER CONSERVATION PLAN SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. The Committee unanimously concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 32A. The 9 �Applicant has committed to incorporating low-flow water fixtures and other water saving devices throughout the proposed community to promote water conservation. Policy 33 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE CONTROL OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS. The Applicant has incorporated a storm water management system that includes two separate storm water detention facilities. The Committee noted that the Applicant is required, by New York State law, to implement the best management practices as to storm water runoff, as contemplated by Policy 33. The Committee also reviewed the projected storm water impacts outlined in the Applicant's updated storm water management report, which was submitted to the Village and the Committee. The updated storm water report indicates that, due the storm water detention basins, the peak rate of runoff during a 100-year storm event will actually decrease slightly from the predevelopment levels associated with the site. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed storm water management system should adequately control storm water runoff and that the Project will be consistent with Policy 33. Policy 37 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE NON-POINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS, ORGANICS AND ERODED SOILS INTO COASTAL WATERS. The Committee concluded, unanimously, that the Project is consistent with Policy 37. The Project will incorporate several design measures to mitigate potential impacts. These features include the use of dry swales, anti-vortex manholes and the two water quality detention basins referred to in the discussion of Policy 33. In addition, Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control will be utilized during the construction process. The Committee recognized that any construction, and the resulting creation of additional impervious surfaces, is likely to create some increase in non-point discharge, but felt that the proposed storm water quality system would minimize such discharge into coastal waters. Summary After its detailed consideration of the foregoing policies of the LWRP, the Committee noted that the Project was found to be consistent with most, but not all, of such policies. The Committee then considered whether, after weighing the elements of the Project's consistency and inconsistency with the policies of the LWRP and weighing the relative impacts of those elements, the Project, on balance, was or was not consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. It was the finding of the Committee, by a vote of five to two, that, on balance, the Project was consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 10 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-03-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/520b1cc88c9daaa4d110abf2a8132fa7.pdf 50c91705185b884d5f84025dc435addf PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING February 7,2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Absent: Donald Stever Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of November 2000 Meeting b) David Cartenuto c) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of November 2000 Meeting Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. b) David Cartenuto The Chair stated that there was nothing in the LWRP pertaining to this project. The Chair stated that he would inform the Zoning Board and the Planning Board that they should not wait for a recommendation from the Waterfront Advisory Committee on this matter. The Committee agreed. c) Kendal-on-Hudson Andy Tung is representing the applicant in continuing the consistency review of this project. �The Chair stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee's findings would go to the Village Board of Trustees by mid-March. Andy Tung summarized the sewer and water connection changes. He discussed in detail the Northern Loop connection and the revised sewer tie-in to Sleepy Hollow Manor. The Chair asked about the water pressure in the Manor as a result. Andy Tung responded by discussing the methods that will be used for storing and replenishing the domestic water. George Lence asked how many gallons per day would be used. Andy Tung responded 30-40,000 gallons per day. Jim Margotta asked if the sewage would be pumped at night. Andy Tung responded yes. He spoke about the sewage tie-in and the existing sewage in the Manors and Phelps Hospital. Andy Tung spoke about the vehicular changes. He detailed the changes in the underground parking and in the area around the James House. He also spoke about the changes in the pedestrian path. He stated that the proposed connection to the Manors through Birch Close was removed. He also stated that a path to Rockwood Hall was added. Andy Tung spoke about the project architecture. He described the differing styles of architecture that exist along the Hudson. George Lence asked the applicant how they addressed Policy 5A on Infrastructure Improvements. Andy Tung responded that this project has made sewer improvements in the Manors. He stated that there are current sewer problems in the Manors as per the sewer study. He also stated that the same for the water in the Manors. The Chair asked the applicant how they addressed Policy 23 (preserving and enhancing significant structures in Sleepy Hollow) and Policy 25 (preserving and enhancing structures in Sleepy Hollow, which contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal area). Steve Ebanusa is the Project Architect. He reviewed the architectural design and the Italianate style architecture that was selected. He also spoke about the different styles of architecture that are visible from the Hudson. There was an open discussion on the different styles of architecture on the Hudson and why the Italianate style was chosen. There was an open discussion on the heights of the buildings and the surrounding landscape buffer. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 7,2001 2 �Steve Ebanusa spoke about the massing and scaling of the buildings. He spoke in detail about the roofs and building facade. The Chair asked if any member of the Committee had any questions. There were none. The Chair stated that he received an e-mail from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. He distributed the e-mail to all members as well as the applicant. The Chair stated that the Committee would like to further review the documents and possibly discuss at the next meeting. Keith Saifin (President of Phelps Memorial Hospital) spoke about the e-mail from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. He stated that the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association is not the owner of the James House. Phelps Memorial Hospital owns the James House. He also stated that Phelps Memorial Hospital is in favor of this project. Other TOPICS: None. Adjourn at 9:55 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 7,2001 3 �RESOLUTION FOR CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHEREAS, on or about December 1, 2000, David Cartenuto (the "Applicant") submitted an application to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") for site plan approval for the replacement of an existing masonary wall and construction of new retaining walls; and WHEREAS, at their December 21,2000 meeting the Planning Board did declare themselves to be the Lead Agency in this matter as per the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed and relied on the following materials: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Site Plan Application dated December 1,2000 Short Environmental Assessment Form dated December 1,2000 Site Plan Erosion Control Details, prepared by A.G. Paese, P.E. dated 11/28/00 Details Sheet, prepared by A.G. Paese, dated 11/28/00 Review memorandum from Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers dated November 3,2000. Review memorandum from Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers dated December 21,2000; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. 2. 