1 25 58 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/647e30c2f5ac7f32371f5251ff984ea8.pdf 078ee0cd8a518bfbaa157145b899ee85 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING April 5,2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:05 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Donald Stever Absent None Also Present: Jerome Fine (Village Engineer) James Margotta (Building Inspector) David Smith (Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Nicholas Cicchetti (Planning Board) George Tanner (Planning Board) Announcements: The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following items: a) County House Road b) Philipsburg Manor a) County House Road The Chair stated that this was a sub-division of 11.9 acres. This will involve 11 one-family lots. The Chair asked if any Board member had any comments. Ralph Gunderman asked if there was a size restriction on footprint of house. Jim Margotta responded no if the building meets front and side yard boundaries. There is a visual restriction on building lot sizes. He also stated that for Rl zoning it is 15%. The code requirements are as follows: For 1 acre: Front Yard One Side Yard Both Side Yards Rear Yard Max height Max size 100 feet 100 feet 200 feet 100 feet 35 feet 45,000 sq. feet. �Dave Smith stated that under NYS law, the Planning Board could vary the design criteria in order to get a more favorable design. Dave Smith gave a brief overview of the County House Road layout. Doug Maass inquired why grass-Crete was crossed out. Dave Smith responded that there is a suitable sub-base to access facility. He also stated that sometimes with grass-Crete, the grass dies and the concrete substructure would remain. The Chair asked what measures would be in effect to force the applicant to keep a certain amount of lawn space. Jim Margotta stated that the maximum lot coverage is 15%. George Lenco inquired if the builder uses the full 15% for the footprint, what would be left. Dave Smith responded that the coverage is defined as the percent of lot area covered by the building area. Doug Maass inquired if the detention basin would have water in it at all times. Dave Smith responded no. There would be a gradual release of water. Doug Maass inquired if the detention basin would be fenced in. Dave Smith responded that it would be landscaped. Dave Smith stated that a l-in-5 slope is easy to get out of. Ralph Gunderman stated that the detention basin restricts the flow into the stream. The Chair inquired if it was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair read clauses on open space and noted reduction in open space and the mixed consistency on LWRP Policy 5B (Open space character East of the old Croton Aqueduct). Ralph Gunderman inquired about the re-zoning of the area. Jim Margotta stated that this was previously zoned as an R3 (5000 SF). The Village Board increased it to 1 acre. Dave Smith stated that there are 11 lots under the property boundary. He also stated that there is an open space component. There will be a fee paid by the applicant to maintain the dedicated area. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Karin Adir inquired if there would be an establishment of a Homeowners Association. Dave Smith stated that that would be a personal decision. Doug Maass inquired about the easement on Lot #10. Dave Smith responded that this was necessary in order to avoid a curb cut on Bedford Road. The Chair stated that the plans take measures to minimize damages on flooding and erosion (policy #11). The Chair stated that the plans take measures to protect hillsides (item #17a). The Chair stated that this plan conflicts with Policy #25 (Scenic Quality of the Coastal Area). Ralph Gunderman stated that there are many measures in the plans that protect and comply within the LWRP. The Chair stated that efforts were made to spare as many trees as possible. Dave Smith stated that a tree survey was prepared. It was discussed that most of the trees were preserved. Ralph Gunderman inquired about preventing erosion during construction. Dave Smith responded that this was outlined in the EAF. During construction, the developer will use Westchester County erosion plans when developing on slope. The Chair inquired about steep slopes. Dave Smith responded that the developer is staying off of the steep slopes. The Chair inquired about what the Village would do to prevent homeowners from further developing the property. Don Steer responded by a deed restriction. The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously that it was consistent with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �b) Philipsburg Manor The Chair stated that a representative of the Historic Hudson Valley wishes to speak to the Committee. The applicant gave a brief overview of the entire history of the dredging project. The T21 grant was also discussed. Don Steer asked Steven Huske to go over dredging project. Steven Huskie gave a brief overview of the project. He also discussed the hydraulic method of dredging. Doug Maass asked how many gallons/minute would be dredged. Steve Huskie responded 850-1200 gallons/minute. Doug Maass asked what % of this would be solid. Steve Huskie responded 10-15% and the rest is liquid. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant was excavating an area to create a pond? Steve Huskie responded that an embankment would be built. Doug Maass asked where the material from previous dredging was placed. Steve Huskie responded that it is in the same area. Don Stever asked if this is a drudge disposal site already. Steve Huskie responded yes. Doug Maass asked about the turbidity of the water in Pocantico River. Steve Huskie responded that it was standard. The Chair asked about the refill rate of the silt. Steve Huskie responded 1500 cubic yards/year. Doug Maass asked what time of year would this be performed. Steve Huskie responded after the spawning season. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Steve Huske then discussed wetlands. He stated that there is only 2/10 of an acre and it is low quality wetlands. Don Stever asked if it was isolated. Steve Huskie responded that some areas are isolated and other areas might not be. The Chair asked if the pipe was going to remain. Steve Huskie responded that it would remain for drainage. If it were ever needed, it wouldn't disturb the other areas. Don Steer asked if the applicant would return the substrate to its natural elevation with the exception of the pipe. Steve Huskie responded that the pipe needs support. He also stated that it would be filled about halfway. Doug Maass asked how permeable will the pipe be. Steve Huskie responded that it depends on the mixture. Doug Maass asked about on-site mitigation Steve Huskie responded that it would not be suitable. He also stated that the Fish and Wildlife Society suggested an offsite Wetlands restoration. The Chair asked about the wetlands in Sleepy Hollow. Steve Huskie responded that they would only be restored within the Historic Hudson Valley. Don Stever asked the applicant where they were in terms of the 404 permit. Steve Huskie responded that the Fish & Wildlife Society has accepted mitigation verbally. The Army Corps of Engineers has the final say. Don Stever asked about the title wetlands permit from DEC. Steve Huskie responded no. Don Stever asked if they were required. Steve Huskie responded no. Don Steer recommended that the applicant check with the DEC. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Steve Huskie responded that they would. Dave Smith stated that the expanded EAF was sent to the DEC. The Chair asked the committee to look at the LWRP policy on this project. The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 19b The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 23. The Chair also referenced one of the significant sites listed on HI-48 (Philipsburg Manor and Upper Mills). The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 25. The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 35 A (fish spawning). There was an open discussion on Policy 7B due to the fact that the wetlands were not being restored within Sleepy Hollow. Don Steer referenced Policy 35B. There was an open discussion on Policy 44 (Wetland protection). Ralph Gunderman asked if there was any way to support pipe without raising grade. Give title wetlands a chance to restore itself. Steve Huskie responded that it would probably not be worth it due to the degree of disruption. Ralph Gunderman asked what is the jurisdiction of this committee of LWRP. Don Stever responded that the Waterfront Advisory Committee interprets the LWRP. The Chair stated that Sleepy Hollow should get mitigation instead of Croton. Don Stever responded that there is no policy on local mitigation. Ralph Gunderman stated that these wetlands are not significant to Sleepy Hollow. Doug Maass stated that he favors Croton. The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously that it was. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Other Topics: Don Stever discussed the EIS draft on Kendall. Once DEIS is complete, Kendall will be invited in. The Committee meetings will be open. The Historic Hudson Valley applicant stated that they are interested in appearing to Waterfront Advisory Committee on GM site in order to address some issues. Don Stever stated that he should wait until the selected developer knows what will be done with the site. The draft of findings from this meetings agenda will be sent to Planning Board. A representativefromthe Scenic Hudson Valley spoke to the Committee. They are also interested in GM site. The representative also expressed an interest in meeting with the Waterfront Advisory Committee. There is no plan as of yet but they are looking at specific ideas and objectives. Adjourn to next meeting. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application of County House Road, LLC The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on April 5, 2000, the proposal submitted by County House Road, LLC (the "Applicant") for a development project consisting of the construction of eleven residences on approximately 11.9 acres (the "Tract") located on County House Road at the intersection with the Bedford Road (Route 448) (the "Project"). The Village's planning consultant, David Smith of the firm of Saccardi & Schiff, Inc., provided an overview of the Project and was available to respond to questions posed by the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Project The Project consists of the subdivision of the Tract into eleven lots and the construction of eleven single-family residences, arranged in a cluster configuration. The Project also provides that approximately 1.5 acres of the Tract (including a parcel affording a notable view of the Hudson River and the opposite shore at the intersection of the Bedford Road and County House Road) will be dedicated to the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village"), to be preserved as open space, and that, in addition, approximately 0.84 acres of the Tract will also be preserved as open space pursuant to a conservation buffer easement that will run along the frontage of the Tract at the Bedford Road and County House Road. Consistency Findings In addition to the reviewing the general purposes and policies of the LWRP, the Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the Project with the LWRP, gave consideration to Policies 5B, 11, 17A and 25B of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to the Project. Policy 5B - Retain the rural residential, agricultural, and open space character in those areas of the Village east of the old Croton Aqueduct. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 5B. The entire Tract is currently open space and the Committee recognizes that any development at this site will necessarily reduce the open space character of the site. However, the Committee notes that, at the time the LWRP was adopted, the Tract was zoned "R-3," which would have allowed the development to proceed with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. The Tract has been upzoned by the Village's Board of Trustees, in anticipation of this development and with the concurrence �of the Applicant, to UR-1," which requires a minimum lot size of 43,560 square feet. This significant reduction in the density potential for the site, the Applicant's decision to place the houses that are to be built in a clustered configuration and the retention of a large number of the trees presently existing on the Tract, together with the preservation of a portion of the Tract as open space (by means of the open space areas to be dedicated to the Village and the grant of the conservation buffer easement), assure that the development will have a rural residential character and that the site will retain, to a reasonable degree, its present open space character, as contemplated by Policy 5B. Policy 11 - Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 11. The placement of residential structures in a cluster should result in minimization of disturbance to the site. For example, use of common driveway areas should reduce the amount of land covered by paved surfaces and thus should reduce water run-off. The Project includes a detention pond to receive stormwater, which will thus be collected and can be gradually released to an existing watercourse. This feature should result in a reduction of the flow of stormwater to a level less than that occurring at the site in its present state. The siting of construction away from steep slope areas will reduce the risk of erosion (see also, Policy 17A). Policy 17A - Protect the steep slopes and hillsides throughout the Village through the use of nonstructural measures, when practical, to prevent erosion, especially through the retention, or planting of vegetative covers. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 17A. The area of the Village in which the Tract is situated appears on Map 2 of the LWRP as an area of steep slopes, and a portion of Tract, in fact, consists of a relatively steeply sloped hillside. The LWRP specifically notes that the removal of vegetation from steep slope areas creates a risk of erosion and could impair the scenic quality of the Village. The cluster configuration selected for the Project avoids the placement of any structures on or adjacent to the portion of the Tract that is steeply sloped, and the trees and vegetation existing on the steeply sloped segment of the Tract will be retained. Policy 25B - Protect or enhance the following identified scenic resources as areas and viewsheds of local scenic significance. The Committee observes that the viewshed from the intersection of County House Road and the Bedford Road is not one that is specifically identified in the LWRP as among the Village's twenty-three viewsheds of local importance. Nevertheless, the view from this intersection is similar to that "from the intersection of Route 448, Pine Street, and the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail," which is one of the viewsheds so identified in the LWRP. The Committee believes that this viewshed from the intersection of County House Road and the Bedford Road, even if not specifically identified in the LWRP, is, nonetheless, a valuable scenic asset of the Village. The protection of this viewshed is, therefore, consistent with the general policies of the �LWRP and with the philosophy underlying Policy 25B. The Project includes the dedication to the Village of a part of the Tract situated at this intersection, which will be maintained as open space. Maintaining this land as open space will be protective of this viewshed and thus the Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with the goals of the LWRP applicable to protection of viewsheds and protection of scenic assets. kichard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY: PHILIPSBURG MANOR POND DREDGING The Waterfront Advisory Committee considered the Philipsburg Manor Restoration pond dredging and dredged spoil disposal proposal at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 5, 2000, upon referral from the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board. The Board, in public session, heard from the applicant and its consultant, Huskie Engineering, and discussed the matter with the Village's planning consultant, David Smith, of Saccardi & Schiff. The Committee has unanimously concluded that the project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), and that it is consistent with the applicable specific policies thereof. General Consistency The purpose of the project is to restore the aquatic integrity of two ponds located on the historically significant property, Philipsburg Manor. There are two ponds, a manmade freshwater impoundment originally constructed as a mill pond (the "upper pond") in ancient times, and a natural still water portion of the mouth of the Pocantico River below the mill dam, which is influenced by the tidal action of the Hudson River (the "lower pond"). Both ponds have been dredged periodically since the 1940s, and both are significantly degraded as aquatic habitat by an accumulation of silt primarily resulting from urban street run-off, but significantly exacerbated byfloodingcaused by Tropical Storm Floyd late in 1999. Philipsburg Manor is a critical element of the post-industrial economy of Sleepy Hollow. Preservation and enhancement of historic tourism is one of the fundamental goals of the LWRP. Since the activity directly enhances the property, it is consistent with that goal, and with specific Policies 19, 23A and 25B, which articulate that goal. Specific Policies The Committee considered the project against the following other applicable policies of the LWRP: 7B, 35A-D, 44. Policy 7B. The Philipsburg Manor and Devries Field wetland/watercourse areas of the Pocantico River shall be protected, preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain its viability as a locally significant habitat. The Committee believes that the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Although some minor wetland loss will occur if the plan to dispose of dredged spoil �onsite is implemented, the Committee concludes that restoration of open water habitat, which has been seriously degraded by sediments contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons from street run-off falls squarely within this policy. The activity will improve two significant aquatic habitats, one a freshwater habitat and the other an estuarine habitat, without materially compromising locally important wetland values. Policy 35. Dredging and dredged spoil disposal in coastal waters will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands and wetlands. The lower pond dredging and spoil disposal will occur in waters that are coastal waters. There are no State permit requirements for the dredging aspects of the project, and the applicant has affirmed that it will comply with any State permit requirements that are applicable to the dredged spoil disposal. The activity must be authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The applicant has applied to the COE for a permit. The applicant proposes to utilize the least intrusive dredging technology. The overall improvement of the aquatic habitat that will result from the removal of accumulated contaminated silt and sediment will protect significant fish and wildlife habitats. There is no significant loss of important wetlands and no loss of agricultural lands. The Committee concludes that the activity is consistent with Policy 35, conditioned upon the Applicant's securing and fully complying with all applicable state and federal permits. Policy 35A. Dredging shall not occur during fish spawning seasons and must be authorized by an appropriate permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Applicant represented to the Committee that it will not undertake its dredging during any fish spawning season. With respect to permits, see discussion under Policy 35. The Committee finds that the project is consistent with Policy 35A. Policy 35B. Dredge Spoils shall not be deposited in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitats, as identified in the Sleepy Hollow LWRP. The Applicant proposes to place dredged spoils in a disposal impoundment situated on its property south of the area where the lower pond will be dredged. The impoundment is the site of prior dredged spoils disposal, and thus is already disturbed land. Two small areas of low quality, emergent, isolated wetlands will be impacted by construction of the berm and placement of the dredged material within it. The disposal area will have a system of dewatering underdrains to convey water from the site back to the Pocantico River. The discharge pipe will require excavation of a small (approximately 20 foot wide) area of tidal wetland at the edge of the river. �The Committee reviewed the wetland identification map, Map 3, of the LWRP. The isolated wetlands that will be impacted by the disposal of dredged spoils are not shown on Map 3. Thus, the Committee has concluded that they are not "identified in the Sleepy Hollow LWRP". The area is not otherwise a fish or wildlife habitat. The fact that the spoil disposal area has been used for that purpose in the past tips the balance heavily toward consistency with this policy. The water discharge pipe will negatively impact a small portion of a wetland identified in the LWRP. However, because the deposit of dredge spoil will not occur in this area, Policy 35B is not applicable to that aspect of the project. It is discussed in relation to Policy 44. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 35B. Policy 35C. Reclamation of dredge spoil sites, including landscaping, shall be required where it is practical to do so. Policy 35D. Dredge spoil site design will incorporate considerations for natural features, view sheds, and shall, where feasible, conform to existing land forms. The sediment basin design includes reclamation. The dredged material will be covered with clean soil and will be partially revegetated with native grasses. The unvegetated area is an area that is already used as a parking lot. That area will be restored and upgraded for use as a relief parking lot. It will not be paved, but instead finished in gravel. The finished grade of the site will be consistent with the general surroundings and will conform to the existing land form. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 35C and Policy 35D. Policy 44. Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and wetland/watercourse complexes and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. At present, the accumulated sediment in the upper pond and the lower pond contains a sufficient concentration of contaminants that it is prohibited from being disposed of in the marine environment. It is categorized as "category 2 material". Only "category 1" dredged material (cleaner material) is allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be disposed of in the marine environment adjacent to New York and New Jersey. Category 2 material is considered too toxic to critical biota for ocean disposal. Thus, the Applicant is removing from the wetland/watercourse complex a large amount of material that is unsuitable to remain there. Presence of the contaminated sediments adversely impacts both the Pocantico River and the adjacent wetlands. This fact in and of itself satisfies Policy 44. The project will, however, result in the loss of a small amount (less than 0.1 acre) of tidal wetland adjacent to the Pocantico River. This loss will result from construction and maintenance of a dewatering pipe that will convey water from beneath the disposal area back to the Pocantico River. The Committee is concerned about this wetland impact, and has encouraged the Applicant to design the project so as to minimize the amount of wetland permanently lost. The Committee also encouraged the Applicant to �continue its efforts to secure an upland disposal site on the adjacent former General Motors property, and to implement the on-site upland disposal only as a last resort. To comply with federal regulatory requirements, the Applicant has committed, in connection with its application for its federal dredging/disposal permit, to restore or enhance a greater acreage of Hudson River estuarine wetland at its Croton River property than will be lost at Philipsburg Manor. Thus, there will be no net loss of wetlands. While it would be preferable for the mitigation parcel to be in Sleepy Hollow, the Committee is without jurisdiction to address that issue other than by way of comment. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 44. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-04-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9a2c3b2719f45df50fed51ca4ea67d06.pdf e6bba65108f09f6a0dd8b62401112def PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING June 7, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:09 p.m. Present Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Absent Karin Adir Donald Stever Also Present James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Announcements: The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following: a) Philipse Manor Beach Club b) SamVieira Fence replacement 140 Valley Street a) Philipse Manor Beach Club Lee Kennedy is representing the applicant Lee Kennedy stated that this application is for a replacement of an existing 6' -6 " fence with a new wood picket fence at a height of 6 ' - 0 " The applicant will request through the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance of T - 0 " if 6' -0 " is not approved. Lee Kennedy stated that a 6' -0 " fence is the acceptable commercial height of a fence. The Chair inquired about the location of the existing chain link section. Lee Kennedy responded that it is on the North End. The Chair asked if it would be replaced with a picket fence also. Lee Kennedy responded yes Lee Kennedy stated that the Architectural Review Board approval is for 6' - 6 ". Doug Maass asked if this fence is for security or privacy. Lee Kennedy stated that one foot would not make a difference as far as privacy is concerned. The Chair inquired about the visual impact of the fence. Lee Kennedy stated that the boards of the fence would be apart as opposed to the current fence, which is not transparent at all �Doug Maass asked if the applicant would duplicate the fence that is currently installed There was an open discussion on board spacing. Lee Kennedy proposed 1" to 1 - Vi" spacing as long as they can be uniform. George Lence asked when would this work commence. Lee Kennedy stated that work would start as soon as it is approved. It was openly agreed for a minimum of 1" board spacing and a height of 6' - 6" at the base of the shoulder (of the picket). The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP The Committee agreed unanimously that it was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee will refer its recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. b) 140 Vallev Street Sam Vieira is the applicant and co-owner. He gave an overview of the existing layout. Doug Maass stated that he would not participate in this discussion since it is a conflict of interest. Sam Vieira gave an overview of the proposed phases in the conversion from commercial to residential. The Chair asked about the surrounding uses. Sam Vieira responded that primarily it was residential (on College Ave.) with some commercial (on Valley St.). The Chair asked if there were any other changes besides the windows. Sam Vieira responded that there is a loading dock that will be removed in the back of the property. The Chair asked about zoning in this area. Jim Margotta responded that it is in a C2 district. He also stated that mixed use is allowed in a C2 district. The Chair stated that LWRP policy l(i) approves this work. The Chair read this section aloud. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 7, 2000 �The Chair asked if there were any other findings Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously (with one abstraction) that it was consistent with the LWRP Other Items: A new Chairman needed to be selected. Doug Maass nominated Richard Weiss. Ralph Gunderman seconded. There were no other nominations. Richard Weiss was unanimously elected. There was an open discussion on a proposed purchase on River Street and its relevance to the LWRP. It was determined that the Committee will not give an opinion without an application. The Committee agreed to follow the other Village Boards by not holding an August meeting. The minutes from the April 5, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn to next meeting. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 7,2000 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Change of Occupancy at 140 Valley Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 7, 2000, the application submitted by Messrs. Samuel F. and Samuel S. Vieira ("Applicants") for a change of occupancy of an existing building at 140 Valley Street from commercial to residential use. The proposal for the conversion of the site was presented to the Committee by Samuel Vieira, an architect and co-owner of the building. Mr. Vieira also responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed conversion of the site from commercial to residential use would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. Mr. Maass, whose wife rents studio space in the building, abstained from participation in consideration of the proposal. The Proposal The building at 140 Valley Street is located in an area that includes both residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. Mr. Vieira advised that the surrounding area on Valley Street was principally residential, although it was more commercial across the street from the site. Mr. Vieira also explained that the exterior of the building would undergo no significant changes other than the addition of a number of windows, and that use of the property for residential apartments would result in less vehicular and pedestrian traffic than the current commercial use. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II 23 of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Review of Map 4, referred to in Policy II, identifies Valley Street as one of the Village's urban renewal areas. And the applicable Policy explanation describes the urban redevelopment areas identified on Map 4 as sites that "have been identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." �Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the ''traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The proposed reuse of the 140 Valley Street site for new apartments will meet these LWRP goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation and, therefore, the Committee has concluded that the proposed conversion of 140 Valley Street is consistent with Policy II. The Committee further notes that, although, the LWRP has explicitly recognized the mixed use nature of the Valley Street neighborhood, the proposed conversion of the site from commercial use to residential use will not upset the mixed use character of the neighborhood. Mr. Vieira has advised the Committee that it is even possible that, since the conversion has been planned in two phases, part of the site may remain commercial. However, this possibility was not critical to the Committees consistency findings. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application of Philipse Manor Beach Club The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 7, 2000, the application submitted by the Philipse Manor Beach Club (the "Applicant" or the "Beach Club") for replacement of an existing fence along the west side of Applicant's parking lot. The plans for the new fence were described to the Committee by Mr. E. Lee Kennedy, an architect and a member of Applicant's Board. Mr. Kennedy also responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, since the proposed new fence was a replacement of an existing fence structure, and since Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of the Applicant, has undertaken to implement certain modifications to reduce any potential adverse impact of the new fence, approval of the proposed fence replacement would not be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Beach Club site is located along the banks of the Hudson River, to the west of the Philipse Manor train station and the paved parking area owned by the Philipse Manor Improvement Association. The new fence, which would replace approximately two hundred thirty feet of six and one half to seven foot high fencing, (mostly wood, but some chain link) is proposed to be wood picket on a galvanized frame. Mr. Kennedy advised that the new fence is likely to be six feet in height, since this is a stock size, but that the Applicant is seeking a zoning variance that would permit a seven foot fence, in order to allow flexibility in finalizing specifications with Applicant's supplier. Proposal Modifications The Committee recognized that a fence presently exists at the site, and that views of the Hudson River are already impaired by the existing fence structure. However, the Committee felt that the new fence should not in any way be allowed to further impair views of the River at this location. Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of the Applicant, committed to certain specifications for the new fence to assure that it would not cause increased impairment of River viewsheds. Mr. Kennedy agreed that the open spaces between the fence boards would be up to one and one half inches, but in no event less than one inch, in order to create a relatively "transparent" effect. By contrast, the overlap of the boards of the existing fence presents an opaque appearance. In addition, although the Applicant is seeking a zoning variance that would allow a maximum fence height of seven feet, Mr. Kennedy has agreed that the height to the shoulders of pickets (that is, the height at which the vertical planes of the fence boards start to angle toward their points) would not exceed six and one-half feet. �Consistency Findings In addition to reviewing the general purposes and policies of the LWRP, the Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the Project with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 2 A and 25B of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy 2A - DOCKS, BOAT RAMPS, MOORING FACILITIES, AND OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES OR FACILITIES WILL BE DESIGNED AND SITED TO PROTECT NAVIGATION, ASSURE ACCESS BETWEEN WATER AND SHORE, AND MINIMIZE VISUAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Applicable portions of the LWRP explanation of this Policy notes that the Village has designated the Beach Club as one of the locations "best suited for water-dependent and water-enhanced uses." It is listed as an "existing water-dependent use." The Committee has concluded that replacement of an old Beach Club fence that is in disrepair with the proposed new fence would not be inconsistent with Policy 2A. In addition, part of the new fence construction will include a reinforced steel gate with a forty-eight inch active leaf and a ten-foot inactive leaf. This improved access for boats and boat trailers would enhance the water dependent uses of the Beach Club site. The Committee has concluded that this will be consistent with Policy 2A. The design limitations referred to, with respect to Policy 25B, below, will also minimize visual impacts, as contemplated by Policy 2A Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. The Committee observes that the viewshed from the Philipse Manor train station is not specifically identified in Policy 25B as one of the Village's twenty-three viewsheds of local importance. Nevertheless, the LWRP clearly recognizes the value of Hudson River views, and protection of those views is a significant element of the LWRP. Indeed, the Hudson River view from Kingsland Point Park is one of the viewsheds identified in Policy 25B, and the Committee notes that the views from the train station are substantially identical. The placement of fencing almost adjacent to the River will, necessarily, impair such views. However, that impairment already exists by virtue of the existing Beach Club fence. The Committee has determined that the replacement fence will not make the interference with views of the River any worse. The Committee also noted the steps being taken to minimize the visual impact of the new fence. The greater "transparency" of the new fence as compared with the old, the fact that the fence boards will be picket boards with open spaces formed by the angles between the pickets at the top and the fact that Applicant has agreed that the picket "shoulders" will be no higher than six and one- �half feet, have led the Committee to conclude that Applicant's proposal is not inconsistent with the LWRP goals applicable to protection of viewsheds and protection of scenic assets. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-06-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f17209e1201114f2cc88044a00867095.pdf fdca0a36a58f6cb344772f66ca57f1e1 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING July 5, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Donald Stever Absent: Karin Adir Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Helen Carlson (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The minutes from the June 7, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes with the following corrections: On page 1 it states that the applicant has requested a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a 7-0" fence with the expectation that the fence would be 6'-6" tall and requested the extra footage for flexibility Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following: a) Kendal-On-Hudson Waterfront Development Project a) Kendal-On-HudsonAl DelBello is representing the applicant. He gave a brief overview of the Kendal-OnHudson Organization and the need for adult retirement housing communities. David Jones is the Project Director for Kendal. He gave a brief introduction of the CCRC concept. He also stated that Kendal is a not-for-profit organization. The Chair asked what the geographic distribution was for this facility. David Jones responded that it is about 250-275 They are proposing 225 residential units that would be studio apartments up to 2 bedroom units. There would also be 40 assisted units. Terence McGlynn asked what the CCRC would do if more skilled help was needed. David Jones responded that based on industry experience and predictions, the CCRC would have to adjust as needed. �George Lence asked if there were any preferences to get in David Jones responded that there was no preference George Lence asked if Kendal has any other projects pending in New York David Jones responded no Doug Maass asked what was Kendal's competition David Jones responded that there were two- (2) other CCRC's. They were Anderson Medical and Westchester Meadows Hebrew Hospital The Chair stated that the Kendal submission was missing information. The Board agreed. Andy Tung is the planner for Kendal-on-Hudson. He stated that there is a separate package for the Waterfront Advisory Committee that specifically addressed the LWRP. He also stated that in Table 382, all 44 policies were addressed. There are 6 policies that are most applicable. They are: Policy 9 (Fish and Wildlife) Policy 23 (Area enhancement) Policy 25 (Scenic Views of Hudson) Policy 33 (Water runoff) Policy 37 (Erosion) Policy 44 (Wetlands) Andy Tung gave a detailed presentation of the proposed property and building layouts. He discussed entrance layouts, parking (for visitors and residents), building elevations and vegetation. Doug Maass asked if the walkways are level. Andy Tung responded that the walkways are not level. Doug Maass asked if you can step-off the walkways Andy Tung responded yes Andy Tung stated that Policy 19 would increase public access to water resources by allowing access to a waterfront area that was not previously accessible to the public. Andy Tung also stated that Policy 23 would preserve and protect the James House and the surrounding area. Don Stever asked if the maintenance of the James House would be easier on the hospital. Andy Tung responded yes. The James House is expensive to maintain and this will assist the hospital in the maintenance of the James House. Don Stever asked if this makes the James House incorporated into Kendal-on-Hudson. David Jones responded that currently it is only to be maintained. f Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 \ 2 �Andy Tung discussed the impact of Policy 25. He gave an overview of the proposed landscaping and building exteriors Don Stever stated that Policy 25a reads to enhance views of the river The proposed buildings are intrusions He would like to see more aggressive landscaping with mature conifers to largely obscure the sides of the buildings Doug Maass stated that view 2PL has a tremendous visual presence Andy Tung responded that the proposed entrance from Rockwood Hall would not disturb the Rockwood Hall trail He also stated that the architecture was being developed so that the buildings look residential This would allow the view from the Hudson to be more appealing Don Stever stated that the view from the James House needs more foliage. This would hide the buildings from the James House view He also stated that foliage could be used instead of a wall Ralph Gunderman stated that he likes the alternative path including Rockwood Hall. He stated that he prefers the preserving of the trail and the improved scenic quality. Andy Tung addressed Policy 33 (Water Runoff) and the proposed terminal basins. He addressed Policy 37 (Erosion) during construction and on a permanent basis. He also addressed Policy 44 (Wetlands) The Chair asked about the size of the construction site. Andy Tung responded that it would be about 1/3 of the site. He also added that there would be some blasting of rock Doug Maass asked about the nutrients to feed vegetation. Andy Tung responded that the catch basins would capture and divert all runoff. It is all part of the water quality treatment system. Don Stever sited an alternative site and asked if this was considered as an alternative. Andy Tung responded that the topography was more challenging. He also stated that their intention was to keep away from the public and to use the view of the Hudson River. The Chair asked what kinds of alternatives have been researched. Andy Tung responded that they have looked at moving the entire complex over and also looked at removing some levels on the buildings. Terence McGlynn asked what the impact was of reducing the number of buildings. David Jones responded that the units would be less affordable and the development might not be as financially stable. Al DelBello stated that Kendal tries to reach a broader market. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 3 �George Lence asked where the two- (2) storage tanks would be located. Andy Tung responded that they would not be visible He indicated the location of the two(2) tanks. Don Stever asked if there would be enough water to supply this area without using storage tanks. Andy Tung responded that an alternative would be to have a new water line built from the northern loop that serves Briarcliff, Sleepy Hollow and Tarrytown instead of using tanks. Andy Tung also spoke about the proposed sewer connections between the proposed development and Sleepy Hollow Manor. He detailed the proposed method of discharging into a holding tank off-hours as not to interfere with Sleepy Hollow Manor. Andy Tung also discussed a proposed alternative to the original sewer method by piping at an alternative location. This would minimize the impact to Birch Close. The Committee will re-convene in September. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 5, 2000 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-07-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7ec5fad3bcb86c1f69e2284a870e6f6a.pdf 72af1e97e89bd76b640c6fc370036ce3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING September 6, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:13 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Donald Stever Karin Adir Absent: Ralph Gunderman Terence McGlynn Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The minutes from the July 5,2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. It was unanimous. a) 6-8 Cedar Street b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Townhouses Fence a) 6-8 Cedar Street Robert Barstow is the applicant. He gave an overview of the proposed of three (2)-family townhouses on Cedar Street. He stated that the area is currently a vacant lot surrounded by a fence. Robert Barstow stated that all parking requirements have been met but there are several zoning variances that the proposed drawings do not comply with. Don Stever asked if the application has gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Robert Barstow responded not yet but he is on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda this month. Jim Margotta asked if these plans were revised as per the Planning Board's initial comments. Robert Barstow responded no. The Chair asked what property adjoins this. Robert Barstow responded that it is surrounded by multi-family apartment houses. The Chair referred to policy l(i) that discusses the development of Cortlandt and Valley Streets. All agreed that the applicant meets this condition. �Don Stever stated that the applicant has no issues with the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He also stated that this application will have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board for their approval and they will have other issues with this application. Don Stever liked the plans and stated that the area needs more improvements like this. The Chair asked what was the height of the adjoining buildings. Robert Barstow responded that they were the same height. The Chair stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee's finding are only a recommendation and has no bearing on the decisions of the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board. It was unanimously approved. b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club There was no representative for this application. The Committee decided to make a decision based on the letter submitted by Mr. Lee Kennedy. The Chair reviewed that Waterfront Advisory Committee's previous decision on this application. Don Stever asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Architectural Review Board determine that the fence was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair responded no. There was an open discussion on the fence height and spacing. The Committee unanimously agreed to let the fence stay up until the season is over and allow the fence to be corrected according to the previous approved requirements. Adjourn at 9:01 to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 6,2000 2 �RECEIVED Village o f S l e e p y H o l l o w Waterfront Advisory Committee 2 8 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 §gp f g ^AM VILLAGE C I C D V WVBKR CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Residential Construction at Corner of Cortland and Cedar Streets The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on September 6, 2000, a proposal submitted by Mr. Robert Barstow ("Applicant") for construction of three attached two family units at the corner of Cortland Street and Cedar Street. The proposal was presented to the Committee by Mr. Barstow, who is the architect and developer for the project. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed construction would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The site at the corner of Cortland Street and Cedar Street is presently a vacant lot, surrounded by a chain link fence, and is used for parking. It is located in an area that includes both multi-family residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. The proposal would involve the construction of three townhouse-style residential units, with two apartments in each unit. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II 23 of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Policy I and Map 4, referred to in Policy II, identify the site of the proposed construction as one of the Village's urban renewal areas, and the applicable Policy explanation describes the urban redevelopment areas identified on Map 4 as sites that "have been identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." The Committee finds that the proposed construction will be rehabilitative, replacing a vacant lot that is presently used for the parking of motor vehicles (many of which are in a state of disrepair), with three attractively designed residential units. Each unit will contain two apartments, one to a floor. Adequate parking will be provided with garages set beneath the living units and additional parking in the rear of the buildings. �In addition, Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the "traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The construction at the Cortland Street/Cedar Street site for new apartments will meet these LWRP goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation in this part of the Village and, therefore, the Committee has concluded that the proposed construction is consistent with Policy II and with the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-09-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a817f4405aa52aafcbde2643e5d06908.pdf c22ea768b095cf6ff46778f14be187f4 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING October 4, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m Present Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Donald Stever Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Absent Terence McGlynn Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None Agenda: a) Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises 183 Valley Street Parking Deck w/two 2 bedroom units a) Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises Larry Rodrigues was the applicant and addressed the Committee himself. He discussed the proposed development with the use of a model. He discussed the details of the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a 2 family house with 10 parking spaces. Don Stever stated that 10 spaces are required because the adjacent property needs spaces based on a previous requirement The Chair asked if the existing structure is wood. Larry Rodrigues responded that the existing structure is made of block and brick. The Chair asked about the height of the two structures. Larry Rodrigues responded that they are the same. The Chair referred to policy l(i) that discusses the development of Cortlandt and Valley Streets All agreed that the applicant meets this condition. The Chair asked if the building would have a stucco exterior. Larry Rodrigues responded yes. �The Chair discussed the full footprint of 183 Valley Street and its relationship to 185 Valley Street. Don Stever discussed the open feeling associated with parking areas. Doug Maass asked about light pollution Larry Rodrigues responded that the lighting scheme would be designed properly. The Chair asked if the Committee had any other questions. Don Stever asked who was the lead agency. Jim Margotta responded that the Planning Board was the lead agency Don Stever made a motion to approve the application It was unanimous. The findings will be sent to the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. Other Topics: The minutes from the September 6, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. It was unanimous (Ralph Gunderman abstained). Adjourn to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 4, 2000 2 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 H M 1 0 1DV11IA 0002 8 1 130 aaAiioiu CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Construction at 183 Valley Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on October 4,2000, the application submitted by Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises ("Applicant") for replacement of an existing structure at 183 Valley Street with a new structure consisting of two parking levels with two two-bedroom duplex residential units above. The proposal was presented to the Committee by Mr. Laurentino Rodrigues, who displayed a three-dimensional model of the proposed project and who responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed construction would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The site at 183 Valley Street is presently occupied by an older residential structure. It is located in an area that includes both multi-family residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. The proposal would involve the construction of a two level parking deck with two two-bedroom duplex apartments above. One level of the parking deck would be accessible from Valley Street and the other from Chestnut Street. A total often parking spaces would be provided, two to satisfy the parking needs of the new apartments at 183 Valley Street and eight to satisfy the parking requirements imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals for residential units at 185 Valley Street, the adjacent property also owned by the Applicant. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Policy II and Map 4 reference the site of the proposed construction as one of the Village's urban renewal areas. The location is described in the applicable Policy explanation as having been "identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." The Committee finds that the proposed construction will be �rehabilitative, replacing an old building that appears in need of significant improvement, with two residential units. The architectural drawings and the scale model presented to the Committee by the Applicant promise the addition of some architectural interest to the Valley Street/Chestnut Street streetscape, in the form of balconies and a surmounting cupola. In addition, the construction will allow the Applicant to comply with the mandate of the Zoning Board of Appeals to provide eight additional parking spaces for the adjacent structure at 185 Valley Street. The Committee notes that Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the "traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation both for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The proposed construction at 183 Valley Street will satisfy the LWRP's goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation in this part of the Village. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that the proposed construction is consistent with Policy II and with the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-10-04.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7bf32b75a5beb77d585d5fcf9589e5e6.pdf bc3b0c77fe76187132b31be521e024b5 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING November 1, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir RECEIVED NOV t 6 2000 Absent: Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman VILLAGE CLERK Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: Agenda: a) Minutes of October 2000 Meeting b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Fence c) Karl Dibble a) Minutes of October 2000 Meeting Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. b) Philipsburg Manor Beach Club Fence The Chair stated that there was one change to this topic. The applicant was required to provide alternating wide and XA size panels. This method would not give the required 1" spacing so the beach club used all narrow panels. The Committee agreed that it was acceptable. c) Kari Dibble Richard Blancato is representing this application along with Karl Dibble. �Richard Blancato spoke about the proposed changes to the property and the proposed storage containers The Chair asked if this would be a retail operation. Richard Blancato responded no. George Lence asked about the size of the containers. Karl Dibble responded that the containers would be 8 ' x 8 ' x 20'. Richard Blancato showed the Committee members where the containers would be located via the proposed drawings. Richard Blancato stated that the property has been elevated and an engineer has been hired to evaluate the drainage, etc. The Chair asked about the garage size. Richard Blancato responded that it is not specific yet. It is only on the drawings for show. Richard Blancato also stated that they might have to come back for the garage approval. The Chair asked what approvals were sought in tonight's meeting. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant is seeking approval for the building and the storage containers. Karin Adir asked why is approval needed for the containers. Richard Blancato responded that containers are not expressed specifically in the ordinance. Karin Adir asked if people were living in the house. Richard Blancato responded yes along with the office downstairs. Doug Maass asked if all other areas that are not covered would be blacktop. Karl Dibble responded either blacktop or covered with item 4 material. Karin Adir asked if the storage containers were portable. Jim Margotta responded that they are shipping containers. Karl Dibble responded that a roof could be added to make the containers appear like a shed. There was an open discussion on parking. The Chair stated that there is a problem with approving the applicant's request since the drawings are only preliminary. He also stated that the Committee would like to see the engineer's report on the drainage issues. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 1, 2000 2 �The Chair stated that the Committee would like to see the proposals for the chain link fence that is proposed as well as the screening and the water runoff. Karl Dibble responded that the fence would be a wood fence. The Chair responded that the Committee could not make the applicant install a particular fence but the Committee can control what is installed on Route 9 according to Policy l(k). Jim Margotta suggested that Karl Dibble provide pictures of the storage bins. Karl Dibble agreed. Other Topics: None. Adjourn at 8:33 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 1,2000 3 �26 December 2000 To: Waterfront Caimittee From: James Margotta Due to lack of an Agenda, there will be no meeting of the Waterfront Committee in January. The next meeting will be held on February 7, 2001. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-11-01.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/520b1cc88c9daaa4d110abf2a8132fa7.pdf 50c91705185b884d5f84025dc435addf PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING February 7,2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Absent: Donald Stever Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of November 2000 Meeting b) David Cartenuto c) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of November 2000 Meeting Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. b) David Cartenuto The Chair stated that there was nothing in the LWRP pertaining to this project. The Chair stated that he would inform the Zoning Board and the Planning Board that they should not wait for a recommendation from the Waterfront Advisory Committee on this matter. The Committee agreed. c) Kendal-on-Hudson Andy Tung is representing the applicant in continuing the consistency review of this project. �The Chair stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee's findings would go to the Village Board of Trustees by mid-March. Andy Tung summarized the sewer and water connection changes. He discussed in detail the Northern Loop connection and the revised sewer tie-in to Sleepy Hollow Manor. The Chair asked about the water pressure in the Manor as a result. Andy Tung responded by discussing the methods that will be used for storing and replenishing the domestic water. George Lence asked how many gallons per day would be used. Andy Tung responded 30-40,000 gallons per day. Jim Margotta asked if the sewage would be pumped at night. Andy Tung responded yes. He spoke about the sewage tie-in and the existing sewage in the Manors and Phelps Hospital. Andy Tung spoke about the vehicular changes. He detailed the changes in the underground parking and in the area around the James House. He also spoke about the changes in the pedestrian path. He stated that the proposed connection to the Manors through Birch Close was removed. He also stated that a path to Rockwood Hall was added. Andy Tung spoke about the project architecture. He described the differing styles of architecture that exist along the Hudson. George Lence asked the applicant how they addressed Policy 5A on Infrastructure Improvements. Andy Tung responded that this project has made sewer improvements in the Manors. He stated that there are current sewer problems in the Manors as per the sewer study. He also stated that the same for the water in the Manors. The Chair asked the applicant how they addressed Policy 23 (preserving and enhancing significant structures in Sleepy Hollow) and Policy 25 (preserving and enhancing structures in Sleepy Hollow, which contribute to the scenic quality of the coastal area). Steve Ebanusa is the Project Architect. He reviewed the architectural design and the Italianate style architecture that was selected. He also spoke about the different styles of architecture that are visible from the Hudson. There was an open discussion on the different styles of architecture on the Hudson and why the Italianate style was chosen. There was an open discussion on the heights of the buildings and the surrounding landscape buffer. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 7,2001 2 �Steve Ebanusa spoke about the massing and scaling of the buildings. He spoke in detail about the roofs and building facade. The Chair asked if any member of the Committee had any questions. There were none. The Chair stated that he received an e-mail from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. He distributed the e-mail to all members as well as the applicant. The Chair stated that the Committee would like to further review the documents and possibly discuss at the next meeting. Keith Saifin (President of Phelps Memorial Hospital) spoke about the e-mail from the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. He stated that the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association is not the owner of the James House. Phelps Memorial Hospital owns the James House. He also stated that Phelps Memorial Hospital is in favor of this project. Other TOPICS: None. Adjourn at 9:55 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 7,2001 3 �RESOLUTION FOR CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHEREAS, on or about December 1, 2000, David Cartenuto (the "Applicant") submitted an application to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") for site plan approval for the replacement of an existing masonary wall and construction of new retaining walls; and WHEREAS, at their December 21,2000 meeting the Planning Board did declare themselves to be the Lead Agency in this matter as per the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed and relied on the following materials: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Site Plan Application dated December 1,2000 Short Environmental Assessment Form dated December 1,2000 Site Plan Erosion Control Details, prepared by A.G. Paese, P.E. dated 11/28/00 Details Sheet, prepared by A.G. Paese, dated 11/28/00 Review memorandum from Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers dated November 3,2000. Review memorandum from Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers dated December 21,2000; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. 2. 3. Received an application fee; Requested received and considered comments from the Village engineering consultants, Village Planner and Building Inspector about the proposed project; Received and reviewed a short environmental assessment form (EAF) in compliance with SEQRA dated December 1,2000; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after review of field conditions, the EAF as well as other items noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and no significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed action; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the said Application for site plan approval as shown on the site plan, dated 11/28/00 is hereby granted approval and the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman on a copy of this resolution and upon the site plan drawings, as and when revised as necessary to show compliance with the following, which endorsement shall permit filing iii the G iiiCc Ox tile Village Buimiiig Dcpaitiiiciit for pufpOScS of obtaining permit ill aCCOfdaiiCc with this resolution and the building code requirement, provided, however, that the approval shall expire after one (1) year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications have not been �<t completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Applicant has not obtained the required building permit(s) in accordance with the approval plan: 1. 2. 3. Provision of a completed Coastal Assessment Form. Final site plan including the design of proposed embankments and retaining walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Inspector and/or the Village Engineer including conformance to the Village Engineer's Comments in their 11/3/00 and 12/21/00 memorandum as appropriate. Prior to the signing of the site plan, all outstanding professional review fees, environmental changes and other Village Fees shall be paid to the Village, satisfactory to the Village Attorney. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Ijbh 4<XsNicholas Robinson, Chairman fu iCf^i Dated F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Re$ohitiooi\M720.26-Re« Conditional Site Pin Approvtl.wpd �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 February 9, 2001 Robert Anello, Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Board of Appeals Nicholas A. Robinson, Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 A Coastal Assessment Form has been submitted to the Waterfront Advisory Committee (the "Committee") on behalf of David Cartenuto in connection with the reconstruction of a stone wall and construction (with landscaping) of terraced wooden (railroad tie-style) walls at the residence of Mr. Cartenuto located at 275 Millard Avenue (the "Project"). The Project is sited at the rear of Mr. Cartenuto's property, facing Riverside Drive. The Project was reviewed at a meeting of the Committee on February 7, 2001. At that time the Committee concluded that the polices of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (the "LWRP") are not applicable to the Project and that the Committee does not have jurisdiction to make any finding as to consistency of the Project with the policies of the LWRP. The Committee understands that the Project is to be considered by both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Please be advised that consideration by your respective Boards can proceed without the need for a consistency finding from the Committee. Very truly yours, /—/T- ^X Richard D. Weiss, Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-02-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/018f984f933e484a0659322b0dc0d7c9.pdf 9d2210f298175c464fdd1dabd6d24f8b PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir «*c»>»*0 _ « g 7(flft W* UH^Ci^* Donald Stever Doug Maass Also Present Dave Smith (Saccardi & SchirT/Village Planner) Shailesh Naik (Charles A Manganaro/Village Engineer) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of January 2001 Meeting b) Fremont Pond Dredging c) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of January 2001 Meeting The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted Ralph Gunderman seconded It was unanimous b) Fremont Pond Dredging Dave Smith spoke about the EAF for this application. He detailed the proposed dredging process and what will be done with the dredged material He also spoke about the applicable LWRP policies. Dave Smith stated that the NY Department of State has approved the item in their LWRP review. He also stated that the material removed is considered clean by the Department of Environmental Conservation. �The Chair asked if this process would result in a more habitable lake for fish and wildlife Dave Smith responded yes The Chair asked about the settling tank Dave Smith responded that the tank would be installed under the road and would be accessed probably once a year Karin Adir asked how long would the dredging process take. Dave Smith responded 10 weeks. Chuck Lancaster spoke about the dredging He stated that the most noticeable sedimentation is from the Southeast corner near Peabody field He stated that this needs to be mitigated to prevent future dredging. He also stated that there is a nest of swans at the Southeast end. The dredging should be coordinated with the nests hatching The Chair asked if the Committee had any other comments. There was none The Board voted unanimously that the dredging was consistent with the LWRP. Kendal-on-Hudson The Chair stated that Dan Pennelia and Shailesh Naik are the Village Engineers assigned to the Planning Board. They will answer any engineering questions that the Committee has concerning the proposed development. Dan Pennelia spoke about the sewer impacts. He used a map to illustrate the current sewer path within Sleepy Hollow Manor. He also stated that the Mount Pleasant Executive Center is contracted to pump 200 GPM into the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewer system. Although the center is vacant now, the model used included the sewage capacity as if the center was occupied. Terrance McGlynn asked if the model included the proposed Kendal usage. Dan Pennelia responded no Terrance McGlynn asked if the system could handle the Kendal volume. Dan Pennelia responded that they would pump the sewage at night so not to interfere with the residents. The Chair asked if Phelps hospital pumps their sewage. Dan Pennelia responded no. It is a gravity feed. Chuck Lancaster spoke about the EIS. He stated that there is no mention of the Sleepy Hollow pumping station and the impact that Kendal will have on it. He also spoke about the Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 7,2001 2 �sewer and storm drain systems He stated that the EIS in very inaccurate regarding both. The Chair asked Dan Pennella about the water pressure and the proposed Northern Loop. Dan Pennella responded that the Northern Loop is still under negotiations. The Chair stated that the uncertainty of the Northern Loop is a major concern. Dan Pennella responded that the water usage for Phelps Hospital has increased in the last few years He also stated that the increased water usage must result in increased sewage usage. The Chair stated that Doug Maass could not be at the meeting tonight but he is in favor of the project but he is not comfortable with the size of the proposed development. Ralph Gunderman stated that he could not find this project consistent with the LWRP for several reasons. Karin Adir stated that the project is important to the community but the potential water and sewer problems area concern. George Lence stated that a number of Policies were impacted by this development. He cited policies 5 A, 7D, 18D, 23 and 25. He stated that he is not comfortable with the proposed development. The Chair stated that he did find some consistency in the LWRP in policies 19 and 21. The Chair also stated that the Kendal presentation did not address the impacts of the mass and scale of the project. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to provide a recommendation that the project is not consistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. Other TOPICS: None Adjourn at 9:24 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 7,2001 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Kendal on Hudson The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at several meetings in 2000, at its March 7, 2001 meeting and its June 13, 2001 meeting, the proposal (the "Proposal") submitted by Kendal on Hudson (the "Applicant") for the development of a continuing care retirement community ("CCRC") on the grounds of the Phelps Memorial Hospital Center ("Phelps") in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village"). At the June 13 meeting of the Committee, Mr. Andy Tung, of Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP and other representatives of Applicant presented modifications that had been made to the Project since the time of the March 7 meeting of the Committee, and answered questions from the Committee. The modifications to the Proposal were in response to earlier comments by the Committee and by members of the public. The Project The development project (the "Project" or "Kendal"), as presented to the Committee in its modified form, consists of 225 independent living apartments, 24 assisted living apartments and 42 skilled nursing rooms contained within 435,00O± square feet of structures. The proposed CCRC units comprise four buildings. Three of the buildings would contain independent living units (generally referred to in the Applicant's submission documents as ILU East, ILU West and ILU South). The fourth building, the Commons Building, would house community facilities, a health center, assisted living units and skilled nursing facilities, as well as some additional independent living units. The Project would be sited on the western side of the Phelps campus, north of the Sleepy Hollow Manor section of the Village and south of the Rockwood Hall section of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve. The proposed site is located in the Village's H (hospital use) zoning district. The Project contemplates that the H district zoning would be amended to make the CCRC facilities a permitted use within the district and to otherwise accommodate the Project. Access to the site would be provided from NY Route 117 and Rockwood Road (using an easement over lands that were owned by the Laurance S. Rockefeller Fund prior to dedication of the Rockwood Hall property to the State of New York as part of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve) and through a portion of the Phelps property. Signs for the CCRC would direct traffic to the Route 117/Rockwood Road access and it is expected that these signs would minimize access via the main Phelps entrance from Route 9. Parking for 390 vehicles would be provided in structures located beneath the proposed buildings and beneath a Phelps on-grade parking deck. The Project has been modified a number of times since its initial submission to the Committee. These modifications have included a reduction in the number of assisted living units from forty to twenty-four, lowering the height of a portion of the Commons Building from an �originally-proposed seven stories to five stories, provision for additional vegetative plantings and landscape buffer enhancements, and improvements to the sewer and water systems that serve the Phelps Hospital property and the Village. The architecture for the Project has also been modified since the time of the initial submission in order to make the buildings appear less institutional and to achieve greater harmony with the architectural style of The James House, an historic mansion owned by Phelps and adjacent to the Project site. Specifically, the proposed architecture is intended to reflect the Italianate style of The James House, and the building facades would incorporate a mixture of different building materials, varying window treatments and ornamental roof elements to break up the apparent massing of the proposed buildings. The modifications to the Project were based on comments raised as part of the public hearing process on the Project's Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), and in response to concerns raised by members of the Committee during prior meetings at which the Project had been reviewed. A comprehensive landscape program is proposed by the Applicant, which would include the preservation of a three hundred-foot buffer between the proposed CCRC and the Sleepy Hollow Manor neighborhood to the south. This buffer, which presently contains a number of dead or unhealthy trees, would be enhanced by additional reforestation plantings and would be maintained by Kendal. Further, the Applicant proposes a series of landscaped berms within the easement on the north side of the site, adjacent to Rockwood Hall. Landscaping is also proposed between The James House and the proposed ILU East and Commons Building, which is intended to soften the views of the proposed CCRC facility from The James House. Existing views of the Hudson River from The James House are, at present, largely screened by existing vegetation. The proposed plan would remove much of this vegetation, opening up views of the Hudson River and the western shoreline from The James House. The Applicant proposes to connect to existing Village water and sewer service. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its conclusion as to consistency of the Project with the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), considered Policies 5, 5A, 7D, 7E, 17,17A, 18, 18A, 18B, 18C, 19, 19D, 21D, 23, 23B, 25, 25A, 25B, 32A, 33 and 37 of the LWRP as being specifically applicable to the Project. After careful review of the applicable LWRP policies, the Committee found that the Project, as a whole, is consistent with the purposes and polices of the LWRP. Policy 5 - ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE. Both municipal water and sewer utilities are available to service the Project. The Village has recently acquired water rights that should improve the water supply system in the northern portion of the Village, which includes the Phelps site and the Sleepy Hollow Manor residential neighborhood. Connection of the proposed CCRC facility to this "northern loop" of the Village 2 �water supply system will enable the northern loop to back-feed Sleepy Hollow Manor, and is expected to increase pressure to this portion of the Village, which has long been plagued by low water pressure. Similarly, the Applicant proposes to connect to an existing sewer main serving Phelps which, in turn, connects to sewer mains running through Sleepy Hollow Manor to a pump station located on Riverside Drive. The Committee, at several of its meetings considering the Project, had expressed concerns that the Project could adversely impact the Village's sewer system and aggravate existing capacity problems in Sleepy Hollow Manor. However, the County of Westchester has committed to making improvements to portions of the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewage lines as part of a county-wide program relating to sewer inflow and infiltration, and the Applicant has committed to provide three hundred thousand dollars to the Village to fund improvements to other relevant parts of the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewer lines and manholes and upgrades to the existing Riverside Drive sewage pump station. The Village Engineer has reported to the Committee that these sewer system improvements will allow the Village sewers to accommodate the additional sewage flow from the CCRC without adverse impact and the Committee concluded that these improvements would sufficiently mitigate any potential adverse effects from the Project. Based on these considerations, the Committee concluded unanimously that the Project would be consistent with Policy 5. However, the Committee expressly made its finding with respect to Policy 5 conditional. Accordingly, the Committee recommends to the Village's Board of Trustees that any approval by the Village of the Project and any related zoning changes be expressly made conditional upon (a) completion of the sewage line improvements that are to be undertaken by the County of Westchester and the Village, (b) the provision by the Applicant of the sum of three hundred thousand dollars to finance additional sewage line and manhole improvements and pump station upgrades, and (c) the completion of all such sewage line, manhole and pump station upgrades and improvements, before the CCRC may be occupied. Policy 5A - DISCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF USES WHICH, BY REASON OF THEIR DEMAND FOR NEW COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES OR THEIR IMPOSITION OF BURDENS ON EXISTING SERVICES AND FACILITIES, WOULD REQUIRE DISPROPORTIONATE PUBLIC COST IN COMPARISON TO PUBLIC BENEFITS. The Committee concluded that the proposed Project would impose little burden on existing Village services and facilities. The proposed CCRC will provide its own private ambulance service, have twenty-four hour security, maintain its own grounds and roads and provide for its own private collection of trash and recyclable materials. The facilities are not likely to add any school age children to the community and, thus, should not burden the local school district. Although the Village's fire department will serve the CCRC, the building heights of the Kendal buildings, as presently proposed, are well within the capacity of the Village's existing fire equipment, the buildings will be constructed with sprinklers, as required by a mandatory sprinkler law in the Village, and the type of use contemplated by the Project does not carry an enhanced risk of fire. Village police will be responsible for law enforcement, but the CCRC type of use is believed to be 3 �inherently a low-crime use, and vehicular ingress and egress will be, principally, from the Town of Mt. Pleasant rather than from Village streets. Parking availability at the Village's Philipse Manor train station is already over-burdened, but Kendal will provide shuttle buses to allow access to Metro-North train service without the need for additional train station parking. Development fees, recreation fees and an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), which will be allocated to the Village, the Town of Mt. Pleasant and the School District of the Tarrytowns, will be payable by Kendal. And, based on experience at other, similar, facilities, Kendal residents are thought likely to involve themselves in the provision of services to the community. Accordingly, the Committee found, unanimously, that the Project would not overwhelm or significantly burden existing services and facilities and would provide economic and social benefits to the Village, making the Project consistent with Policy 5A. Policy 7D - THE HUDSON RIVER IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND WITHIN 1000 FEET OF THE VILLAGE'S SHORELINE SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED AND, WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT. The Committee gave consideration to the applicability of Policy 7D to the Project and concluded that the proposed CCRC development would not impact the Hudson River or its shoreline, or its viability as a locally significant habitat. The western edge of the Project site is separated from the Hudson River by the Metro-North railroad tracks. However, the Committee recognized that development of the property does have the potential to produce contaminated storm water runoff that could adversely impact the River. The Applicant has developed, and would have to implement, a storm water management plan that, under New York State law, must be adequate to minimize any such impacts. Accordingly, the Committee found that if Policy 7D is, in fact, applicable to the Project, the Project is consistent with that policy. Policy 7E - THE LANDS IN STATE OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE AND OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT TRAIL SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT. The Project would have an impact on the lands of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve because a portion of the access road from Route 117 would traverse a corner of the Park Preserve's Rockwood Hall property. The Applicant has proposed to restore the areas to be disturbed with landscaping comparable to that already existing. The existing fence between Rockwood Hall and the Phelps property would be removed, allowing free access by wildlife between the Rockwood Hall site and the remaining wooded areas of the Project site. All of the members of the Committee, therefore, found that the Project would be consistent with Policy 7E. Policy 17 - NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND EROSION SHALL BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 4 �Policy 17A - PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPES AND HILLSIDES THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE THROUGH THE USE OF NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES, WHEN PRACTICAL, TO PREVENT EROSION, ESPECIALLY THROUGH RETENTION, OR PLANTING OF VEGETATIVE COVERS. The Committee found, unanimously, that the Project is consistent with Policies 17 and 17A. Although parts of the Project's construction site would include steep slope areas, the FEIS notes that the Project incorporates stringent soil erosion and sediment control measures and its erosion and sediment control plan includes a variety of mechanism to attain these goals, including sediment traps, silt fence barriers and straw bale barriers. The Applicant has proposed vegetative cover in the form of a comprehensive landscaping and restoration program for the balance of the property. Policy 18 - TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND OF ITS CITIZENS, PROPOSED MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THOSE INTERESTS, AND TO THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT VALUABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS. Policy 18A - PROTECT THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE IN THE EVALUATION OF ANY PROPOSAL FOR NEW ROADS, ROAD WIDENING OR INFRASTRUCTURE. Policy 18B - TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE SUCH RESOURCES SUPPORT. Policy 18C - TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON VALUABLE AND SENSITIVE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE. The Committee could find, with respect to the Project, no adverse impact on the economic, social and environmental interests of the state and its citizens with respect to valuable coastal resources, no failure to protect economic, social, cultural and environmental interests of the Village as to road construction relating to the Project, no failure to provide adequate consideration of impact on the Village's community and cultural resources and no failure to consider and protect environmental interests and natural resources of the Village. An environmental analysis prepared as part of the Project's environmental impact statement indicated that there are no sensitive natural resources found at the site and, as noted in the discussion of Policy 7E, an existing fence between Rockwood Hall and the Project property would be removed and would permit free movement by wildlife across the boundary. The Committee found that, while there would be some environmental impacts related to the proposed action, including the loss of 5 �existing trees, there will be substantial re-planting of vegetation (including in the wooded buffer between the site and Sleepy Hollow Manor) and there will also be positive benefits by providing much-needed housing for senior citizens (consistent with New York State policy) and positive fiscal contributions related to fees and PILOT payments. The findings of consistency by the Committee with respect to Policies 18 and 18A were unanimous and, with respect to Policies 18C and 18D were by a vote of four to three. Policy 19 - PROTECT, MAINTAIN, AND INCREASE THE LEVELS AND TYPES OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER-RELATED RECREATION RESOURCES AND FACILITIES SO THAT THESE RESOURCES AND FACILITIES MAY BE FULLY UTILIZED BY ALL THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLY ANTICIPATED PUBLIC RECREATION NEEDS AND THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES. IN PROVIDING SUCH ACCESS, PRIORITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC BEACHES, BOATING FACILITIES, FISHING AREAS, AND WATERFRONT PARKS. Policy 19D - ENCOURAGE, DEVELOP, PROTECT, AND MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND LINKAGES BETWEEN KINGSLAND POINT PARK, DEVRIES FIELD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR, DOUGLAS PARK, SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT, THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE LANDS, AND ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 21D - PURSUE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC ACCESS RECREATIONAL TRAIL LINKAGES FROM AND BETWEEN THE TARRYTOWN/SLEEPY HOLLOW VILLAGE BOUNDARY, THE VILLAGE'S RIVERFRONT PARK PROPERTY ON RIVER STREET, KINGSLAND POINT PARK, DEVRIES FIELD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR, DOUGLAS PARK, SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT, THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE LANDS, AND ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE POCANTICO RIVER. The LWRP policies strongly encourage efforts to "increase the general public's access to the waterfront such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas, scenic overlooks and passive recreation areas that take advantage of coastal scenery" (Explanation of Policies 21,21 A, 21B, 21C and 21D), and make the linkage of publicly owned land "with major points of natural and cultural interest and recreation along the Hudson River" a "major goal of the Village" (Explanation of Policies 19,19A, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E and 19F). The Committee recognized that access to the western portion of the Phelps campus is currently limited, due to the private ownership of the land by Phelps and the relative inaccessibility of the site. Moreover, there is no physical river access from the site because of the intervening Metro-North railroad tracks. At present, the site does provide limited visual access to the Hudson River. Because the project's internal network of roadways and walkways will be open to the public, the Project will provide enhanced public visual access to the Hudson River and western shoreline views. The Kendal plan also includes a pedestrian walking system and a 6 �Hudson River promenade and overlook that would be open to the public, both from Rockwood Hall and from Kendal's access road. The members of the Committee all agreed that these features would significantly increase public access to the Hudson River scenic views and would thus be consistent with Policies 19, 19D and 21D of the LWRP. The Kendal site plan incorporates pedestrian connections at two points to existing trails in the Rockwood Hall portion of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve to the north. The Committee members all felt that these proposed trail connections would serve to establish the kind of trail linkages contemplated by Policies 19D and 21D and would make the Project consistent with those policies for that reason, as well. Policy 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE, ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION. Policy 23B - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. The LWRP takes the view that "[a]mong the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those structures or areas which are of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance", and requires that protection include "concern not just with specific sites, but with areas of significance, and with the area around specific sites" (Explanation of Policies 23, 23A, 23B and 23C). The applicable policies demand "[a]ll practicable means to protect structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the Village, the State, or the Nation" as well as prevention of "significant adverse changes to such significant structures, districts, areas or sites" (Id.). Among those "resources" listed as "structures of significance in the history, architecture of culture of the Village" is The James House. The LWRP cites factors that would constitute adverse changes to structures covered by the LWRP policies and standards that are to be applied in proposed activity adjacent to the resource. It states: "Compatibility between the proposed action and the resource means that the general appearance of the resource should be reflected in the architectural style, design material, scale, proportion, composition, mass, line, color, texture, detail, setback, landscaping and related items of the proposed actions" (Id.). The FEIS notes that the Kendal structures, at their nearest point, are approximately 100 feet west of The James House, but concludes that there would be no anticipated significant impacts to historic resources. The Committee appreciated the architectural refinements incorporated into the Proposal in an effort to achieve architectural style, design material, color, texture and detail compatibility with The James House resource, as required by Policies 25 and 25B, and the Committee found that the appearance of the proposed structures was far more aesthetically appealing than the designs originally submitted by the Applicant to the Committee. The Committee equally appreciated the reduction in height of a portion of the Commons Building, capping the structure at five stories rather than seven. Nevertheless, the Committee was unable to conclude that the Project 7 �met other required standards of compatibility, such as "scale", "proportion" or "mass" or that its presence would otherwise be consistent with the preservation or enhancement of The James House. The Committee was also aware that portions of the Rockwood Hall property may have been designed and/or influenced by noted landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead and that the visibility of the CCRC structures from portions of the Rockwood Hall property could also have implications under Policy 23. Although the Applicant has proposed to enhance its vegetative screening program in order to mitigate the visual impact of the Kendal buildings on visitors to Rockwood Hall and, as noted above, has reduced the maximum building height from seven stories to five stories, the impact of the Project on Rockwood Hall was not found to protect, enhance or restore this significant site. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of five to two, that the Project was inconsistent with Policies 23 and 23B. Policy 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. Policy 25A - PROTECT OR ENHANCE VIEWS OF THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY, AND THE OPPOSITE SHORE FROM THE IMMEDIATE RIVERFRONT AS VIEWED FROM PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTIES. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [THE NINE IDENTIFIED SCENIC LANDSCAPE SUBUNITS INCLUDE PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND SLEEPY HOLLOW MANOR]. The Committee noted that the Kendal buildings could have an impact on views of the Hudson River and the Tappan Zee Bridge from portions of Rockwood Hall, a publicly owned property. The Applicant has proposed to incorporate a series of landscaped berms within the easement area located north of, and adjacent to, the Project site. Illustrations provided by the Applicant as part of its Project modifications reveal that the lowered building heights and growth of plantings after a ten-year period would help to soften the building mass when viewed from Rockwood Hall. Although the visual impact of the buildings would not be eliminated, the Committee recognized that it would not be possible to fully screen any development that may occur on the western portion of the Phelps property from this vantage point, and the Committee noted that the Rockefeller State Park Preserve has not objected to the impact. While, as a general matter, preservation and protection of views of the Hudson River is a goal of the LWRP, the Committee also noted that view of the River from the Phelps site is not one of the twenty-three "viewsheds of local importance" specifically recognized by the LWRP. However, there are two scenic resources identified under Policy 25B that are potentially impacted 8 �by the Project - the Sleepy Hollow Manor and the Phelps Memorial Hospital scenic landscape subunits cited in the LWRP. The Committee concluded that the Project would not significantly adversely impact either of those subunits. The residential character and "informal" layout of the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit would not be impacted in any way by the Project and visual impact would be slight. The Project would be potentially visible within Sleepy Hollow Manor only from the northern end of Birch Close and from part of Terrace Close, and the site plan for the Project incorporates a three hundred-foot buffer in the southern portion of the Kendal site, further screening the proposed Project from the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit. The LWRP description of the Phelps Memorial Hospital subunit notes that the site has distinctly different visual characteristics. The area is described in the LWRP's Scenic Resources portion of the Inventory and Analysis Section as being "dominated by the buildings and parking areas" of the hospital and "providing an institutional landscape", while the area to the west of the James House is contrasted as a "rolling estate landscape of lawns and woodlands" with glimpses of Hudson River and the western shoreline. The proposed buildings would be situated between The James House and the Metro-North Railroad tracks to the west. Existing views from The James House present only a seasonal, filtered view of the Hudson River. The Project, as currently proposed, would provide a more open vista of the Hudson River. The proposed buildings and, in particular, their rooftops, would, however, be visible from The James House and, of course, the existing open lawns and woodlands would be lost. The Applicant has proposed a comprehensive landscape planting plan, including plantings between The James House and the CCRC units to soften the impact of the proposed structures, and the lowered building heights as now proposed would provide for increased visibility of the Hudson River. With respect to the views from the Hudson River, it was noted that the Project as now proposed has attempted to incorporate a distinct architectural character by incorporating an ItaJianate influenced design to make the construction more stylistically sympathetic to the architecture of The James House and less institutional in appearance. The architectural treatment includes the use of different building materials, window treatments and roof articulation. Although the Committee believed that further reducing the bulk of the proposed structures would minimize the visual impact of the project from the River, the Committee was aware that virtually any building of significant size would be visible from the River. The Committee noted that the Explanation of Policies applicable to Policies 25, 25A and 25B includes a number of standards for minimizing scenic impairment. The Committee concluded, by a vote offiveto two, that any scenic impairment from the Project had been substantially minimized and that, accordingly, the Project was consistent with those policies. Policy 32A - FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO USE STATE OF THE ART LOW FLOW WATER FIXTURES AND WATER SAVING DEVICES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR WATER AND REDUCE THE FLOW TO THE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES. WHERE PRACTICABLE, THE GUIDELINES IN THE NEW YORK STATE MUNICIPAL MODEL WATER CONSERVATION PLAN SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. The Committee unanimously concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 32A. The 9 �Applicant has committed to incorporating low-flow water fixtures and other water saving devices throughout the proposed community to promote water conservation. Policy 33 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE CONTROL OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS. The Applicant has incorporated a storm water management system that includes two separate storm water detention facilities. The Committee noted that the Applicant is required, by New York State law, to implement the best management practices as to storm water runoff, as contemplated by Policy 33. The Committee also reviewed the projected storm water impacts outlined in the Applicant's updated storm water management report, which was submitted to the Village and the Committee. The updated storm water report indicates that, due the storm water detention basins, the peak rate of runoff during a 100-year storm event will actually decrease slightly from the predevelopment levels associated with the site. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed storm water management system should adequately control storm water runoff and that the Project will be consistent with Policy 33. Policy 37 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE NON-POINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS, ORGANICS AND ERODED SOILS INTO COASTAL WATERS. The Committee concluded, unanimously, that the Project is consistent with Policy 37. The Project will incorporate several design measures to mitigate potential impacts. These features include the use of dry swales, anti-vortex manholes and the two water quality detention basins referred to in the discussion of Policy 33. In addition, Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control will be utilized during the construction process. The Committee recognized that any construction, and the resulting creation of additional impervious surfaces, is likely to create some increase in non-point discharge, but felt that the proposed storm water quality system would minimize such discharge into coastal waters. Summary After its detailed consideration of the foregoing policies of the LWRP, the Committee noted that the Project was found to be consistent with most, but not all, of such policies. The Committee then considered whether, after weighing the elements of the Project's consistency and inconsistency with the policies of the LWRP and weighing the relative impacts of those elements, the Project, on balance, was or was not consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. It was the finding of the Committee, by a vote of five to two, that, on balance, the Project was consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 10 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-03-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/faabc9a8ebd956c3950b863d8c51fd91.pdf 593e4725baeb462657c25ad9a8affe60 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING April 4, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. RECEIVED Present: APP f 9 ?flfl1 Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Donald Stever Doug Maass VILLAGE CLERK None Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti & Associates, LLC) Announcements: None A2enda: a) b) c) d) Minutes of February 2001 Meeting Mr. & Mrs. Welch Kendal-on-Hudson WAC procedures a) Minutes of February 2001 Meeting The minutes were reviewed and the following correction was noted: On page 3, change: "George Lence stated that a number of Policies were impacted by this development. He cited policies 5A, 7D, 18D, 23 and 25." To read: "George Lence stated that a number of Policies were impacted by this development. He cited policies 5A, 7D, 18C, 23 and 25." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0 Stever and Maass abstained). �b) Mr. & Mrs. Welch Sean McCarthy is the architect representing the applicant Sean McCarthy stated that the property is located at 260 Kelburne Ave. He stated that the majority of the work is done to the back of the house. He detailed the 2nd floor addition to the existing one-story structure. He also spoke about the addition of a 4'x4' vestibule Sean McCarthy detailed the interior changes within the footprint of the property He also detailed the changes to the roof and attic He supplied photos of the property and stated that the intent was to minimize the changes to the existing footprint. Sean McCarthy summarized the zoning requirements and stated that all zoning requirements have been met. He also stated that the distance from the immediate neighbor's property is 16 feet. Ralph Gunderman asked about the elevation of the peak of the new gable on the South side Sean McCarthy responded 4'-6". Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant could build on other parts of the house that would have had a greater visual impact than the proposed changes. This was further illustrated with photos of the property The Chair read a letter from the applicant's neighbor that referenced policies 23 and 25. The Committee agreed that Policy 23 does not apply to this application. The Committee discussed Policy 25 and its relation to this application. Sean McCarthy provided photos to demonstrate the visual impact to the Hudson River. Ralph Gunderman stated that he visited the property and makes a motion to find consistency with the LWRP. Doug Maass stated that the LWRP does not cover views from private property and seconded. It was unanimous Ralph Gunderman stated that the Committee's jurisdiction should be discussed. Don Stever stated that any Village Board that required a LWRP consistency determination must refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 4, 2001 2 �The Chair stated that every project should not be referred to the Committee He also stated that there should be criteria for referring an applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee c) Kendal-on-Hudson The Chair stated that Jerome Fine (Village Engineer) will further clarify any Engineering questions that the Committee might have. Jerome Fine first discussed the sewage concerns He summarized the flow of sewage from Phelps Hospital, Sleepy Hollow Manor and part of Philipse Manor. He also stated that the pumping station is located at Hunter Ave. and Riverside Ave. Jerome Fine stated that there is plenty of sewer capacity at the Kingsland and Fremont section. He stated that Kendal would increase the pumping station to accommodate the increased capacity. Don Stever stated that there are problems with the sewer lines currently. He also stated that without these sewer improvements by Kendal, and without fixing the current problem, it would worsen. Jerome Fine discussed the proposed sewer repair procedure that involves inserting a plastic sleeve into the existing clay pipe and expanding it. George Lence asked if there were any options for bypassing Sleepy Hollow Manor. Jerome Fine responded that there were three options. (1) To go along the westside of Sleepy Hollow Manor. This was not accessible due to the rocks and the cliff. (2) To go along Route 9. This was also not used because there are too many obstacles (utilities, etc.) (3) To go through the manor using the existing sewer system. The Chair asked how much capacity is being used. Jerome Fine responded 50%. Terrance McGlynn asked what is the peak flow. Jerome Fine responded that the calculations assumed all peaks from the Manors, Phelps Hospital, Kendal and IBM George Lence asked if there is any documentation on the sewer capacity. Jerome Fine responded that there are reports submitted by the applicant. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 4, 2001 3 �Karin Adir asked about the proposed pumping station that would pump sewage off-hours. There was an open discussion on the proposed pumping station. Doug Maass asked if the pumping station would be increased. Jerome Fine responded no The pumps would have a larger capacity and an emergency generator would be added The Chair read previously submitted documents that the applicant would be pumping stored sewage off-hours Andy Tung stated that although moving the tie-in will not impact the sewage system, Kendal will still have the option to pump the sewage off-hours The Chair asked how would this be determined. Jerome Fine responded visually by the Village DPW. He also stated that the system could handle the increased capacity with the proposed improvements. Karin Adir asked about rainwater and its impact to the sewer system. Jerome Fine discussed sanitary sewers and storm water sewers. The Chair asked if there was a full commitment from the County on the sewage improvements. Jerome Fine responded not 100%. Jerome Fine detailed the water system through Sleepy Hollow and how Kendal expects to tie-in. The Chair asked if the Northern Loop was set to be done. Jerome Fine responded yes. Jerome Fine discussed in detail how the Kendal tie-in will increase water pressure to Sleepy Hollow Manor. There was an open discussion on the Committee's recommendation process. It was determined that the Waterfront Advisory Committee and SEQRA process would be brought to the lead agency (Village Board of Trustees) for their advice. The Committee voted not to hear any public comments (4-3). Al DelBello stated that the applicant would meet with the Board of Trustees at their next meet i ng/worksession. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 4, 2001 4 �d) WAC Procedures There was an open discussion on the Waterfront Advisory Committee's role with the SEQRA process as well as the Committee's procedures with regards to smaller projects. It was agreed that a procedural agreement would be sent to the Board of Trustees. There was an open discussion on a possible application fee for the Waterfront Advisory Committee Other Topics: None Adjourn at 11:01 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 4,2001 5 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Addition to Residence at 260 Kelburne Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on April 4, 2001, a proposed addition to the residence of Mr. Robert Welch located at 260 Kelburne Avenue (the "Project"). The review of the Project by the Committee came in response to a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Robinson, which asserted that the Project violated a number of the policies under the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"). The Plans for the Project were provided to the Committee by Mr. Sean McCarthy, the architect for the Project. Mr. McCarthy described the Project, and he and Mr. Welch, the owner of the residence, responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed construction was consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP and not in violation of the policies thereof. The Proposal The site at 260 Kelburne Avenue is a residential structure that sits high above Riverside Drive facing the Hudson River. There is one other house between it and the River. The proposed addition would add a second story above a portion of the existing structure. There would be almost no change in the current "footprint" of the structure. The architectural plans indicate that the addition will follow the existing architectural style of the residence. Nonetheless, Mr. and Mrs. Robinson have asserted that the Project must be submitted to the Committee and have concluded that it violates Policies 23,23A, 23B, 23C, 25,25A and 25B and should be revised so as not to violate those policies. Consistency Findings The Committee concluded that Policies 23,23A, 23B, 23C and 25 were inapplicable to the Project and that the only Policies of the LWRP that had any application to the Project were Policies 25A and 25B. The Committee reached a determination that the Project was consistent with these policies. Policy 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION. Policy 23A - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT ARE CURRENTLY LISTED ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. �Policy 23B - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. Policy 23C - ENCOURAGE THE RESTORATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS SUCH AS THE PHILIPSE MANOR TRAIN STATION. The Committee has determined that Policies 23, 23A, 23B and 23C are inapplicable to the Project. The residence at 23 Kelburne Road is not listed or eligible for listing on any register of historic places and is not an historic building. Nor is it a site that is of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of New York, its communities or the United States. If the language of these policies were not otherwise absolutely clear as to their scope, the applicable Explanation of Policies explicitly lists the types of historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural resources intended to be protected by these policies. In addition, "[t]he structures of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the Village" are enumerated (although it is noted that the policies apply throughout the Village and not only to these specific sites). The Welch residence meets none of the criteria that would make any site "of significance" for purposes of application of these policies. Policy 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COAST AREA. Policy 25A - PROTECT OR ENHANCE VIEWS OF THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY, AND THE OPPOSITE SHORE FROM THE IMMEDIATE RIVERFRONT AS VIEWED FROM PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTIES. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SIGNIFICANCE. The Committee has determined that Policy 25 is not applicable to the Project, since the location of the Welch residence makes it all but invisible, except to its nearest neighbors and it does not, therefore, make any contribution to the overall scenic quality of the coast area. However, the Committee did give specific consideration to the effects of the Project under Policies 25A and 25B, both of which are applicable. The Robinson letter claims that the Project will obscure views of the Hudson from the Robinson home and from a public lane. The protection of views of the Hudson from private property are not within the scope of the LWRP, but Policy 25A specifically affords protection to views of the River "from the immediate riverfront as viewed from publicly owned properties". The public lane is clearly "publicly owned property" and the location of the Welch home and the lane on the east side of Riverside Drive position the relevant site above the "immediate riverfront". The applicable Explanation of Policies, in citing standards for minimizing scenic impairment and visual access, notes that �"Particular attention must be paid to views from public parks and public rights of way." However, it did not appear to the Committee that the proposed construction would interfere in any material respect with views toward the River from the lane. Such views are already obscured by the existing one-story portion of the home, above which the second story addition is to be built. Similarly Policy 25B is technically applicable to the Project since Philipse Manor, where the Welch residence is located, is identified in the LWRP as one of nine scenic landscape subunits of the Village. However, the residence is largely invisible vithin tbs limits of the Philipse Manor subunit and the proposed addition, architecturally cot vstent with the existing structure, does not appear to obstruct views of the subunit in any signilicant ma;iner. Accordingly, the Committee finds the Project consistent with the applicable polices of the LWRP, Policies 25A and 25B. Richard D. Weiss, Chairm RECEIVED APR 1 6 2001 VILLAGE CLERK � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-04-04.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/e03fbe0929e4a13ea62b1feae96670a6.pdf e5a3b2c1aa050f088b60c1586d9ded47 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING May 2,2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Karin Adir Doug Maass Absent: Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Announcements; None. Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) Minutes of April 2001 Meeting 45 Amos St. 250 Kelbourne Ave. George Zoumboulis WAC procedures a) Minutes of April 2001 Meeting The minutes were reviewed and the following correction was noted: On page 4, change: "The Chair asked if the Northern Loop was set to be done." To read: "The Chair asked if the Northern Loop contract was executed?" On page 5, change: "It was agreed that a procedural agreement would be sent to the Board of Trustees." To read: "It was proposed that a member of the Waterfront Advisory Committee should meet with the Chairs of the other Village agencies to discuss the referrals of smaller projects." �Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous. b) 45 Amos Street Chris Ghari is the applicant. He gave an overview of the proposed project. He submitted photos of the existing house. Doug Maass asked when was the house built. Chris Ghari responded 1910. Ralph Gunderman stated that there are no relevant LWRP policies except for the policies involving viewsheds. There was an open discussion on specific viewsheds. Ralph Gunderman stated that the LWRP is not limited to views from public property. It was unanimous that the application is consistent with the LWRP. The Chair stated that a letter would be sent with the Committee's recommendations. c) 250 Kelbourne Ave. Andrew Ward is representing this application. He gave an overview of the proposed project. He stated that the elevation would be the same as the current elevation. He also stated that he is not building towards his neighbor's property. The Chair stated that Philipse Manor is one of the viewsheds in the LWRP. Andrew Ward responded that the addition is not visible from the street. Doug Maass asked if a plot plan was available. Andrew Ward submitted a plot plan for the Committee to review. The Chair asked if any members had any other questions. Ralph Gunderman stated that this application is not relevant to the LWRP. The Chair responded that policy 25b would be applicable but since the proposed work is not visible from the street, there is no impact. It was unanimous that the application is consistent with the LWRP. d) George Zoumboulis/Horseman Diner George Zoumboulis is representing this application. He stated that a new awning was Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, May 2,2001 2 �recently installed at the diner and the owner wants to add the words " and pizza" to the awning. Ralph Gunderman asked if the Committee has any jurisdiction for a sign. The Chair responded that it is covered under policy l(k). The Chair asked which Village Board has jurisdiction over signs. Jim Margotta responded the ARB. It was unanimously determined that there is no negative impact. The Chair stated that the Committee's advice would be sent to the ARB. Other Topics: The Chair stated that all Boards will be notified that in order to refer an item to the Waterfront Advisory Committee, they must cite the applicable LWRP policy that is relevant. George Lence asked when would an applicant fill out a Coastal Assessment Form. Jim Margotta responded that it is filled out for the Planning Board only. There was an open discussion on the zoning code for McMansions. There was an open discussion whether or not to accept public comments. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to allow public comments with the following conditions: 1) speak only once 2) limit to 3 minutes 3) time limit can be extended by the Committee 4) Chair will make a determination at the beginning of the public comment period on the length of the comment period. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous. The Chair will send a letter to the other Village Boards on the Waterfront Advisory Committee's guidelines as stated above. Adjourn at 9:35 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio • Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, May 2,2001 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-05-02.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f13366ddcc2cc0945aba8dd1a9b28515.pdf 4e1ed0c0d35f605b57afa81e35ae7632 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING June 13, 2001 ^7^/u-L^^^ A V^-ftls-^C ^^t>0^ The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Donald Stever Doug Maass RECEIVED JUL t 1 >nm VILLAGE CLERK None Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti & Associates, LLC) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of May 2001 Meeting b) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of May 2001 Meeting The Chair stated that the minutes were not received. They will be reviewed at the next meeting. b) Kendal-on-Hudson Andrew Tung is representing the applicant. He will discuss the proposed revisions. The topics are: 1) affordability 2) Landscaping. 3) Storm water management. He discussed the size, scale and density of the project. He also stated that the buildings would follow the design of the slope. The buildings originally were proposed to range from 2 to 7 stories tall. The building heights were reduced to be less visible. They will now be 2 to 5 stories tall. He stated that the top level of the Commons and Center buildings are to be removed. Andy Tung discussed different views of the proposed project changes. He also discussed the open views of the Hudson River from the James House. �Andy Tung also stated that the project has eliminated 16 units. This will result in an approximate 2-5% reduction in water and sewer requirements. Don Stever stated that the changes are a direct result of the Mayor and Board of Trustees comments. He stated that there are other alterations that could be mentioned. They are storm water management, sewage, existing tree quality, what will be preserved as a wooded buffer. He also stated that the wooded buffer must be maintained by the hospital. Ralph Gunderman asked what improvements have been proposed to the Village water and sewer systems. Andy Tung illustrated via a map of the Village sewer system. He discussed the four main lined labeled A through D. He discussed the conditions and fixes for the system. He stated that there are four contributing groups to the flow station. He stated that Kendal would contribute 12-15% to the sewer system. He discussed the A-C route via Kingsland Ave. and the D route via Fremont Ave. Andy Tung stated that the sewer fix would be accomplished in two efforts via Kendal and Westchester County. George Lence asked if this was documented. Jerome Fine stated that the contract is informally expected to be completed in Sleepy Hollow in Spring 2002. The work is currently being performed in Yonkers. Karin Adir asked if the Kendal sewer work is contingent with Westchester County's work. Andy Tung responded no. He stated that it is independent. He also stated that improvements to the pumps are needed. An emergency generator is needed for pumping station as part of the municipal sewer system. He stated that the proposed Kendal improvement to the Village is estimated to be $300,000. George Lence asked about the total number of gallons that comes down through Kingsland. Jerome Fine responded that 114 gallons/minute would be from Kendal and 250 gallons/minutes from Phelps hospital. He stated that the residents produce a small amount. Jerome Fine also stated that the current daily flow is not known exactly at this time. He stated that the worst case scenario from IBM, Kendal, Phelps and residents would be 856 gallons/minute. He discussed the improvements to widen the sewer system and the pumping station. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. Art McKinley asked about the hospital and IBM's future growth. He also asked about the odors from the pumping station. Jerome Fine responded that the pumps are very quick. He also stated that he was not aware of any odors. He stated that they are adding extra capacity for the expansion of the hospital and the IBM site. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting. June 13,2001 2 �Ralph Gunderman asked about the increased storm water and how it would be mitigated. Andy Tung spoke about how the holding basin would somewhat mitigate the run-off. He detailed how Kendal would control the additional volume. Kendal will provide retention basins. He also stated that the peak rate would be the same as before. Ralph Gunderman asked about the measurements of natural residues for car and machinery residue. Andy Tung responded that there is no way to calculate the petroleum waste. Doug Maass asked what happens to the Calcium Chloride for snow removal. Andy Tung responded that it would be deposited in the basins. The storm water discharge will be monitored by the DEC. Doug Maass stated that it is a safety concern and needs a back-up system. Andy Tung responded that it is the responsibility of the site to clean basins. Doug Maass asked if the central heating plant was fueled by oil. Andy Tung responded yes. George Lence asked what other public benefits are there from this project besides a $300,000 sewer system. The Chair stated that the PILOT program has been resolved. Al DelBello discussed the PILOT program. George Lence asked what is the Village's recourse if there is a sewage problem. Al DelBello responded that it is not a private sewer system. The Chair stated that Kendal should pay taxes for the public's benefit. Andy Tung responded that there is no school system impact. He also stated that there are no municipal services except for police and fire. Doug Maass asked to hear more CCRC benefits. David Jones responded that seniors could help middle school and teenagers as a grandparent role. He also stated that there are other programs to involve seniors in the community. The Chair and Don Stever stated that they wanted to examine the materials further. The Chair stated that they would invite public comments. It will be limited to 3 minutes per person. Tim Murphy spoke. He stated that Kendal is demanding a great deal of Village and the environment. He also stated that only 6 Sleepy Hollow residents will reside at Kendal. Art McKinley spoke. He stated that the proposal of Scenic Hudson was to relocate this to a site East of the Hudson. Don Stever responded that the Board of Trustees would address the applicant's supplemental alternative. He also stated that the submissions are public documents. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 13,2001 3 �Art McKinley stated that the project violated the current zoning code and the LWRP. He also stated that the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association votes in majority against the project. Jim Lehr asked if the project could be scaled back. He also asked if Kendal sewage could be collected at the pump station. Jerome Fine responded that there is no need to store it. Jim Lehr stated that there are questions that are still unanswered. He also asked what was the attraction to Sleepy Hollow. Karin Adir stated that the applicant has taken into account the Village's comments. She also stated that the applicant is trying to address the Village's concerns. Ralph Gunderman stated that the Committee should examine and vote on each policy for consistency with the LWRP. Art McKinley read a letter from Edward Barrows of the Westchester County Planning Board. He also read several LWRP policies that conflict with this project. He also stated that the steep slopes impair the scenic value. End of public comments. The Chair stated that the Committee would have ongoing discussions on several issues. He also stated that the proposal before the Committee would be reviewed and that the process stops due to the July 17, 2001 decision. Other Topics: The minutes for May 2001 were not available. They will be reviewed at the next meeting. The next meeting will be a Special meeting to be held on Monday, June 18,2001 at 8:00pm. Adjourn at 10:20 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 13,2001 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-06-13.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/0c4909a01198bb49825493a583cd79ff.pdf 86720fea3d6545ce27fe14ef50868af4 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING June 18,2001 r^7? The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Donald Stever Doug Maass RECEIVED JUL 1 1 > w VILLAGE CLERK None ^\lsp Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Scruff/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti & Associates, LLC/Village Engineer) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of May 2001 Meeting b) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of May 2001 Meeting The minutes were reviewed and the following correction was noted: On page 2, change: "Ralph Gunderman stated that the LWRP is not limited to views from public property." To read: "Ralph Gunderman stated that the LWRP is limited to views from public property." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (4-0 Stever and McGlynn abstained. Adir not present). S£o2* �Dave Smith spoke about the Lincoln Study Grant. He stated that it calls for the formation of a task force. It would involve three public meetings around the end of July. Ralph Gunderman asked about the mission of the task force. Dave Smith stated that it relates to the GM site and how it relates to the inner Village. He stated that the task force would recommend height requirements, etc. Ralph Gunderman asked if the task force would review the work of the Village Planner. Dave Smith responded yes. The Chairman suggested that members of the Architectural Review Board and Waterfront Advisory Committee be put on the task force. It was agreed that the entire Waterfront Advisory Committee should not be on the task force due to possible conflicts of interest. Ralph Gunderman stated that if it were a joint committee between the different Village Boards, he would be interested. The Chair stated that he would like to limit the membership to one member from the Waterfront Advisory Committee. b) Kendal-on-Hudson The Chair stated that the Committee will go through the LWRP for consistency review one policy at a time. 1) Policy 5 Ralph Gunderman asked if there was one connection to be made through Kendal to connect the new water supply loop. Dave Smith responded yes. He also stated that it is the second connection. The Chair asked about the new sewer liner that is to be used. Jerome Fine responded that the product to be used is HDPE (High Density Polyethylene). He stated that it is being used all over the County and it has been available for 20 years. Ralph Gunderman asked if the sewer work is split between the County and Kendal, can the County make repairs without Kendal. Jerome Fine responded no. The Chair asked who would perform the work. Jerome Fine responded that a contractor would perform the work. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 2 �2) Policy 5(a)Ralph Gunderman asked if there would be access to the CCRC through Route 9. Dave Smith explained the proposed entrance to the CCRC. He also stated that the applicant has committed to making a dedicated right-hand turn lane. George Lence asked about the impact on the Philipse Manor train station. He also asked if there was anyway to prevent residents of Kendal from obtaining a parking permit and adding to the train station congestion. Andy Tung stated that there is no impact. Kendal would have a shuttle to the train station and back. Don Stever stated that the parking permit could also be denied since the parking area is currently overcrowded. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 3) Policy 7(d) The Committee agreed that this policy is not applicable. 4) Policy 7(e) Don Stever spoke about the policy. He stated that the grantors of this property to the State granted an easement since they knew this project was being considered. The Chair responded that the easement was not relevant to the LWRP. Don Stever responded that the State did not object. There was an open discussion on Policy 7(e). Don Stever expanded on the habitat aspect of the policy. He stated that it would improve the habitat of the wildlife in the area by removing the existing fence. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 5) Policy 17(a) Doug Maass stated that over 50% of the area will be impervious. Don Stever spoke about the storm water management. He also stated that the storm water management runoff should be added as a condition. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 3 �6) Policy 18The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 7) Policy 18(a) The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 8) Policy 18(b)The Chair stated that this policy is not consistent with the LWRP. Ralph Gunderman stated that he feels this policy is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever, Karin Adir and Doug Maass agreed with Ralph Gunderman. The Committee voted (4-3) for consistency with the LWRP. 9) Policy 18(c)Don Stever stated that there were no natural resources. Ralph Gunderman responded that he disagreed. Don Stever spoke about the Storm Water Retention program to substantiate his opinion. Doug Maass asked Dave Smith if there were any sensitive resources found on-site. Dave Smith responded that the applicant hired a well-known consultant to look at the habitat, trees and DEC files for rare or endangered species. A report was submitted to the DEC for comments. Karin Adir stated that she feels this policy is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever, Doug Maass and Terrance McGlynn agreed with Karin Adir. The Committee voted (4-3) for consistency with the LWRP. 10) Policy 19Don Stever stated that this policy is either not applicable or consistent. He also stated that the property is not providing access to the riverfront. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 4 �11) Policy 19(d)The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 12) Policy 21(d) The Chair stated that this policy has the same impact to policy 19(d). The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 13) Policy 23 + 23(b) There was an open discussion on whether or not policy 23 and 23(b) are the same. It was agreed that they are. Karin Adir asked if it is within 100 feet. The Chair responded that the James House does not have a property boundary. The Chair spoke about the scale, proportion and mass. Don Stever stated that you cannot see the James House from the Hudson and vice versa. He also stated that the applicant reduced the building heights to minimize the visual impact. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant has taken significant measures to reduce the impact to the James House. He stated that there are costs and benefits to any development. Karin Adir stated that she feels this policy is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever agreed with Karin Adir. The Chair, Ralph Gunderman, Doug Maass, Terrance McGlynn and George Lence stated that the policy is inconsistent with the LWRP. The Committee voted (5-2) for inconsistency with the LWRP. 14) Policy 25 Doug Maass stated that this development would not be as bad as some of the other structures on the Hudson. Ralph Gunderman stated that the view shed is not listed on the specific view sheds in the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 5 �Don Stever stated that more than 30% of the Village is dedicated open space. Dave Smith stated that the applicant submitted an environmental review. He also stated that the hospital has stated that it must do something with the property to ensure its financial stability. The hospital has also stated that without the CCRC, it will build another medical building that is within its current zoning. Karin Adir stated that she feels this policy is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever, Doug Maass, George Lence and Ralph Gunderman agreed with Karin Adir. The Committee voted (5-2) for consistency with the LWRP. 15) Policy 32(a) The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 16) Policy 3 3 Don Stever referred to the applicants Storm Water Management Plan. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 17) Policy 35(c)The Committee agreed that this policy is not applicable. 18) Policy 37 Don Stever referred to the Storm Water management plan. Ralph Gunderman stated that as per the Policy, he finds it inconsistent with the LWRP. Don Stever stated that on any construction site, there will be more runoff than naturally present. He also stated that the wording is inappropriate. He stated that the best management practices should be looked at. The Committee voted unanimously (7-0) for consistency with the LWRP. 19) Policy 44 The Committee agreed that this policy is not applicable. Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 6 �The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Ralph Gunderman referred to an article written by Scenic Hudson on how some agencies are opposed to this project. He also stated that he has spoken to Scenic Hudson on the new proposal. He stated that Scenic Hudson would not oppose the project based on the new proposal. He also stated that he finds the application to be consistent with the LWRP. The Chair stated that he finds it inconsistent with the LWRP. He stated that the mass and scale are his concerns. Don Stever stated that he finds it consistent with the LWRP. He stated that the applicant has mitigated many of the Villages concerns. Doug Maass stated that he finds it consistent with the LWRP based on the overall public benefit. Karin Adir stated that she finds it consistent with the LWRP. She stated that the water pressure and sewer issues will benefit the Village. George Lence stated that he is changing his vote on Policy 23 to consistent. The vote for Policy 23 is now 4-3 (inconsistent). He stated that he finds it inconsistent with the LWRP. Terrance McGlynn stated that he finds it consistent with the LWRP. He stated that it will benefit Phelps and the community. He would rather see a CCRC built than another medical use. The overall vote was 5 votes for consistent and 2 votes for inconsistent. The Chair thanked the members for their efforts. Don Stever thanked the Chair for his efforts and the Committee for their service to the Village. Adjourn at 10:53 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, 1 LrfffitW l)J /la/^oD Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Special Meeting, June 18,2001 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-06-18.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/724e0973e9821ff4f2fd1fe7ac60eecf.pdf ec43919bd4a6820ab22dd6701e1ab3d7 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE August 8, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Doug Maass Absent: Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Bob Stiloski (Department of Fire and Life Safety) Announcements: None. Aeenda: a) Minutes of June 2001 Meeting b) Dolphin Fitness a) Minutes of June 2001 Meetings The minutes for June 13, 2001 were reviewed. Doug Maass made a motion to approve as submitted. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. The minutes for June 18, 2001 were reviewed and the following correction was noted: On page 7, change: "George Lence stated that he is changing his vote on Policy 23 to consistent. The vote or Policy 23 is now 4-3 (inconsistent)." To read: "George Lence stated that he is changing his vote on Policy 25 to inconsistent. The vote for Policy 25 is now 4-3 (consistent)." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes with corrections. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). �b) Dolphin Fitness Sam Vieira is the project architect. He stated that the building footprint is not changing. He addressed the parking layout via a sketch. He stated that the former used car lot structure would be torn down and re-paved for parking. He also stated that 48 parking spaces are needed and 48 spaces are being provided. Sam Vieira detailed the proposed gym layout with regards to egress and equipment. He also discussed the proposed awning. Ralph Gunderman asked if there were any discussions on pedestrian traffic crossing Route 9 to access the facility. Sam Vieira responded yes but it is the only solution to accommodate the parking requirements. George Lence asked if a left-hand turn would be permitted from the parking lot. Sam Vieira responded that it had not been addressed yet. Terrance McGlynn asked about the maximum number of people allowed under the fire code. Bob Stiloski responded that the number had not been calculated yet. The Chair asked if the equipment would be screened near the front glass windows. Sam Vieira responded that it would remain open. Doug Maass stated that he was concerned about the storm water runoff from the newly paved lot. Sam Vieira responded that the engineer would address this. Karin Adir asked if the sidewalks would be re-done. Sam Vieira responded yes. Doug Maass asked if the parking lot would be lit. Sam Vieira responded yes. Doug Maass stated that he was concerned about the light spilling onto Route 9. Bob Stiloski stated that it would permitted according to the Village Code. There was an open discussion on Policy l(k) and Policy 23. Ralph Gunderman asked about the number of parking spaces needed. Sam Vieira detailed the Village Board of Trustees parking requirements and the proposed fitness Center. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, August 8,2001 2 �The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There were none. Doug Maass made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP with the following restrictions: 1) Buffer plantings are required. 2) No left-hand turn for ingress or egress from either parking lot. 3) Adequate provisions for correcting storm water runoff. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn at 8:58 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Him })Jr Ifodw Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, August 8,2001 3 �4 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Dolphin Fitness Center on Route 9 The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on August 8, 2001, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the development of a fitness center on the site of the former Tappan Motors showroom at the intersection of Route 9 and New Broadway (the "Site"). The proposal was presented by Mr. Samuel Vieira, the architect for Dolphin Fitness Center ("Applicant"). Mr. Vieira also responded to questions from the members of the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed use of the Site would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. However, the Committee's finding was made subject to a number of specific recommendations to Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village") and to the Village's Planning Board (the "Planning Board"), which are set forth below. The Proposal The Site sits at the intersection of Route 9 and New Broadway and has been unused for some time. Its last permanent use was as an automobile showroom. Recently, it was used, briefly, in the filming of a movie. The proposed use would involve conversion of the building into a fitness center with facilities each of its two floors. The fitness center would be entirely contained within the footprint of the existing structure and no significant change would be made in the building's exterior, other than the addition of an awning above the large glass windows and front entrance. The building has already been repainted a beige shade. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave particular consideration to Policy IK of the LWRP. Policy IK - Restore, revitalize, and redevelop the area along, and on both sides of NY Route 9 (North Broadway) with appropriate consideration given to landscaping and scenic viewshed protection, between its intersection with Beekman Avenue and the bridge crossing the Pocantico River. The Committee noted that the applicable Explanation of Policies section of the LWRP identifies a number of sites "as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of the three." One of these sites is "[t]he area along, and on both sides of Route 9 (North Broadway) between its intersection with Beekman Avenue and the bridge crossing the Pocantico River." �The Committee in considering the Proposal reviewed the various standards for suitability of proposed developments, as set forth in the Explanation of Policies section of the LWRP. (Although these standards are principally applicable to proposed actions on the Village's waterfront, the Committee found that a number of the standards provided guidance for the Committee's determination as to the consistency of the Proposal with the LWRP.) The Committee noted standard "d" ("The action should improve the deteriorated or underutilized condition of a site and, at a minimum, must not cause further deterioration".) The Committee felt that the conversion of the Site would, at worst, maintain the existing appearance of the area and that, in fact, some affirmative improvements might reasonably be expected - both visual improvement from the placement of the awnings and the newly painted exterior, and commercial benefit to the Village from the replacement of an unused location with an active business. (See also, standard "f' - "The action should have the potential to improve the existing economic base of the community, and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize this base.") The Proposal includes parking lots on both sides of Route 9, one directly behind the Site and the other across the street where a used car lot is now located. The Committee made note of a number of standards relating to parking requirements. Standard "i" ("Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for all uses. Parking areas shall be sufficiently drained so as to contain all drainage on a site and to prevent ponding. Whenever feasible, parking areas shall be placed at the rear of buildings and/or screened by plantings so as [not] to be highly visible from the waterfront and Village streets") received much attention from the Committee. [It was recognized by the Committee that, as printed, standard "i" erroneously lacks the word "not", which has been inserted in brackets in the text above.] Mr. Vieira explained that the Village had recently enacted legislation applicable to the number of parking spaces required for a fitness center, and that the Dolphin Fitness Center would have "adequate" off-street parking under the new Village requirements. Mr. Vieira acknowledged, however, that the fitness center's parking area sited across Route 9 from the Site currently has problems with stormwater drainage. Accordingly, it is the recommendation of the Committee that any approval of the Proposal by the Planning Board should include the requirement of arrangements for installation of adequate drainage facilities at this parking site. The Committee also noted that Policy IK, standard "i" (above) and standard "1" ("Screening with trees or other plantings may be required for parking and other disturbed areas which are created and are not already screened adequately. A landscaping plan demonstrating that suitable vegetation will be planted and nurtured may be required. Such a plan shall become a part of the approved site plan.") make adequate landscaping for the Proposal a priority. It was noted, too, that Policy 25B makes U.S. Route 9 (Broadway) a viewshed "of local scenic significance, similarly making adequate screening of parking areas a significant concern. Although the parking diagram that was submitted to the Committee on behalf of the Applicant for one of the proposed parking lots shows plantings at the corners alongside Route 9, much of the frontage currently appears to be open to the street. It is therefore the recommendation of the Committee 2 �to the Planning Board that, to the extent feasible, appropriate plantings be required along the street line to provide a visual buffer of vegetation (to be sized and/or maintained so as to avoid impairment of sight lines) between the street and parked vehicles. It is further recommended to the Village that it consider the placement of one or more trees within the Village sidewalk space adjacent to the parking areas, particularly the area across Route 9 from the Site. Finally, the Committee considered standard " j " ("Vehicular ingress and egress, interior traffic circulation, parking space arrangement, loading facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be planned and built so as to promote safety and efficiency.") The Committee expressed concerns over the safety of ingress and egress from the fitness center parking lots, due to the traffic flow on this portion of Route 9. It is the recommendation of the Committee that the Village require that, with respect to the two fitness center parking lots, left turns be prohibited both for ingress and egress. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Fire & Life Safety MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Waterfront Advisory Committee FROM: Sonja Goldstein-Suss DATE: August 29, 2001 RE: September Meeting There will not be a Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting in September. The next meeting is scheduled for October 3,2001. An agenda will be forwarded in late September. Please find enclosed a copy of the August 8, 2001 minutes for the Waterfront Advisory Committee together with a copy of the July 19, 2001 minutes for the Planning Board. Cc: Angela Everett � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-08-08.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d72b21e8ec77b88d53197a2aa09bbe33.pdf 6a220eb51c47da1a966e8531a743bec8 PDF Text Text i VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 3. 2001 ' ' Vy^cP lhe meeting was called loordei by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8.04 p.m Piesent Absent Richaid Weiss, Chan man Kaiph Guilder man Teience MeGlynn Kann Adii Donald Stcvcr ^^£?/Vgn OCT | o m WLLAQj CLBRff Doug Maass George Lence Also Present Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of June 2001 Meeting b) Doorley sub-division a) Minutes of June 2001 Meeting Ralph Gundeiman made a motion to appiove the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. b) Doorley sub-division Michael Doorley is the applicant. He described the project in detail. It involves subdividing a large parcel into thiee conforming lots. Lot # 1 shown as a 150 x 150 would be subdivided into 2 lots 75x 75 each I here was an open discussion on the actual lot sizes a number of lots being created. Don Stevei asked the applicant why they were subdividing. Michael Doorley responded because if they ever want to sell, they would have the option to do so. He also stated that they have no intention to sell any lots at the present time Don Stever responded that the Village must assume that you will build in their decision concerning the LWRP The Chair referred policy 23,25 and 25B Don Stevei agreed �Ralph Gunderman explained the role of the LWRP to the applicant Don Stever stated that he does not feel to plot on Palmer Ave. is consistent with policy 23. He stated that the two lots on Highland are ok. He also stated that Palmer Ave. is a highly visible street for the V illage. Ralph Gunderman agreed with Don Stever He stated that the subdivision is inconsistent with policy 23. Don Stever stated that this subdivision could affect property values in Phillipse Manor. 1 he Chair referred to page II- 15 in the LWRP. The Chair asked the applicant if they had any comments. Michael Doorley spoke about Lot # 1. He staled that they are not visible from Palmer Ave. Don Stever agreed. Ralph Gunderman stated that he would vote on what is in front of him this evening. He also stated that he would find more consistency with one lot of 150-foot wide. Don Stever asked if the Miller House is split into two lots. Michael Doorley responded yes. He stated that the property falls between 75 and 150 feet. [here was an open discussion on the traffic on Palmer Ave The Chair referred to policy 23, 25 and 25B 1 he Chair stated that this property is the quintessential Phillipse Manor property. I errance McGlynn stated that he finds this application inconsistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir, Ralph Gunderman, Don Stever and the Chair agreed. It was unanimous (5-0). Don Stever stated that he has no problem with lots I and lot 1A on Highland Ave. with keeping Palmer Ave. intact. Ralph Gunderman agreed. He stated that he has no problem with a 150-foot lot on Highland Ave. The Chair agieed with Ralph Gunderman. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn at 9:08 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DeiVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 3,2001 2 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Subdivision - 247 Palmer Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on October 3, 2001, a proposal for the subdivision of the property located at 247 Palmer Avenue (the "Property"). Present at the meeting was Mr. Michael Doorley, the owner of the property, who responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed subdivision of the Property would not be consistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Property consists of approximately 1.5 acres, abutting Palmer Avenue to the south and Highland Avenue to the north. There is a two and one-half story stone residence and a separate stone garage situated on the Property. The proposed subdivision would create two lots abutting Highland Avenue, as well as one lot on the Palmer Avenue side of the Property, to the east of the remaining portion of the Property on which the residence and garage are located. Each of the proposed lots would have a frontage of seventy-five feet and would be approximately one hundred fifty feet deep, and would be conforming lots under zoning requirements of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Consistency Findings Although correspondence from the owners of the Property asserts that they have no present plans to sell or build upon the subdivided Property, the Committee concluded that, since there could be no other realistic purpose for the subdivision other than to enable, at some time, construction at the site, it was appropriate and necessary for the Committee to consider the proposal as if it presently contemplated such construction. The Committee, in reaching its determination that the proposed subdivision would not be consistent with the LWRP, gave particular consideration to Policies 23,25 and 25B of the LWRP. POLICY 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURE, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITES OR THE NATION. POLICY 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE �SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. POLICY 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS [citing Philips Manor as one of nine scenic landscape subunits]. The Committee observed that the Property is notable as one of the few remaining examples of the original Philipse Manor development style, which consisted of an "estate" setting with large residences on large properties. It was also noted that the Property sits at a sort of "gateway" to Kinglsand Point Park, the Philipse Manor Yacht Club, the Metro North Train Station and the Hudson Valley Writer's Center. The scenic assessment of the Philipse Manor subunit in the LWRP "Inventory and Analysis" section, cites, as the scenic component of this subunit, the following characteristics: "The residential neighborhood is laid out in a formal grid, and appears more open than the adjacent residential development in the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit. The houses are designed in a variety of styles and are set in landscaped settings, with lawns, shrubs and garden trees combining with mature street trees to form a vegetative canopy that screens development from the adjacent U.S. Route 9 and the Hudson River. " . . . The formal grid setting of the residential neighborhood leads to long and wide vistas along the residential streets.... "The Philipse Manor subunit was also identified as part of the candidate Haverstraw Bays Park SASS. The subunit features a variety of contrasting housing styles set in a distinctive landscaped setting...." The Committee noted the comment in the "Analysis of Elements of Scenic Importance Within Sleepy Hollow" portion of the LWRP "Inventory and Analysis" section, that the LWRP scenic assessment had "considered how the many and varied scenic components of the subunits contribute to the aesthetic quality of the Village of Sleepy Hollow." Among the components utilized to identify the "salient characteristics of the landscape" of each subunit are "cultural character" and "views". The LWRP scenic importance analysis categorizes the Philipse Manor subunit as one of the "Identified Landscapes of Statewide Scenic Importance and Landscapes of Regional Scenic Importance", and advises that the identified areas "are afforded protection under Policy 25 of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, which addresses the protection of overall coastal scenic quality." The goal of this protection is clearly articulated in the LWRP: "The Village of Sleepy Hollow is in a position, through the use of their LWRP and exercise of local land use authority, to protect and improve the scenic quality of the identified scenic resources within their municipal boundaries." Similarly, since Philipse Manor is identified as a candidate for inclusion the 2 �Haverstraw Bay SASS (Scenic Area of Statewide Significance), the LWRP scenic assessment specifically includes the Philipse Manor subunit as one of the areas of "very important scenic values of regional and local significance" and eligible for "a significant measure of recognition and protection" under Policy 25. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that to carve away three additional lots from the Property (with the presumed subsequent construction of three new residences) would irreparably impair the scenic value of the Philipse Manor subunit and, thus, would not be consistent with the policy of protection and enhancement of resources which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area (Policy 25) or of protection and enhancement of an identified scenic resource (Policy 25B). The Explanation of Policies applicable to Policies 25 and 25B explicitly recognizes that: "Activities which could impair, or further degrade scenic quality are . . . the addition of structures which because of siting or scale will reduce identified views or which because of scale, form or materials will diminish the scenic quality of an identified scenic resource." Similarly, the Committee determined that such a subdivision would irrevocably impair an historic resource of the Village, one of the last remnants of the original Philipse Manor development, and would, therefore, be contrary to the principals of enhancement of a site deemed to be of significance in the history, architecture and culture of the Village of Sleepy Hollow and the Philipse Manor community (Policy 23). Although no alternative subdivision proposal was before the Committee, the members of the Committee felt that it might be helpful to the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board if the Committee provided advice as to whether or not there might be another possible subdivision of the Property that would be consistent with the policies of the LWRP. After consideration, a majority of the Committee concluded that it could find that a subdivision of the Property that would result in one new lot, with a frontage of one hundred fifty feet frontage on Highland Avenue, would have a far less dramatic scenic impact on the Philipse Manor subunit and a much less damaging effect on the historic value of the Property to the Village and the community. Such a subdivision could be accepted as consistent with the LWRP. Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee B ^r*L U / A> X Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Fine & Life Safety MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Members Edward Lammers, Esq. David Smith Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers FROM: Sonja Goldstein-Suss (914)366-5116 DATE: October 12, 2001 RE: Consistency Findings - Waterfront Advisory Committee Doorley - 247 Palmer Avenue - October 3,2001 The Chairman of the Waterfront Advisory Committee requested that I enclose the October 3,2001 Consistency Findings for the Doorley Application for Subdivision of 247 Palmer Avenue. The original has been filed with the Village Clerk. CC: James T. Margotta Angela Everett (original) Michael Doorley � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-10-03.