3. Received an application fee; Requested received and considered comments from the Village engineering consultants, Village Planner and Building Inspector about the proposed project; Received and reviewed a short environmental assessment form (EAF) in compliance with SEQRA dated December 1,2000; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after review of field conditions, the EAF as well as other items noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and no significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed action; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the said Application for site plan approval as shown on the site plan, dated 11/28/00 is hereby granted approval and the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman on a copy of this resolution and upon the site plan drawings, as and when revised as necessary to show compliance with the following, which endorsement shall permit filing iii the G iiiCc Ox tile Village Buimiiig Dcpaitiiiciit for pufpOScS of obtaining permit ill aCCOfdaiiCc with this resolution and the building code requirement, provided, however, that the approval shall expire after one (1) year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications have not been �<t completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Applicant has not obtained the required building permit(s) in accordance with the approval plan: 1. 2. 3. Provision of a completed Coastal Assessment Form. Final site plan including the design of proposed embankments and retaining walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Inspector and/or the Village Engineer including conformance to the Village Engineer's Comments in their 11/3/00 and 12/21/00 memorandum as appropriate. Prior to the signing of the site plan, all outstanding professional review fees, environmental changes and other Village Fees shall be paid to the Village, satisfactory to the Village Attorney. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Ijbh 4<XsNicholas Robinson, Chairman fu iCf^i Dated F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Re$ohitiooi\M720.26-Re« Conditional Site Pin Approvtl.wpd �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 February 9, 2001 Robert Anello, Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Nicholas A. Robinson, Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 A Coastal Assessment Form has been submitted to the Waterfront Advisory Committee (the "Committee") on behalf of David Cartenuto in connection with the reconstruction of a stone wall and construction (with landscaping) of terraced wooden (railroad tie-style) walls at the residence of Mr. Cartenuto located at 275 Millard Avenue (the "Project"). The Project is sited at the rear of Mr. Cartenuto's property, facing Riverside Drive. The Project was reviewed at a meeting of the Committee on February 7, 2001. At that time the Committee concluded that the polices of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (the "LWRP") are not applicable to the Project and that the Committee does not have jurisdiction to make any finding as to consistency of the Project with the policies of the LWRP. The Committee understands that the Project is to be considered by both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Please be advised that consideration by your respective Boards can proceed without the need for a consistency finding from the Committee. Very truly yours, /—/T- ^X Richard D. Weiss, Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-02-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7bf32b75a5beb77d585d5fcf9589e5e6.pdf bc3b0c77fe76187132b31be521e024b5 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING November 1, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir RECEIVED NOV t 6 2000 Absent: Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman VILLAGE CLERK Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: Agenda: a) Minutes of October 2000 Meeting b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Fence c) Karl Dibble a) Minutes of October 2000 Meeting Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Fence The Chair stated that there was one change to this topic. The applicant was required to provide alternating wide and XA size panels. This method would not give the required 1" spacing so the beach club used all narrow panels. The Committee agreed that it was acceptable. c) Kari Dibble Richard Blancato is representing this application along with Karl Dibble. �Richard Blancato spoke about the proposed changes to the property and the proposed storage containers The Chair asked if this would be a retail operation. Richard Blancato responded no. George Lence asked about the size of the containers. Karl Dibble responded that the containers would be 8 ' x 8 ' x 20'. Richard Blancato showed the Committee members where the containers would be located via the proposed drawings. Richard Blancato stated that the property has been elevated and an engineer has been hired to evaluate the drainage, etc. The Chair asked about the garage size. Richard Blancato responded that it is not specific yet. It is only on the drawings for show. Richard Blancato also stated that they might have to come back for the garage approval. The Chair asked what approvals were sought in tonight's meeting. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant is seeking approval for the building and the storage containers. Karin Adir asked why is approval needed for the containers. Richard Blancato responded that containers are not expressed specifically in the ordinance. Karin Adir asked if people were living in the house. Richard Blancato responded yes along with the office downstairs. Doug Maass asked if all other areas that are not covered would be blacktop. Karl Dibble responded either blacktop or covered with item 4 material. Karin Adir asked if the storage containers were portable. Jim Margotta responded that they are shipping containers. Karl Dibble responded that a roof could be added to make the containers appear like a shed. There was an open discussion on parking. The Chair stated that there is a problem with approving the applicant's request since the drawings are only preliminary. He also stated that the Committee would like to see the engineer's report on the drainage issues. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 1, 2000 2 �The Chair stated that the Committee would like to see the proposals for the chain link fence that is proposed as well as the screening and the water runoff. Karl Dibble responded that the fence would be a wood fence. The Chair responded that the Committee could not make the applicant install a particular fence but the Committee can control what is installed on Route 9 according to Policy l(k). Jim Margotta suggested that Karl Dibble provide pictures of the storage bins. Karl Dibble agreed. Other Topics: None. Adjourn at 8:33 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 1,2000 3 �26 December 2000 To: Waterfront Caimittee From: James Margotta Due to lack of an Agenda, there will be no meeting of the Waterfront Committee in January. The next meeting will be held on February 7, 2001. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-11-01.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a817f4405aa52aafcbde2643e5d06908.pdf c22ea768b095cf6ff46778f14be187f4 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING October 4, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m Present Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Donald Stever Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Absent Terence McGlynn Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None Agenda: a) Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises 183 Valley Street Parking Deck w/two 2 bedroom units a) Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises Larry Rodrigues was the applicant and addressed the Committee himself. He discussed the proposed development with the use of a model. He discussed the details of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 2 family house with 10 parking spaces. Don Stever stated that 10 spaces are required because the adjacent property needs spaces based on a previous requirement The Chair asked if the existing structure is wood. Larry Rodrigues responded that the existing structure is made of block and brick. The Chair asked about the height of the two structures. Larry Rodrigues responded that they are the same. The Chair referred to policy l(i) that discusses the development of Cortlandt and Valley Streets All agreed that the applicant meets this condition. The Chair asked if the building would have a stucco exterior. Larry Rodrigues responded yes. �The Chair discussed the full footprint of 183 Valley Street and its relationship to 185 Valley Street. Don Stever discussed the open feeling associated with parking areas. Doug Maass asked about light pollution Larry Rodrigues responded that the lighting scheme would be designed properly. The Chair asked if the Committee had any other questions. Don Stever asked who was the lead agency. Jim Margotta responded that the Planning Board was the lead agency Don Stever made a motion to approve the application It was unanimous. The findings will be sent to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. Other Topics: The minutes from the September 6, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. It was unanimous (Ralph Gunderman abstained). Adjourn to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 4, 2000 2 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 H M 1 0 1DV11IA 0002 8 1 130 aaAiioiu CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Construction at 183 Valley Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on October 4,2000, the application submitted by Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises ("Applicant") for replacement of an existing structure at 183 Valley Street with a new structure consisting of two parking levels with two two-bedroom duplex residential units above. The proposal was presented to the Committee by Mr. Laurentino Rodrigues, who displayed a three-dimensional model of the proposed project and who responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed construction would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The site at 183 Valley Street is presently occupied by an older residential structure. It is located in an area that includes both multi-family residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. The proposal would involve the construction of a two level parking deck with two two-bedroom duplex apartments above. One level of the parking deck would be accessible from Valley Street and the other from Chestnut Street. A total often parking spaces would be provided, two to satisfy the parking needs of the new apartments at 183 Valley Street and eight to satisfy the parking requirements imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals for residential units at 185 Valley Street, the adjacent property also owned by the Applicant. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Policy II and Map 4 reference the site of the proposed construction as one of the Village's urban renewal areas. The location is described in the applicable Policy explanation as having been "identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." The Committee finds that the proposed construction will be �rehabilitative, replacing an old building that appears in need of significant improvement, with two residential units. The architectural drawings and the scale model presented to the Committee by the Applicant promise the addition of some architectural interest to the Valley Street/Chestnut Street streetscape, in the form of balconies and a surmounting cupola. In addition, the construction will allow the Applicant to comply with the mandate of the Zoning Board of Appeals to provide eight additional parking spaces for the adjacent structure at 185 Valley Street. The Committee notes that Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the "traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation both for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The proposed construction at 183 Valley Street will satisfy the LWRP's goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation in this part of the Village. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that the proposed construction is consistent with Policy II and with the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-10-04.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7ec5fad3bcb86c1f69e2284a870e6f6a.pdf 72af1e97e89bd76b640c6fc370036ce3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING September 6, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:13 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Donald Stever Karin Adir Absent: Ralph Gunderman Terence McGlynn Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The minutes from the July 5,2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. It was unanimous. a) 6-8 Cedar Street b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Townhouses Fence a) 6-8 Cedar Street Robert Barstow is the applicant. He gave an overview of the proposed of three (2)-family townhouses on Cedar Street. He stated that the area is currently a vacant lot surrounded by a fence. Robert Barstow stated that all parking requirements have been met but there are several zoning variances that the proposed drawings do not comply with. Don Stever asked if the application has gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Robert Barstow responded not yet but he is on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda this month. Jim Margotta asked if these plans were revised as per the Planning Board's initial comments. Robert Barstow responded no. The Chair asked what property adjoins this. Robert Barstow responded that it is surrounded by multi-family apartment houses. The Chair referred to policy l(i) that discusses the development of Cortlandt and Valley Streets. All agreed that the applicant meets this condition. �Don Stever stated that the applicant has no issues with the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He also stated that this application will have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board for their approval and they will have other issues with this application. Don Stever liked the plans and stated that the area needs more improvements like this. The Chair asked what was the height of the adjoining buildings. Robert Barstow responded that they were the same height. The Chair stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee's finding are only a recommendation and has no bearing on the decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board. It was unanimously approved. b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club There was no representative for this application. The Committee decided to make a decision based on the letter submitted by Mr. Lee Kennedy. The Chair reviewed that Waterfront Advisory Committee's previous decision on this application. Don Stever asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Architectural Review Board determine that the fence was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair responded no. There was an open discussion on the fence height and spacing. The Committee unanimously agreed to let the fence stay up until the season is over and allow the fence to be corrected according to the previous approved requirements. Adjourn at 9:01 to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 6,2000 2 �RECEIVED Village o f S l e e p y H o l l o w Waterfront Advisory Committee 2 8 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 §gp f g ^AM VILLAGE C I C D V WVBKR CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Residential Construction at Corner of Cortland and Cedar Streets The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on September 6, 2000, a proposal submitted by Mr. Robert Barstow ("Applicant") for construction of three attached two family units at the corner of Cortland Street and Cedar Street. The proposal was presented to the Committee by Mr. Barstow, who is the architect and developer for the project. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed construction would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The site at the corner of Cortland Street and Cedar Street is presently a vacant lot, surrounded by a chain link fence, and is used for parking. It is located in an area that includes both multi-family residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. The proposal would involve the construction of three townhouse-style residential units, with two apartments in each unit. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II 23 of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Policy I and Map 4, referred to in Policy II, identify the site of the proposed construction as one of the Village's urban renewal areas, and the applicable Policy explanation describes the urban redevelopment areas identified on Map 4 as sites that "have been identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." The Committee finds that the proposed construction will be rehabilitative, replacing a vacant lot that is presently used for the parking of motor vehicles (many of which are in a state of disrepair), with three attractively designed residential units. Each unit will contain two apartments, one to a floor. Adequate parking will be provided with garages set beneath the living units and additional parking in the rear of the buildings. �In addition, Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the "traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The construction at the Cortland Street/Cedar Street site for new apartments will meet these LWRP goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation in this part of the Village and, therefore, the Committee has concluded that the proposed construction is consistent with Policy II and with the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-09-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f17209e1201114f2cc88044a00867095.pdf