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/e617f62ca43736ca446d67238f52608c.pdf 0f6c4798c6988387a9663de46c2d41d1 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 5, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Doug Maass George Lence Karin Adir Absent: Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Bob Stiloski (Department of Fire and Life Safety) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) b) c) d) Minutes of October 2001 Meeting Verizon Wireless/SMSA LLC Karl Dibble Ethics memo a) Minutes of October 2001 Meeting 1) On page 1, change: "Michael Doorley is the applicant. He described the project in detail. It involves subdividing a large parcel into three conforming lots. Lot #1 shown as a 150 x 150 would be subdivided into 2 lots 75x 75 each." To read: "Michael Doorley is the applicant. He described the project in detail. It involves subdividing a large parcel into three conforming lots. Lot #1 shown as a 150 x 150 would be subdivided into 2 lots 75x 150 each." 2) On page 2, change: "Ralph Gunderman agreed with Don Stever. He stated that the subdivision is inconsistent with policy 23." To read: �"Ralph Gunderman stated that the subdivision is inconsistent with policy 23." 3) On page 2, change: "There was an open discussion on the actual lot sizes a number of lots being created." To read: "There was an open discussion on the actual lot sizes and number of lots being created." The minutes will be addressed at the next meeting since Doug Maass and George Lence abstained. b) Verizon Wireless/SMSA LLC Vincent Savino is representing this application. He stated that Verizon Wireless is trying to install a wireless communication facility on top of 95 Beekman Avenue. He summarized the proposed project as well as the Planning Board meeting from November 15,2001. Ralph Gunderman asked for a visual of what the proposed impact would be. Vincent Savino showed the visual impact of the antenna in the submitted package. The Chair asked about the composition of the antenna. Vincent Savino responded that they would be made out of metal. Karin Adir asked if tenants have access to the roof. Bob Stiloski responded yes but only for emergencies. Vincent Savino responded that the equipment would be locked up. The Chair stated that policy 25(b) in the LWRP applies and there doesn't appear to be an impact. Vincent Savino submitted a letter from the NYS Historic Preservation Society stating that there is no visual impact. The Chair also referred to Policy 18(b) and stated that there is no significant impact. The Chair asked if the Committee had any questions. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant must go before the ARB. Vincent Savino responded yes. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find this application consistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5, 2001 2 �c) Karl Dibble Richard Blancato is representing this application with Karl Dibble. He summarized the application to date. Richard Blancato submitted to the Committee a more final set of plans for their review. He also stated that the containers on the property have been eliminated. He summarized the plans and gave a detailed the layout of the house including the office. Richard Blancato detailed the parking and gate that will surround the property. He stated that the gate would also serve as a screening. Lastly, he stated that the retaining walls are being analyzed and as a result, the grade of the property might change. Karin Adir stated that drainage was an issue. Richard Blancato responded that the architect designed a drywell system and a filtration system to serve as an oil separator. The Chair stated that the rendering of the proposed 2-story building is not included in the plans submitted to the WAC. Richard Blancato responded that the building is in the preliminary stage. He stated that he thought only a footprint was required. He described the proposed 2-story building to the Committee. The Chair wanted to know the height of the building in relation to other neighboring buildings. The Chair stated that the Committee could still approve the application without the 2story building. Richard Blancato responded ok. The Chair referred to Policy l(k). The Chair asked about the lighting layout. Karl Dibble responded that only the front would be illuminated. Karin Adir referred to Policy l(j). She stated no vehicles should be allowed to make a left-hand turn onto Route 9 from the property. Richard Blancato stated that the railroad-tie frontage might also be removed for fear that water might be getting behind it. Ralph Gunderman asked if the oil residue tank is for residue from parking. Richard Blancato responded yes. The Chair referred to policy 25(d). The Chair asked if the Committee had any other comments. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5, 2001 3 �Ralph Gunderman asked about the materials to be used for the retaining wallfrontageon Route 9. Karl Dibble responded that he could stucco and paint it. A stucco style block could also be used. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP without the 2-story rear addition until plans are submitted. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). d) Ethics Memo The Committee reviewed the memo. There was an open discussion on the memo. The Committee asked Bob Stiloski for the existing Village Code of Ethics to compare. It was decided to wait for the entire Committee to formally review. George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn at 8:52 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, 1 ai^uf -^ A ' J.XH^UJJ'^ Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5,2001 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Installation of Wireless Communication Facility at 95 Beekman Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on December 5,2001, a proposal by New York SMS A Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the "Applicant") for the installation of a public utility wireless communication facility (the "Facility") on the building located at 95 Beekman Avenue in the Village of Sleepy Hollow, commonly known as the Van Tassel Apartment Building (the "Building"). The proposal was presented by Vincent Savino, Esq. of the law firm of Snyder & Snyder, LLP, counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Savino responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed construction would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Facility would consist of a panel of antennas that would be affixed to a decorative cornice at the top of the Building, facing Beekman Avenue. In order to minimize the visual impact of the antennas, the panel would be painted to closely match the color of the cornice. Related equipment would be installed behind the cornice and would not be visible to the public. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 18B, 23 and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy 18B - TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE SUCH RESOURCES SUPPORT. Policy 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE, ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The nine identified scenic landscape subunits include the Lower Village]. �The Committee recognized that the Van Tassel Apartments are both a striking visual component of the Beekman Avenue landscape and, as a unique residential structure developed by the Rockefellers, a site of historic and architectural significance to the Village of Sleepy Hollow. However, the Committee could find no significantly adverse visual impact from the installation of the Facility. It was also noted that the Village's Architectural Review Board would have the opportunity to review the proposed installation and, if it found any adverse effect, could consider whether any changes were needed to further minimize that effect. The growing need for wireless communication facilities was recognized by the Committee and the Committee felt that the proposed installation of the Facility could address this need without harm to the Village or the policies of the LWRP. Accordingly, the Committee has concluded that the proposed construction is consistent with the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Site Improvements at 315 North Broadway Avenue \ / The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on December 5, 2001, a proposal by Mr. Karl Dibble (the "Applicant") with respect to certain site improvements at 315 North Broadway in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Site"). The proposal was presented by Richard Blancato, Esq., counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Blancato and Mr. Dibble responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed site improvements would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof, except that the Committee concluded that, as to one element of the proposal, the proposed construction of an additional building at the rear of the Site, the Committee did not yet have sufficient information to make a consistency finding. The Committee, accordingly, decided to defer its consideration of the consistency of that part of the proposed action until further data was furnished by the Applicant. The Proposal The Site is located on the south side of Route 9 along the corridor commonly referred to in the Village of Sleepy Hollow as "gasoline alley". The Site is being developed to accommodate Mr. Dibble's landscaping business, which will be housed in a portion of the structure that now occupies the Site. The proposed action at the Site includes landscaping and grading and installation of drainage facilities and lighting. As proposed, the site improvements would also include the construction of a two-story building at the rear of the Site, to be used as a garage and office on the first floor, and to contain a residential apartment on the second floor. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies IK and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy 5 was also considered. Policy IK - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP THE AREA ALONG, AND ON BOTH SIDES OF NY ROUTE 9 (NORTH BROADWAY) WITH APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO LANDSCAPING AND SCENIC VIEWSHED PROTECTION, BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH BEEKMAN AVENUE AND THE BRIDGE CROSSING THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The �Twenty-Three Identified Viewscapes of Local Importance Include U.S. Route 9 (North Broadway)]. Policy 5 - ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE. The Committee observed that Mr. Dibble had already made improvements at the Site that were a welcome improvement to the "gasoline alley" streetscape, and observed that, in general, the proposed work at the Site would continue to promote the visual improvements that had previously been implemented. The Committee considered a number of standards included in the Explanation of Policies applicable to Policy IK. The proposed actions seemed to provide adequately for off-street parking and drainage, with appropriate landscaping to screen parking areas, consistent with standard "i" ("Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for all uses. Parking areas shall be sufficiently drained so as to contain all drainage on a site and to prevent ponding. Whenever feasible, parking areas shall be placed at the rear of buildings and/or screened by plantings so as [not] to be highly visible from the waterfront and Village streets"). Proposed landscaping and fencing would similarly provide a buffer for adjacent residential properties as contemplated by standard "m" ("When a proposed nonresidential development activity is located adjacent to residences or a residential district, appropriate buffer landscaping, natural screening and fencing are to be provided in order to protect neighborhood tranquility, community character, and property values"). In addition, planned lighting was designed to avoid disturbance to other properties as required by standard "n" ("Lighting facilities and lighted signs shall be placed and shielded in such a manner as not to create direct light to shine on other properties, and shall not be permitted to create a hazard on public streets"). The Committee noted that, although planned drainage facilities appeared to be suitable for the Site, the Committee did not have the competence to definitively make that determination (and, thus, to determine, definitively, the consistency of those drainage facilities with LWRP Policy 5). However, the Committee was satisfied that the Village Engineer had carefully reviewed the drainage plan and found it to be appropriate. The visual improvements for Route 9 promised by the Applicant's plans and the promotion of a viable, non-automotive, business operation in this area appeared to satisfy standard "d" ("The action should improve the deteriorated or underutilized condition of a site and, at a minimum, must not cause further deterioration"), as well as standard "f' ("The action should have the potential to improve the existing economic base of the community, and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize this base.") The visual improvements for Route 9 promised by the Applicant's plans and the promotion of a viable, non-automotive, business operation in this area were felt by the Committee to meet the goals of Policy IK and Policy 25B, and the proposal was thus determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The Committee, however, expressed a concern with respect to vehicular ingress and egress from the Site under standard " j " ("Vehicular ingress and egress, interior traffic circulation, �parking space arrangement, loading facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be planned and built so as to promote safety and efficiency"). These concerns result from the traffic flow on this portion of Route 9. Although the Committee recognizes that turns from and onto Route 9 are within the jurisdiction of the New York State Highway Department and not the Village of Sleepy Hollow, it is the recommendation of the Committee that the Village take any actions that it can to discourage left turns into and out of the Site. In making its finding, the Committee imposed a limitation on its consistency determination for the proposal. As previously noted, the proposed action would include the construction of a two-story structure at the rear of the Site. Although the plans submitted by the Applicant show the "footprint" of the proposed building and contain a brief description ("Proposed 2 Story Building Apt. 2nd Floor Garage/Office 1st Floor"), the plans contain no elevations or other information that would allow the Committee to assess the impact of the proposed building and its consistency with the LWRP's policies. Thus, the Committee makes no finding at this time as to the consistency of the proposed building with the LWRP. The Applicant has been directed to submit appropriate plans for the proposed building to the Committee, when those plans are available, for a subsequent consistency determination. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2001-12-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/6689703bcae308a461b0d08e2bfae603.pdf d5e98f1463a44a0b7d0dba3eda17273f PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 6, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Doug Maass George Lence Karin Adir Absent: Terence McGlynn Donald Stever 1 * / ' / * < * A3-JZ-B— OM^-c^La^- Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of October and December 2001 Meeting b) Knopper property - 2 Highland Lane *«4 •O* ' too? <** * * a) Minutes of October 2001 Meeting The minutes for the October 2001 meeting will be addressed at the next meeting since not enough members would be able to vote. The minutes for the December 2001 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Knopper property The Chair stated that this is an application that would raise the roofline of the property located at 2 Highland Lane. Daniel Pozin is the attorney representing this application. He introduced Lee Kennedy who is the project architect. The Chair stated that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) referred the matter. The Chair stated initially that the application was not applicable to the LWRP but it is before the Committee due to the neighbor's complaints. �Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant met with the ARB in February 2002. Lee Kennedy responded no. He stated that the ARB is awaiting the decision of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Lee Kennedy gave an overview of the proposed project. He gave a description of the existing house layout in detail via photos. He stated that the roofline increase has been kept to a minimum. He stated that he was aware of the sensitivity concerning the roofline and this was taken into account during the design stages. He showed the increased roofline rendering with the Pierson's property. He also showed the Knopper's property on the scaled map of the Village. Karin Adir asked about the total increase roof height. Lee Kennedy responded 20-27 feet. Ralph Gunderman stated that all views are from private property. He stated that views from private property are not covered under the LWRP. Lee Kennedy stated that he spoke to the Department of Fire and Life Safety concerning all building code issues as well as the Highland Lane easement. He stated that Highland Lane is not mentioned in the LWRP. He also stated that the Village does not own Highland Lane. Ralph Gunderman stated that it is publicly used. There was an open discussion on the ownership of the Right-of-Way. The Committee allowed public comments. The Chair referred to letters from Mr. & Mrs. Robinson and Michael Bogin (attached). Michael Bogin spoke. He is an attorney representing several neighbors. He spoke about the Right-of-Way on Highland Ave. He stated that it is public. He stated that on page 280 of the LWRP, it refers to a view shed that is within 100-feet of the Knopper's property. He showed a photo of the existing view. He stated that the visual impact is significant. He stated that this project is not consistent with Policy 25 and will disrupt a public view shed. The Chair asked Michael Bogin to cite exact policies to support his claims. Michael Bogin responded Policy 25(b). He read the policy aloud. Michael Bogin stated that this policy is applicable for 2 reasons: 1) It significantly impairs the scenic view shed as listed in the 5th bullpoint. He referred to map #6. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6, 2002 2 �2) He stated that the house is out of scale with the neighboring homes under Policy 25(b). He also stated that it is an impairment of the Philipse Manor train station, which is a scenic sub-unit. The Chair asked the applicant about the current status of the application before the ARB. Lee Kennedy responded that the ARB referred the application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He stated that at the January 2002 meeting, there was a motion to approve and no second. He stated that there was a motion to deny and no second. He stated that they adjourned the application unanimously until they receive the recommendations from the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Ralph Gunderman asked if the ARB gave any guidance towards the approval. Lee Kennedy responded no. Dan Pozin requested to speak in order to address the LWRP issues raised by Michael Bogin. The Chair allowed him to speak. Dan Pozin stated that the specific view sheds are identified and Highland Lane is not one of them. He asked for clarification concerning the Philipse Manor train station. The Chair explained the scenic sub-unit issue to Dan Pozin. Pat Pierson spoke. She stated the ARB directed the applicant to lower the roof height, talk to the neighbors and change the style. She stated that nobody has spoken to them concerning the proposed changes. She stated that the neighbors have been refused any information on this project. She also stated that this project can be achieved by using alternative methods. The Chair stated that he appreciated her response but the Committee is bound to the LWRP. Bob Joyce spoke. He stated that he has lived in his house for 50 years. He stated that the increased roofline would place windows in an attic that nobody would ever use. He showed views of his property via photos. Michael Bogin referred to a previous Waterfront Advisory Committee decision on Palmer Ave. He stated that no alternatives have been proposed but alternatives are available. The Chair responded that the Committee made the reference to alternatives after the decision was made. Lorie Fox spoke. She stated that she moved to Philipse Manor because of the neighborhood. She stated that the views on Highland Lane are better than the views from her property. She said that there is a lot of construction in the neighborhood and none of the renovations come close to the height of this proposal. She stated that the size and Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 3 �scope of this house is out of character with neighboring houses. Lastly, she stated that the cathedral ceiling is strictly decorative. John Baran spoke. He stated that he walks past this area everyday. He stated that the view is used daily by the public. James Pierson spoke. He stated that once the view is lost, it is lost forever. He thanked the Committee for their attention that they are giving to this application. Warren Groger spoke. He stated that is lives in Webber Park but jogs through the area everyday. He stated that this might set a precedent for other applications. Dave Warren spoke. He stated that the reason that he purchased his house is because of the views. He stated that the views are personal and that they mean a lot to him. Since there were no further comments, the Chair closed the public comment period. Lee Kennedy spoke about the roofline with regards to zoning. He spoke about the panoramic view. He stated that the impact to the entire view is small. He stated that the view is primarily impacted from the neighbor's first floor view. The Chair stated that the Committee is only concerned with street views. Lee Kennedy stated that the new roofline will be the same height as the Knopper's existing TV antenna. There was an open discussion on the sight line impact in relation to the antenna. There was an open discussion on the ownership of the street (Highland Lane). Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant is willing to concede that the street is a public roadway. Daniel Pozin responded no. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn until ownership of the street is confirmed. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Daniel Pozin agreed that the ownership needs to be determined. The Chair stated that if the street is public, the Committee would visit and re-convene. If the street is private, the only topic still in questions is the scenic sub-unit (Philipse Manor train station). The Chair stated that the next meeting would be held on April 10, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 4 �George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 9:42 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, * Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 �S I V E , P A G E T & R I E S E L , P.C STEVESBAHSHOV 4 - 6 0P A H K A V E N U E MICHAEL S. BOOIN ERIC BREOMAK WOUAM B. OlmBCRO ARTHTTH J. JtfOBSON NEW PAtnt D . C A S O W T T Z * Y O S K , N E W YORK 10022-1906 COTTSSK. MARX A. CHERTOK ; ^ E V ^ ^ X A K " T E X E P H O N E : (212)421-2150 SUZANNE JOYCE FACSIMILE: ( 2 1 2 ) 4 2 1 - 2 0 3 3 DAVID PAOET B,HJUH nrnnr-avrrm^s W K I T B PLAINS. N.Y,O«OI TELEPHONE <9t« « a » N 4 4 ELIZABETH A. READ DANIEL RDSEL STEVEN C.HCSSO HILARY SEMEL KATESINDINO DAVID SIVE DAVXD S. YTXDELSON ALLISON WALSH W E B S1TB: WWW *PfUw COm E - M A H ; «prtaw»iprtaw com March 4, 2002 ' ALSO ADMITTED IN N J By Fax (203) 552-2869 And Overnight Mail Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Application of Knopper/Propertv at 2 Highland Lane Dear Mr. Weiss Members of the Committee: This firm represents Mr. And Mrs. James Piereson, Robert Joyce, John Baran and Loren Fox, whose properties lie alongside a public right of way in the same view corridor as the above-referenced project. This public right of way is an extension of Highland Lane and a passage way for daily commuters to and from the Philipse Manor Train Station. Therightof way provides a panoramic view of the Hudson River and distant hills—a view which will be seriously disrupted by the above project as now proposed. We understand that, as the entity primarily responsible for implementing the policies, purposes and projects contained within the village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), the Waterfront Advisory Committee (the "Committee") has been asked to make a recommendation to the Town Architectural Review Board ("ARB") on whether the above project is consistent with the LWRP. We respectfully submit that the LWRP Policies, which were adopted for the explicit purpose of protecting the scenic resources of the Town, including the Hudson River viewshed, require the Committee to make a negative recommendation in this instance. The Current Proposal The above project is located on Highland Lane between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue on a prominent location directly overlooking the Hudson River. The �SIVE, PAGET & R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page 2 application seeks a building permit to construct a second story addition with a 26'-27' high twin peaked "cathedral" roofline. This is actually the second submission for this project, the ARB having essentially rejected the first. At that time the ARB instructed the applicants to speak with their neighbors, lower the roof line (which the architect said was possible) and alter the style. Instead, without any discussion with their neighbors, the applicants have now proposed an even higher roof line and the addition of 2 windows in the garage. Aside from showing bad faith, this revised application demonstrates that the project is wholly inconsistent with the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and, accordingly, warrants that the Committee recommend to the ARB that the project be redesigned or rejected. The project is in the Village's "coastal area", and thus, the Village Waterfront Consistency Review Law (WCRL") prohibits the ARB from authorizing a building permit for this project unless it determines that the project is consistent with the LWRP. Before doing so, however, the ARB must first refer a complete a Coastal Assessment Form ("CAF") to the Committee for a LWRP consistency recommendation. 