fdca0a36a58f6cb344772f66ca57f1e1 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING July 5, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Donald Stever Absent: Karin Adir Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Helen Carlson (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The minutes from the June 7, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes with the following corrections: On page 1 it states that the applicant has requested a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a 7-0" fence with the expectation that the fence would be 6'-6" tall and requested the extra footage for flexibility Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following: a) Kendal-On-Hudson Waterfront Development Project a) Kendal-On-HudsonAl DelBello is representing the applicant. He gave a brief overview of the Kendal-OnHudson Organization and the need for adult retirement housing communities. David Jones is the Project Director for Kendal. He gave a brief introduction of the CCRC concept. He also stated that Kendal is a not-for-profit organization. The Chair asked what the geographic distribution was for this facility. David Jones responded that it is about 250-275 They are proposing 225 residential units that would be studio apartments up to 2 bedroom units. There would also be 40 assisted units. Terence McGlynn asked what the CCRC would do if more skilled help was needed. David Jones responded that based on industry experience and predictions, the CCRC would have to adjust as needed. �George Lence asked if there were any preferences to get in David Jones responded that there was no preference George Lence asked if Kendal has any other projects pending in New York David Jones responded no Doug Maass asked what was Kendal's competition David Jones responded that there were two- (2) other CCRC's. They were Anderson Medical and Westchester Meadows Hebrew Hospital The Chair stated that the Kendal submission was missing information. The Board agreed. Andy Tung is the planner for Kendal-on-Hudson. He stated that there is a separate package for the Waterfront Advisory Committee that specifically addressed the LWRP. He also stated that in Table 382, all 44 policies were addressed. There are 6 policies that are most applicable. They are: Policy 9 (Fish and Wildlife) Policy 23 (Area enhancement) Policy 25 (Scenic Views of Hudson) Policy 33 (Water runoff) Policy 37 (Erosion) Policy 44 (Wetlands) Andy Tung gave a detailed presentation of the proposed property and building layouts. He discussed entrance layouts, parking (for visitors and residents), building elevations and vegetation. Doug Maass asked if the walkways are level. Andy Tung responded that the walkways are not level. Doug Maass asked if you can step-off the walkways Andy Tung responded yes Andy Tung stated that Policy 19 would increase public access to water resources by allowing access to a waterfront area that was not previously accessible to the public. Andy Tung also stated that Policy 23 would preserve and protect the James House and the surrounding area. Don Stever asked if the maintenance of the James House would be easier on the hospital. Andy Tung responded yes. The James House is expensive to maintain and this will assist the hospital in the maintenance of the James House. Don Stever asked if this makes the James House incorporated into Kendal-on-Hudson. David Jones responded that currently it is only to be maintained. f Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 \ 2 �Andy Tung discussed the impact of Policy 25. He gave an overview of the proposed landscaping and building exteriors Don Stever stated that Policy 25a reads to enhance views of the river The proposed buildings are intrusions He would like to see more aggressive landscaping with mature conifers to largely obscure the sides of the buildings Doug Maass stated that view 2PL has a tremendous visual presence Andy Tung responded that the proposed entrance from Rockwood Hall would not disturb the Rockwood Hall trail He also stated that the architecture was being developed so that the buildings look residential This would allow the view from the Hudson to be more appealing Don Stever stated that the view from the James House needs more foliage. This would hide the buildings from the James House view He also stated that foliage could be used instead of a wall Ralph Gunderman stated that he likes the alternative path including Rockwood Hall. He stated that he prefers the preserving of the trail and the improved scenic quality. Andy Tung addressed Policy 33 (Water Runoff) and the proposed terminal basins. He addressed Policy 37 (Erosion) during construction and on a permanent basis. He also addressed Policy 44 (Wetlands) The Chair asked about the size of the construction site. Andy Tung responded that it would be about 1/3 of the site. He also added that there would be some blasting of rock Doug Maass asked about the nutrients to feed vegetation. Andy Tung responded that the catch basins would capture and divert all runoff. It is all part of the water quality treatment system. Don Stever sited an alternative site and asked if this was considered as an alternative. Andy Tung responded that the topography was more challenging. He also stated that their intention was to keep away from the public and to use the view of the Hudson River. The Chair asked what kinds of alternatives have been researched. Andy Tung responded that they have looked at moving the entire complex over and also looked at removing some levels on the buildings. Terence McGlynn asked what the impact was of reducing the number of buildings. David Jones responded that the units would be less affordable and the development might not be as financially stable. Al DelBello stated that Kendal tries to reach a broader market. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 3 �George Lence asked where the two- (2) storage tanks would be located. Andy Tung responded that they would not be visible He indicated the location of the two(2) tanks. Don Stever asked if there would be enough water to supply this area without using storage tanks. Andy Tung responded that an alternative would be to have a new water line built from the northern loop that serves Briarcliff, Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown instead of using tanks. Andy Tung also spoke about the proposed sewer connections between the proposed development and Sleepy Hollow Manor. He detailed the proposed method of discharging into a holding tank off-hours as not to interfere with Sleepy Hollow Manor. Andy Tung also discussed a proposed alternative to the original sewer method by piping at an alternative location. This would minimize the impact to Birch Close. The Committee will re-convene in September. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-07-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9a2c3b2719f45df50fed51ca4ea67d06.pdf e6bba65108f09f6a0dd8b62401112def PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING June 7, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:09 p.m. Present Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Absent Karin Adir Donald Stever Also Present James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Announcements: The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following: a) Philipse Manor Beach Club b) SamVieira Fence replacement 140 Valley Street a) Philipse Manor Beach Club Lee Kennedy is representing the applicant Lee Kennedy stated that this application is for a replacement of an existing 6' -6 " fence with a new wood picket fence at a height of 6 ' - 0 " The applicant will request through the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance of T - 0 " if 6' -0 " is not approved. Lee Kennedy stated that a 6' -0 " fence is the acceptable commercial height of a fence. The Chair inquired about the location of the existing chain link section. Lee Kennedy responded that it is on the North End. The Chair asked if it would be replaced with a picket fence also. Lee Kennedy responded yes Lee Kennedy stated that the Architectural Review Board approval is for 6' - 6 ". Doug Maass asked if this fence is for security or privacy. Lee Kennedy stated that one foot would not make a difference as far as privacy is concerned. The Chair inquired about the visual impact of the fence. Lee Kennedy stated that the boards of the fence would be apart as opposed to the current fence, which is not transparent at all �Doug Maass asked if the applicant would duplicate the fence that is currently installed There was an open discussion on board spacing. Lee Kennedy proposed 1" to 1 - Vi" spacing as long as they can be uniform. George Lence asked when would this work commence. Lee Kennedy stated that work would start as soon as it is approved. It was openly agreed for a minimum of 1" board spacing and a height of 6' - 6" at the base of the shoulder (of the picket). The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP The Committee agreed unanimously that it was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee will refer its recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. b) 140 Vallev Street Sam Vieira is the applicant and co-owner. He gave an overview of the existing layout. Doug Maass stated that he would not participate in this discussion since it is a conflict of interest. Sam Vieira gave an overview of the proposed phases in the conversion from commercial to residential. The Chair asked about the surrounding uses. Sam Vieira responded that primarily it was residential (on College Ave.) with some commercial (on Valley St.). The Chair asked if there were any other changes besides the windows. Sam Vieira responded that there is a loading dock that will be removed in the back of the property. The Chair asked about zoning in this area. Jim Margotta responded that it is in a C2 district. He also stated that mixed use is allowed in a C2 district. The Chair stated that LWRP policy l(i) approves this work. The Chair read this section aloud. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 7, 2000 �The Chair asked if there were any other findings Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously (with one abstraction) that it was consistent with the LWRP Other Items: A new Chairman needed to be selected. Doug Maass nominated Richard Weiss. Ralph Gunderman seconded. There were no other nominations. Richard Weiss was unanimously elected. There was an open discussion on a proposed purchase on River Street and its relevance to the LWRP. It was determined that the Committee will not give an opinion without an application. The Committee agreed to follow the other Village Boards by not holding an August meeting. The minutes from the April 5, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn to next meeting. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 7,2000 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Change of Occupancy at 140 Valley Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 7, 2000, the application submitted by Messrs. Samuel F. and Samuel S. Vieira ("Applicants") for a change of occupancy of an existing building at 140 Valley Street from commercial to residential use. The proposal for the conversion of the site was presented to the Committee by Samuel Vieira, an architect and co-owner of the building. Mr. Vieira also responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed conversion of the site from commercial to residential use would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. Mr. Maass, whose wife rents studio space in the building, abstained from participation in consideration of the proposal. The Proposal The building at 140 Valley Street is located in an area that includes both residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. Mr. Vieira advised that the surrounding area on Valley Street was principally residential, although it was more commercial across the street from the site. Mr. Vieira also explained that the exterior of the building would undergo no significant changes other than the addition of a number of windows, and that use of the property for residential apartments would result in less vehicular and pedestrian traffic than the current commercial use. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II 23 of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Review of Map 4, referred to in Policy II, identifies Valley Street as one of the Village's urban renewal areas. And the applicable Policy explanation describes the urban redevelopment areas identified on Map 4 as sites that "have been identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." �Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the ''traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The proposed reuse of the 140 Valley Street site for new apartments will meet these LWRP goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation and, therefore, the Committee has concluded that the proposed conversion of 140 Valley Street is consistent with Policy II. The Committee further notes that, although, the LWRP has explicitly recognized the mixed use nature of the Valley Street neighborhood, the proposed conversion of the site from commercial use to residential use will not upset the mixed use character of the neighborhood. Mr. Vieira has advised the Committee that it is even possible that, since the conversion has been planned in two phases, part of the site may remain commercial. However, this possibility was not critical to the Committees consistency findings. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application of Philipse Manor Beach Club The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 7, 2000, the application submitted by the Philipse Manor Beach Club (the "Applicant" or the "Beach Club") for replacement of an existing fence along the west side of Applicant's parking lot. The plans for the new fence were described to the Committee by Mr. E. Lee Kennedy, an architect and a member of Applicant's Board. Mr. Kennedy also responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, since the proposed new fence was a replacement of an existing fence structure, and since Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of the Applicant, has undertaken to implement certain modifications to reduce any potential adverse impact of the new fence, approval of the proposed fence replacement would not be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Beach Club site is located along the banks of the Hudson River, to the west of the Philipse Manor train station and the paved parking area owned by the Philipse Manor Improvement Association. The new fence, which would replace approximately two hundred thirty feet of six and one half to seven foot high fencing, (mostly wood, but some chain link) is proposed to be wood picket on a galvanized frame. Mr. Kennedy advised that the new fence is likely to be six feet in height, since this is a stock size, but that the Applicant is seeking a zoning variance that would permit a seven foot fence, in order to allow flexibility in finalizing specifications with Applicant's supplier. Proposal Modifications The Committee recognized that a fence presently exists at the site, and that views of the Hudson River are already impaired by the existing fence structure. However, the Committee felt that the new fence should not in any way be allowed to further impair views of the River at this location. Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of the Applicant, committed to certain specifications for the new fence to assure that it would not cause increased impairment of River viewsheds. Mr. Kennedy agreed that the open spaces between the fence boards would be up to one and one half inches, but in no event less than one inch, in order to create a relatively "transparent" effect. By contrast, the overlap of the boards of the existing fence presents an opaque appearance. In addition, although the Applicant is seeking a zoning variance that would allow a maximum fence height of seven feet, Mr. Kennedy has agreed that the height to the shoulders of pickets (that is, the height at which the vertical planes of the fence boards start to angle toward their points) would not exceed six and one-half feet. �Consistency Findings In addition to reviewing the general purposes and policies of the LWRP, the Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the Project with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 2 A and 25B of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy 2A - DOCKS, BOAT RAMPS, MOORING FACILITIES, AND OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES OR FACILITIES WILL BE DESIGNED AND SITED TO PROTECT NAVIGATION, ASSURE ACCESS BETWEEN WATER AND SHORE, AND MINIMIZE VISUAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Applicable portions of the LWRP explanation of this Policy notes that the Village has designated the Beach Club as one of the locations "best suited for water-dependent and water-enhanced uses." It is listed as an "existing water-dependent use." The Committee has concluded that replacement of an old Beach Club fence that is in disrepair with the proposed new fence would not be inconsistent with Policy 2A. In addition, part of the new fence construction will include a reinforced steel gate with a forty-eight inch active leaf and a ten-foot inactive leaf. This improved access for boats and boat trailers would enhance the water dependent uses of the Beach Club site. The Committee has concluded that this will be consistent with Policy 2A. The design limitations referred to, with respect to Policy 25B, below, will also minimize visual impacts, as contemplated by Policy 2A Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. The Committee observes that the viewshed from the Philipse Manor train station is not specifically identified in Policy 25B as one of the Village's twenty-three viewsheds of local importance. Nevertheless, the LWRP clearly recognizes the value of Hudson River views, and protection of those views is a significant element of the LWRP. Indeed, the Hudson River view from Kingsland Point Park is one of the viewsheds identified in Policy 25B, and the Committee notes that the views from the train station are substantially identical. The placement of fencing almost adjacent to the River will, necessarily, impair such views. However, that impairment already exists by virtue of the existing Beach Club fence. The Committee has determined that the replacement fence will not make the interference with views of the River any worse. The Committee also noted the steps being taken to minimize the visual impact of the new fence. The greater "transparency" of the new fence as compared with the old, the fact that the fence boards will be picket boards with open spaces formed by the angles between the pickets at the top and the fact that Applicant has agreed that the picket "shoulders" will be no higher than six and one- �half feet, have led the Committee to conclude that Applicant's proposal is not inconsistent with the LWRP goals applicable to protection of viewsheds and protection of scenic assets. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-06-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/647e30c2f5ac7f32371f5251ff984ea8.pdf 078ee0cd8a518bfbaa157145b899ee85 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING April 5,2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:05 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Donald Stever Absent None Also Present: Jerome Fine (Village Engineer) James Margotta (Building Inspector) David Smith (Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Nicholas Cicchetti (Planning Board) George Tanner (Planning Board) Announcements: The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following items: a) County House Road b) Philipsburg Manor a) County House Road The Chair stated that this was a sub-division of 11.9 acres. This will involve 11 one-family lots. The Chair asked if any Board member had any comments. Ralph Gunderman asked if there was a size restriction on footprint of house. Jim Margotta responded no if the building meets front and side yard boundaries. There is a visual restriction on building lot sizes. He also stated that for Rl zoning it is 15%. The code requirements are as follows: For 1 acre: Front Yard One Side Yard Both Side Yards Rear Yard Max height Max size 100 feet 100 feet 200 feet 100 feet 35 feet 45,000 sq. feet. �Dave Smith stated that under NYS law, the Planning Board could vary the design criteria in order to get a more favorable design. Dave Smith gave a brief overview of the County House Road layout. Doug Maass inquired why grass-Crete was crossed out. Dave Smith responded that there is a suitable sub-base to access facility. He also stated that sometimes with grass-Crete, the grass dies and the concrete substructure would remain. The Chair asked what measures would be in effect to force the applicant to keep a certain amount of lawn space. Jim Margotta stated that the maximum lot coverage is 15%. George Lenco inquired if the builder uses the full 15% for the footprint, what would be left. Dave Smith responded that the coverage is defined as the percent of lot area covered by the building area. Doug Maass inquired if the detention basin would have water in it at all times. Dave Smith responded no. There would be a gradual release of water. Doug Maass inquired if the detention basin would be fenced in. Dave Smith responded that it would be landscaped. Dave Smith stated that a l-in-5 slope is easy to get out of. Ralph Gunderman stated that the detention basin restricts the flow into the stream. The Chair inquired if it was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair read clauses on open space and noted reduction in open space and the mixed consistency on LWRP Policy 5B (Open space character East of the old Croton Aqueduct). Ralph Gunderman inquired about the re-zoning of the area. Jim Margotta stated that this was previously zoned as an R3 (5000 SF). The Village Board increased it to 1 acre. Dave Smith stated that there are 11 lots under the property boundary. He also stated that there is an open space component. There will be a fee paid by the applicant to maintain the dedicated area. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Karin Adir inquired if there would be an establishment of a Homeowners Association. Dave Smith stated that that would be a personal decision. Doug Maass inquired about the easement on Lot #10. Dave Smith responded that this was necessary in order to avoid a curb cut on Bedford Road. The Chair stated that the plans take measures to minimize damages on flooding and erosion (policy #11). The Chair stated that the plans take measures to protect hillsides (item #17a). The Chair stated that this plan conflicts with Policy #25 (Scenic Quality of the Coastal Area). Ralph Gunderman stated that there are many measures in the plans that protect and comply within the LWRP. The Chair stated that efforts were made to spare as many trees as possible. Dave Smith stated that a tree survey was prepared. It was discussed that most of the trees were preserved. Ralph Gunderman inquired about preventing erosion during construction. Dave Smith responded that this was outlined in the EAF. During construction, the developer will use Westchester County erosion plans when developing on slope. The Chair inquired about steep slopes. Dave Smith responded that the developer is staying off of the steep slopes. The Chair inquired about what the Village would do to prevent homeowners from further developing the property. Don Steer responded by a deed restriction. The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously that it was consistent with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �b) Philipsburg Manor The Chair stated that a representative of the Historic Hudson Valley wishes to speak to the Committee. The applicant gave a brief overview of the entire history of the dredging project. The T21 grant was also discussed. Don Steer asked Steven Huske to go over dredging project. Steven Huskie gave a brief overview of the project. He also discussed the hydraulic method of dredging. Doug Maass asked how many gallons/minute would be dredged. Steve Huskie responded 850-1200 gallons/minute. Doug Maass asked what % of this would be solid. Steve Huskie responded 10-15% and the rest is liquid. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant was excavating an area to create a pond? Steve Huskie responded that an embankment would be built. Doug Maass asked where the material from previous dredging was placed. Steve Huskie responded that it is in the same area. Don Stever asked if this is a drudge disposal site already. Steve Huskie responded yes. Doug Maass asked about the turbidity of the water in Pocantico River. Steve Huskie responded that it was standard. The Chair asked about the refill rate of the silt. Steve Huskie responded 1500 cubic yards/year. Doug Maass asked what time of year would this be performed. Steve Huskie responded after the spawning season. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Steve Huske then discussed wetlands. He stated that there is only 2/10 of an acre and it is low quality wetlands. Don Stever asked if it was isolated. Steve Huskie responded that some areas are isolated and other areas might not be. The Chair asked if the pipe was going to remain. Steve Huskie responded that it would remain for drainage. If it were ever needed, it wouldn't disturb the other areas. Don Steer asked if the applicant would return the substrate to its natural elevation with the exception of the pipe. Steve Huskie responded that the pipe needs support. He also stated that it would be filled about halfway. Doug Maass asked how permeable will the pipe be. Steve Huskie responded that it depends on the mixture. Doug Maass asked about on-site mitigation Steve Huskie responded that it would not be suitable. He also stated that the Fish and Wildlife Society suggested an offsite Wetlands restoration. The Chair asked about the wetlands in Sleepy Hollow. Steve Huskie responded that they would only be restored within the Historic Hudson Valley. Don Stever asked the applicant where they were in terms of the 404 permit. Steve Huskie responded that the Fish & Wildlife Society has accepted mitigation verbally. The Army Corps of Engineers has the final say. Don Stever asked about the title wetlands permit from DEC. Steve Huskie responded no. Don Stever asked if they were required. Steve Huskie responded no. Don Steer recommended that the applicant check with the DEC. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Steve Huskie responded that they would. Dave Smith stated that the expanded EAF was sent to the DEC. The Chair asked the committee to look at the LWRP policy on this project. The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 19b The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 23. The Chair also referenced one of the significant sites listed on HI-48 (Philipsburg Manor and Upper Mills). The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 25. The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 35 A (fish spawning). There was an open discussion on Policy 7B due to the fact that the wetlands were not being restored within Sleepy Hollow. Don Steer referenced Policy 35B. There was an open discussion on Policy 44 (Wetland protection). Ralph Gunderman asked if there was any way to support pipe without raising grade. Give title wetlands a chance to restore itself. Steve Huskie responded that it would probably not be worth it due to the degree of disruption. Ralph Gunderman asked what is the jurisdiction of this committee of LWRP. Don Stever responded that the Waterfront Advisory Committee interprets the LWRP. The Chair stated that Sleepy Hollow should get mitigation instead of Croton. Don Stever responded that there is no policy on local mitigation. Ralph Gunderman stated that these wetlands are not significant to Sleepy Hollow. Doug Maass stated that he favors Croton. The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously that it was. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Other Topics: Don Stever discussed the EIS draft on Kendall. Once DEIS is complete, Kendall will be invited in. The Committee meetings will be open. The Historic Hudson Valley applicant stated that they are interested in appearing to Waterfront Advisory Committee on GM site in order to address some issues. Don Stever stated that he should wait until the selected developer knows what will be done with the site. The draft of findings from this meetings agenda will be sent to Planning Board. A representativefromthe Scenic Hudson Valley spoke to the Committee. They are also interested in GM site. The representative also expressed an interest in meeting with the Waterfront Advisory Committee. There is no plan as of yet but they are looking at specific ideas and objectives. Adjourn to next meeting. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application of County House Road, LLC The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on April 5, 2000, the proposal submitted by County House Road, LLC (the "Applicant") for a development project consisting of the construction of eleven residences on approximately 11.9 acres (the "Tract") located on County House Road at the intersection with the Bedford Road (Route 448) (the "Project"). The Village's planning consultant, David Smith of the firm of Saccardi & Schiff, Inc., provided an overview of the Project and was available to respond to questions posed by the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Project The Project consists of the subdivision of the Tract into eleven lots and the construction of eleven single-family residences, arranged in a cluster configuration. The Project also provides that approximately 1.5 acres of the Tract (including a parcel affording a notable view of the Hudson River and the opposite shore at the intersection of the Bedford Road and County House Road) will be dedicated to the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village"), to be preserved as open space, and that, in addition, approximately 0.84 acres of the Tract will also be preserved as open space pursuant to a conservation buffer easement that will run along the frontage of the Tract at the Bedford Road and County House Road. Consistency Findings In addition to the reviewing the general purposes and policies of the LWRP, the Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the Project with the LWRP, gave consideration to Policies 5B, 11, 17A and 25B of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to the Project. Policy 5B - Retain the rural residential, agricultural, and open space character in those areas of the Village east of the old Croton Aqueduct. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 5B. The entire Tract is currently open space and the Committee recognizes that any development at this site will necessarily reduce the open space character of the site. However, the Committee notes that, at the time the LWRP was adopted, the Tract was zoned "R-3," which would have allowed the development to proceed with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. The Tract has been upzoned by the Village's Board of Trustees, in anticipation of this development and with the concurrence �of the Applicant, to UR-1," which requires a minimum lot size of 43,560 square feet. This significant reduction in the density potential for the site, the Applicant's decision to place the houses that are to be built in a clustered configuration and the retention of a large number of the trees presently existing on the Tract, together with the preservation of a portion of the Tract as open space (by means of the open space areas to be dedicated to the Village and the grant of the conservation buffer easement), assure that the development will have a rural residential character and that the site will retain, to a reasonable degree, its present open space character, as contemplated by Policy 5B. Policy 11 - Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 11. The placement of residential structures in a cluster should result in minimization of disturbance to the site. For example, use of common driveway areas should reduce the amount of land covered by paved surfaces and thus should reduce water run-off. The Project includes a detention pond to receive stormwater, which will thus be collected and can be gradually released to an existing watercourse. This feature should result in a reduction of the flow of stormwater to a level less than that occurring at the site in its present state. The siting of construction away from steep slope areas will reduce the risk of erosion (see also, Policy 17A). Policy 17A - Protect the steep slopes and hillsides throughout the Village through the use of nonstructural measures, when practical, to prevent erosion, especially through the retention, or planting of vegetative covers. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 17A. The area of the Village in which the Tract is situated appears on Map 2 of the LWRP as an area of steep slopes, and a portion of Tract, in fact, consists of a relatively steeply sloped hillside. The LWRP specifically notes that the removal of vegetation from steep slope areas creates a risk of erosion and could impair the scenic quality of the Village. The cluster configuration selected for the Project avoids the placement of any structures on or adjacent to the portion of the Tract that is steeply sloped, and the trees and vegetation existing on the steeply sloped segment of the Tract will be retained. Policy 25B - Protect or enhance the following identified scenic resources as areas and viewsheds of local scenic significance. The Committee observes that the viewshed from the intersection of County House Road and the Bedford Road is not one that is specifically identified in the LWRP as among the Village's twenty-three viewsheds of local importance. Nevertheless, the view from this intersection is similar to that "from the intersection of Route 448, Pine Street, and the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail," which is one of the viewsheds so identified in the LWRP. The Committee believes that this viewshed from the intersection of County House Road and the Bedford Road, even if not specifically identified in the LWRP, is, nonetheless, a valuable scenic asset of the Village. The protection of this viewshed is, therefore, consistent with the general policies of the �LWRP and with the philosophy underlying Policy 25B. The Project includes the dedication to the Village of a part of the Tract situated at this intersection, which will be maintained as open space. Maintaining this land as open space will be protective of this viewshed and thus the Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with the goals of the LWRP applicable to protection of viewsheds and protection of scenic assets. kichard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY: PHILIPSBURG MANOR POND DREDGING The Waterfront Advisory Committee considered the Philipsburg Manor Restoration pond dredging and dredged spoil disposal proposal at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 5, 2000, upon referral from the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board. The Board, in public session, heard from the applicant and its consultant, Huskie Engineering, and discussed the matter with the Village's planning consultant, David Smith, of Saccardi & Schiff. The Committee has unanimously concluded that the project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), and that it is consistent with the applicable specific policies thereof. General Consistency The purpose of the project is to restore the aquatic integrity of two ponds located on the historically significant property, Philipsburg Manor. There are two ponds, a manmade freshwater impoundment originally constructed as a mill pond (the "upper pond") in ancient times, and a natural still water portion of the mouth of the Pocantico River below the mill dam, which is influenced by the tidal action of the Hudson River (the "lower pond"). Both ponds have been dredged periodically since the 1940s, and both are significantly degraded as aquatic habitat by an accumulation of silt primarily resulting from urban street run-off, but significantly exacerbated byfloodingcaused by Tropical Storm Floyd late in 1999. Philipsburg Manor is a critical element of the post-industrial economy of Sleepy Hollow. Preservation and enhancement of historic tourism is one of the fundamental goals of the LWRP. Since the activity directly enhances the property, it is consistent with that goal, and with specific Policies 19, 23A and 25B, which articulate that goal. Specific Policies The Committee considered the project against the following other applicable policies of the LWRP: 7B, 35A-D, 44. Policy 7B. The Philipsburg Manor and Devries Field wetland/watercourse areas of the Pocantico River shall be protected, preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain its viability as a locally significant habitat. The Committee believes that the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Although some minor wetland loss will occur if the plan to dispose of dredged spoil �onsite is implemented, the Committee concludes that restoration of open water habitat, which has been seriously degraded by sediments contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons from street run-off falls squarely within this policy. The activity will improve two significant aquatic habitats, one a freshwater habitat and the other an estuarine habitat, without materially compromising locally important wetland values. Policy 35. Dredging and dredged spoil disposal in coastal waters will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands and wetlands. The lower pond dredging and spoil disposal will occur in waters that are coastal waters. There are no State permit requirements for the dredging aspects of the project, and the applicant has affirmed that it will comply with any State permit requirements that are applicable to the dredged spoil disposal. The activity must be authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The applicant has applied to the COE for a permit. The applicant proposes to utilize the least intrusive dredging technology. The overall improvement of the aquatic habitat that will result from the removal of accumulated contaminated silt and sediment will protect significant fish and wildlife habitats. There is no significant loss of important wetlands and no loss of agricultural lands. The Committee concludes that the activity is consistent with Policy 35, conditioned upon the Applicant's securing and fully complying with all applicable state and federal permits. Policy 35A. Dredging shall not occur during fish spawning seasons and must be authorized by an appropriate permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Applicant represented to the Committee that it will not undertake its dredging during any fish spawning season. With respect to permits, see discussion under Policy 35. The Committee finds that the project is consistent with Policy 35A. Policy 35B. Dredge Spoils shall not be deposited in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitats, as identified in the Sleepy Hollow LWRP. The Applicant proposes to place dredged spoils in a disposal impoundment situated on its property south of the area where the lower pond will be dredged. The impoundment is the site of prior dredged spoils disposal, and thus is already disturbed land. Two small areas of low quality, emergent, isolated wetlands will be impacted by construction of the berm and placement of the dredged material within it. The disposal area will have a system of dewatering underdrains to convey water from the site back to the Pocantico River. The discharge pipe will require excavation of a small (approximately 20 foot wide) area of tidal wetland at the edge of the river. �The Committee reviewed the wetland identification map, Map 3, of the LWRP. The isolated wetlands that will be impacted by the disposal of dredged spoils are not shown on Map 3. Thus, the Committee has concluded that they are not "identified in the Sleepy Hollow LWRP". The area is not otherwise a fish or wildlife habitat. The fact that the spoil disposal area has been used for that purpose in the past tips the balance heavily toward consistency with this policy. The water discharge pipe will negatively impact a small portion of a wetland identified in the LWRP. However, because the deposit of dredge spoil will not occur in this area, Policy 35B is not applicable to that aspect of the project. It is discussed in relation to Policy 44. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 35B. Policy 35C. Reclamation of dredge spoil sites, including landscaping, shall be required where it is practical to do so. Policy 35D. Dredge spoil site design will incorporate considerations for natural features, view sheds, and shall, where feasible, conform to existing land forms. The sediment basin design includes reclamation. The dredged material will be covered with clean soil and will be partially revegetated with native grasses. The unvegetated area is an area that is already used as a parking lot. That area will be restored and upgraded for use as a relief parking lot. It will not be paved, but instead finished in gravel. The finished grade of the site will be consistent with the general surroundings and will conform to the existing land form. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 35C and Policy 35D. Policy 44. Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and wetland/watercourse complexes and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. At present, the accumulated sediment in the upper pond and the lower pond contains a sufficient concentration of contaminants that it is prohibited from being disposed of in the marine environment. It is categorized as "category 2 material". Only "category 1" dredged material (cleaner material) is allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be disposed of in the marine environment adjacent to New York and New Jersey. Category 2 material is considered too toxic to critical biota for ocean disposal. Thus, the Applicant is removing from the wetland/watercourse complex a large amount of material that is unsuitable to remain there. Presence of the contaminated sediments adversely impacts both the Pocantico River and the adjacent wetlands. This fact in and of itself satisfies Policy 44. The project will, however, result in the loss of a small amount (less than 0.1 acre) of tidal wetland adjacent to the Pocantico River. This loss will result from construction and maintenance of a dewatering pipe that will convey water from beneath the disposal area back to the Pocantico River. The Committee is concerned about this wetland impact, and has encouraged the Applicant to design the project so as to minimize the amount of wetland permanently lost. The Committee also encouraged the Applicant to �continue its efforts to secure an upland disposal site on the adjacent former General Motors property, and to implement the on-site upland disposal only as a last resort. To comply with federal regulatory requirements, the Applicant has committed, in connection with its application for its federal dredging/disposal permit, to restore or enhance a greater acreage of Hudson River estuarine wetland at its Croton River property than will be lost at Philipsburg Manor. Thus, there will be no net loss of wetlands. While it would be preferable for the mitigation parcel to be in Sleepy Hollow, the Committee is without jurisdiction to address that issue other than by way of comment. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 44. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-04-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text