59A-5.B,C. "Consistent" as defined in the Sleepy Hollow Code ("Code") means "[t]hat the action will fully comply with the LWPR policy standards and conditions and, whenever practicable, will advance one or more of them." Code § 59A-3. This project does neither. The Proposed Project Is Inconsistent With LWRP Policy 25 LWRP Policy 25 requires the "protection, restoration or enhancement of natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area." LWRP ni-49. The LWRP further requires that, "[w]hen considering a proposed action which would affect a scenic resource not of Statewide significance, agencies shall ensure that the action will be undertaken so as to protect, restore or enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. Activities which could impair or further degrade scenic quality are;.... the addition of structures which because of siting or scale will reduce identified views or which because of scale, form, or materials will diminish the scenic quality of an identified scenic resource." LWRP III-51 (emphasis added). Because of its "siting" and "scale", the proposed project will impair and degrade a unique public view of the Hudson River in the Village, and contradict the stated goals of this Policy. The proposed project is within a scenic viewshed listed in the LWRP as "Panoramic Views of the Hudson River and beyond from the following streets:...Kelbume Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Palmer Avenue." Policy 25-B mandates protection of these viewsheds. The LWRP further provides that: [fjrom the above streets...parts or all of the Hudson River and the opposite shore can be seen. The only obstructions �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page3 and discordant features within the views are the utility lines and poles situated along the railroad tracks. Except for certain park lands there are no other locations within the village where such a substantial stretch of land along the Hudson River from which such views can be seen. Thus, the above streets... are very important visual access sites for the public to view [sic] be able to view the Hudson River. Future development actions should be undertaken in a manner that recognizes the importance of this viewshed and provides for its enhancement and protection. LWRP 11-80. The right of way runs between the Piereson, Joyce, Baran and Fox properties between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue, and is apparently an extension of the mapped public right of way known as Highland Lane (which also runs between these streets and serves as a public access road). From the right of way, one sees a panorama of the Hudson to the North and South to the Tappan Zee Bridge.1 The twin peaks of the proposed project would destroy this uninterrupted view, and dissect the river line and mountains into several small sections. But because it is within the viewshed and scenic corridors identified in the LWRP, this view is entitled to the protections of LWRP 25-B.2 In addition, the height, bulk, materials and design of the proposal are inconsistent with the characteristics of the scenic quality of the neighborhood of Philipse Manor, identified under LWRP Policy 25 as being a scenic subunit in which "lawns, shrubs and garden trees combin(e)... with mature street trees to form a vegetative canopy that screens development from the adjacent U.S. Route 9 and the Hudson River. LWRP II71. Aside from obstructing the view of the Hudson River from the public access right of way, the proposed project, because of its height, scale and materials, would be plainly visible from both Highland Avenue and Millard Avenue as well as from Riverside Drive and the Historic Landmark Property of the Philipse Manor train station. In other words, it would stick out like sore thumb. With the adjacent homes facing squarely on the river, at most 23 feet height, the height of the proposed addition is out of scale with these other Indeed, the view from the right of way is barely 100 feet the view at the end of Highland Avenue depicted in the LWRP. " The Committee has recently invoked LWRP Policies 23, 25 and 25B to find proposed private developments inconsistent with the LWRP. (See, e.g., Consistency Findings in Re: Application for a Subdivision at 24" Palmer Avenue, within a protected viewshed, and within Philipse Manor, also eligible for the general protections of Policy 23). �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page 4 houses, and clearly would not enhance, but rather detract, from the scenic qualities that the LWRP mandates be preserved. Taken together, these significant visual impacts demonstrate that this project is inconsistent with the LWRP. Moreover, they warrant a through review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). In fact, we are frankly perplexed as to how this project has progressed this far without even so much as an environmental assessment form ("EAF") being prepared to date. Mitigation Of Visual Impacts The LWRP requires that "within the identified viewsheds and scenic corridors" projects (such as this one) must be designed and constructed "in a manner that will not obstruct the view and identified important elements of that view to the maximum extent practicable." The LWRP thus mandates mitigation of visual and scenic impacts by: • siting structures and other development....back from shorelines or in other inconspicuous locations to maintain the attractive quality of the shoreline and to retain views to and from the shore; • clustering or orienting structures to retain views; • using appropriate scales, forms, and materials to ensure that buildings and other structures are compatible with and add interest to the landscape; and • using "natural materials and colors.. .to the maximum extent practicable in construction such that structures are not discordant with the landscape." LWRP 111-52 - UI-53. In this instance, the identified scenic and visual impacts could be easily mitigated, and consistency readily achieved. If the twin "peaks" of the project roof were slightly lowered to a point below the river line, the uninterrupted view from the right of way would still be available to the public (though it would remain impaired on certain private properties including the Pierson's, Joyce's, Baran's and Fox's). The project would then also be in scale with other neighboring homes when viewed from the Philipse Manor train station. Conclusion In sum, the proposed project does not conform to the policy mandates or design and siting guidelines of the LWRP, and will cause significant visual impacts that mandate �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4,2002 Page 5 a full environmental impact statement under SEQRA. However, by slightly lowering the roof, and thereby reducing the scale of the addition, it is entirely practicable for the project to be modified to comply with the LWRP and SEQRA. Because the project is inconsistent with the requirements of the LWRP, the Committee should not recommend its approval as currently proposed. Sincerely, Mark A. Chertok Michael S. Bogin c: Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor Architectural Review Board Edward Lammer, Esq. P:\4364\Wciss.doc �63/06/2002 12:34 (tfjuz FAX 9146311440302 Nicholas arLcLSheUey ftobinjoyi/ 258 KjtUjurrvB'AveiUAM' SUtpyHoUow, Nvu York 10591 March 4,2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Bcckman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Members of the Waterfront Advisory Committee: We appreciate your careful consideration of the protection of our invaluable view shed of the Hudson River. We have walked along the sidewalks and roads of Philipse Manor since we moved here in 1972. Highland Lane between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue, just a block from our house, has some of the most beautiful and expansive views of the Tappan Zee and the sunset beyond the hills of Nyack. It is a quiet little lane where a baby carriage, a dog walker or an evening stroller are a more likely sight than a car. The views from public paths and roads are critical areas of concern for Village government under our local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. Every Board in the Village has a duty to protect these views. With respect to the proposed addition to the house in the middle of Highland Lane, we would recommend that the roofline be kept to a modest height, no taller than the house immediately to the north. It should certainly not obstruct the horizon linefromthe top of the Highland Lane hill. A decision that allowed a new roof to intrude on the sunset view from this scenic spot would be a disgrace. Thank you for your careful look at this matter. Sincerely vours, ' Nicholas and Shelley Robinson �March 4, 2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: We live (with our two daughters) on New Broadway Avenue in the Webber Park section of Sleepy Hollow. We frequently walk through various areas of the Village, including Philipse Manor, where we can enjoy some spectacular views of the Hudson River. We are therefore concerned about the proposed addition to the house at 2 Highland Lane in the Manor, which is currently under review by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. In ourfrequentvisits to the area to see friends, we often walk through the public access road that connects Highland Avenue with Highland Lane in order to enjoy the spectacular views of the River that are available from the top of the hill on that public right of way. From that vantage point, one has a wonderful view of the river over the current roof line of this particular structure. The current proposal would elevate this roof line so that it blocks views of the river from this right of way. We believe that, in order to protect this view, the Waterfront Committee should require a modification of this proposal. As we understand it, the purpose of the Waterfront Advisory Committee is to make certain that new construction is undertaken in ways that minimize obstructions of scenic views of the Hudson River. If this is so, then we feel that the Committee should reject this proposal. Sincerely Warren W. Groeger Anna Abelaf 58 New Broadway Sleepy Hollow, NY -JO \> �March 4,2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Members of the Waterfront Advisory Committee: We are writing to urge you to either reject or advise revision to the proposed addition at 2 Highland Lane. Highland Lane is a beautiful, quiet lane set right at the River's edge in Philipse Manor. We live about 200 feet from the Lane. Every morning Tom uses the Right of Way from Highland Ave down to the train station. He says that the view from the top of Highland Lane Hill is breathtaking and is the highlight of his day. It would be a travesty to take this expansive view of the Hudson away from the public. As proposed, the height and scale of the house would obstruct the river line and the distant mountains. It would be a shame to lose such a scenic treasure. The views from public roads are supposed to be protected by the Waterfront Board. We are so lucky to live alongside such a road with such a magnificent view of the Hudson. Please do all you can to protect this view. Once someone blocks this view it is gone to all of us now, and for all years to come. Thanks for all your time and all the work you do for our village. Sincerely, �March 4, 2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: I live at 217 Highland Avenue in Philipse Manor, some 150 feet from the house at 2 Highland Lane, whose new owners have submitted a building proposal now under review by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. I urge the Committee to reject this proposal, and to ask for changes in the style and height of the project. My wife and I (along with our children)frequentlywalk along the public access road that connects Highland Avenue to Highland Lane in order to enjoy the spectacular views of the Hudson River that are available from the top of the hill along that road. I also commute to work in New York City, and walk to the train station every day through that public corridor. The view of the river from that spot on Highland Lane Hill is a public treasure not only for us, but also for the Village and the entire area. This proposed construction at 2 Highland Lane is objectionable because it will impair the scenic views of the River from this public vantage point, and also because the style of the new construction (with its high triangular peaks) is not in keeping with other designs in this particular area. The Committee should request a revision in the design so that the new building minimizes any obstruction of river views, and is more consistent with other homes in the immediate vicinity. Sincerely, AMm^m^— David Warren 217 Highland Ave. Sleepy Hollow, NY �Jane Dubin 255 Highland Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 March 6,2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 RE: Knopper Property at 2 Highland Lane, Sleepy Hollow Dear Mr. Weiss and members of the Committee: I live adjacent to the southern end of the Knopper property in Philipse Manor, with similar river views. Like my neighbors, I cherish the beauty of the Hudson River and believe in the mission of the Committee to preserve the scenic resources of our Village. Like my neighbors, I had hoped that the new owners of this property would consider the spirit, style and beauty of the neighborhood when presenting plans for building. In particular, I had encouraged discussion of portions of the plans that would impact the views from public (and private) access points in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, discussions have been held in public forums, such as the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and now the Waterfront Advisory Committee. I would like to suggest that the parties discuss the modifications already proposed by the ARB at its last meeting as a solution to preserving the view, namely lowering the roof line a modest amount. This modification was put forward by the Knopper's architect as possible without jeopardizing the integrity of the project. I welcome new neighbors to our block and encourage discussion among the parties as a way of reaching a compromise acceptable to all. I hope that the Committee and Knoppers will recognize that while improvements to this house are needed and welcomed, the almost unparalleled beauty of the River and River views are not replaceable. Jane/Dubin �^Td? *-6 Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: I am writing to support the request of Mr. and Mrs. James Piereson, Robert Joyce, John Baran and Loren Fox that he proposed addition at 2 Highland Lane be either rejected or revised . I live directly to the north of the proposed addition at 270 Millard Ave. I am concerned that due to the proposed addition's siting and scale, the addition will impair a beautiful view of the Hudson available to all who walk our lovely lane and the right of way above. Moreover, because of its scale, and materials and design, it will detract from the line of houses, of which mine is a part. The scale of the proposed addition will serve to diminish the existing houses alongside it. Moreover, the design of the house is completely out of keeping with the feel and the esthetics of the existing homes. The design is a very modern, and asymmetric and is not in keeping with the existing homes. Based on design, scale, siting and height I urge the committee to recommend rejection or revision of the plans. The neighbors have tried to meet with the applicants and indeed the applicants were directed to meet with us but to date the applicants have decided not to meet. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. Sincerely, Barbara Fink 270 Millard Ave. - ^ � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2002-03-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/52ed82a9053792e9b4cf2d1ffff0c5b5.pdf 8afd1bac34902b49377ed1f0ac42af66 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE May 1, 2002 OPCPIVED MAY i 3 ?nn? f The meeting was called o order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Karin Adir Absent Doug Maass George Lence VILLAGE CLERK Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Bob Stiloski (Director/ Department of Fire & Life Safety) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) b) c) d) Minutes of October 2001 and March 2002 meetings Michael Doorley - 247 Palmer Avenue Karl Dibble - 315 North Broadway Other business a) Minutes of October 2001 and March 2002 meetings The minutes for the October 2001 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as previously amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes for the March 2002 meeting were reviewed. On Page 2, change "Ralph Gunderman stated that all views are from private property. He stated that views from private property are not covered under the LWRP." To read: "Ralph Gunderman stated that all views in the renderings from Architect Lee Kennedy are from private property. He stated that views from private property are not covered under the LWRP." �Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Michael Doorley This was adjourned to the next meeting. c) Karl Dibble Karl Dibble is the applicant and is representing this application. He stated that he has experienced some trouble with materials being stolen from his property. He stated that he wants to store trucks and materials inside. The Chair asked about the distances to other properties in the rear. Karl Dibble responded that the distance is 25-30 feet. Ralph Gunderman asked about the overall height of the structure. He stated that the peak is 40 feet. He asked if the gable could be lowered. Karl Dibble responded that the architect added the roof. He stated that there is no reason unless the architect or engineer has a technical reason. Ralph Gunderman stated that the architect might be trying to match the scale. He stated that he would like to reduce the scale. Karl Dibble asked if there were any height restrictions. Bob Stiloski responded that a commercial property has a height limitation of 45 feet. Don Stever stated that it looks better with the gable. He asked where this application was with the Planning Board and SEQRA. Bob Stiloski responded that the Board would evaluate the application for completeness at the next meeting and proceed with the site plan approval. Ralph Gunderman asked about the space behind the proposed garage. Karl Dibble responded that it space would be unused. He stated that the items that are outside now, would be stored inside and secured. The Chair stated that the scale bothers him. He stated that since the 1st floor is 16 feet tall, the structure is a 3-story structure. Ralph Gunderman stated that the scale bothers him also. He stated that he feels it would screen the car repair business next door. He stated that the proposal would accomplish the applicant's goals. Don Stever stated that policy 25-l(j) is the only policy that applies to this application. He stated that it is consistent with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, May 1,2002 2 �Ralph Gunderman stated that it is consistent. He stated that the proposed structure does not block any views. Don Stever stated that he would be removing equipment from the property, which would improve the view shed. Terrance McGlynn stated that the proposed structure is very large. He stated that he agrees with the Chair that the proposed structure is a 3-story structure. The Chair asked about the size of the existing house. Karl Dibble responded that it is 24'x 24'. Karin Adir stated that the applicant could erect an ugly structure instead of the proposed structure. Don Stever stated that he would like to see something nice. Ralph Gunderman asked who would be living in the house. Karl Dibble responded that the house would be rented out. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). d) Other business At 8:34 pm, the Chair made a motion to go into executive session. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). At 9:02 pm, the Committee reconvened. No action was taken. The Committee needed to elect a Chairman. Don Stever made a motion to re-elect Richard Weiss as Chairman. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 9:05 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, May 1,2002 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Site Improvements at 315 North Broadway At its meeting on December 5, 2001, the Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed a proposal by Mr. Karl Dibble (the "Applicant") with respect to certain site improvements at 315 North Broadway in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Site"). At that meeting, the Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed site improvements would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. However, the Committee declined to make any finding as to the part of the proposal relating to construction of an additional building at the rear of the Site, since the Committee determined that it did not have sufficient information at that time to make a consistency finding on that element of the proposal. At its meeting on May 1, 2002, the Committee reviewed plans provided by the Applicant for the proposed building and concluded that, with the addition of the building, Applicant's proposal would still be consistent with the LWRP and its goals and policies. The Proposal The Site is located on the south side of Route 9 and is being developed to accommodate Applicant's landscaping business. A structure that now occupies the Site houses the business as well as a residential apartment. The proposed new building at the rear of the Site would be two and one-half stories, with a garage on the lower level to accommodate Applicant's business vehicles and equipment, and a residential apartment on the second floor which would be occupied by the Applicant. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies IK and 25B, the same policies considered principally applicable by the Committee in its consideration of the Applicant's proposal in December. Policy IK - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP THE AREA ALONG, AND ON BOTH SIDES OF NY ROUTE 9 (NORTH BROADWAY) WITH APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO LANDSCAPING AND SCENIC VIEWSHED PROTECTION, BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH BEEKMAN AVENUE AND THE BRIDGE CROSSING THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC �RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The twenty-three identified viewscapes of local importance include U.S. Route 9 (North Broadway)]. The Committee commented once again on the general improvement of the appearance of the Site over its pre-existing condition and the resulting enhancement of the Route 9 scenic viewshed. However, members of the Committee expressed some concerns over the size of the proposed building. Nevertheless, after considerable discussion, it was concluded that the building dimensions were necessary in order to house the vehicles and equipment required for Applicant's business and to provide the residential space he needs. Although a smaller structure would be desirable, it did not seem to the Committee that a smaller building could adequately meet the reasonable needs of Applicant at the Site. The Committee felt that much of the bulk of the building would be screened from Route 9 by the existing structure at the front of the Site and by other site improvements that were part of the proposal that had been presented to the Committee in December. The Committee also noted that, currently, Applicant's vehicles and equipment sit in plain view at the rear of the Site. The Committee concluded that any visual impact on the Route 9 viewshed that might result from construction of the building would be less adverse than the continued presence at the Site of these vehicle and equipment sitting in the open. It was also noted with approval that the design of the building would complement the existing structure. Thus, it did not appear to the Committee that the addition of the proposed building would result in deterioration of the Route 9 corridor and its scenic viewshed. The proposed structure, like the remainder of Applicant's proposal reviewed in December, was found to be consistent with Policies IK and 25B. The Committee did not consider the application to the proposal of the Village's zoning and other land use laws, and leaves determination of any such matters to the responsible Boards of the Village, including the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board and the Architectural Review Board. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2002-05-01.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7a441f25b5fb1aba5490300324687d76.pdf 66abf1af2d5826823e0c5fdb416edcd7 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 5,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Terence McGlynn Doug Maass George Lence Absent: Donald Stever Karin Adir Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of May 2002 meetings b) Michael Doorley - 247 Palmer Avenue a) Minutes of May 2002 meeting The minutes for the May 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 3, change "Don Stever stated that he would be removing equipment from the property, which would improve the view shed." To read: "Don Stever stated that the applicant would be removing equipment from the property, which would improve the view shed." On page 3, change "Don Stever made a motion to re-elect Richard Weiss as Chairman. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0)." To read: "Don Stever made a motion to re-elect Richard Weiss as Chairman. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). �Terrance McGlynn made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Michael Doorlev The Chair stated that the Committee would allow the re-presentation of this application. He stated that the Committee would normally not allow an applicant to come before the Committee without a different application. Geraldine Tortorella is the attorney representing this application. She gave an overview of the application with regards to the Waterfront Advisory Committee's previous decision and the current Planning Board application. She stated that she reviewed the LWRP and the applicable policies that the Committee based their recent decision on (Policies 23, 25 and 25 (b)). She spoke about Michael Doorley's report on the history of Phillipse Manor. She stated that based on his research, this house is not one of the original houses in the Phillipse Manor development. She stated that the original house lot was 130 feet x 150 feet. She stated that in 1940, the owner had starting to purchase some of the lots surrounding the property. She stated that the house currently sits on a lot that is 2x larger than any other original Phillipse Manor house. She stated that 53% of the houses in Phillipse Manor have lots similar to the proposed sub-division. Vincent Farrandino is a planning consultant that is representing the applicant. He spoke about his report that discussed the view-shed analysis and the photo simulation of the views that the proposed sub-division would create. He discussed the recent Waterfront Advisory Committee decision with regards to policies 23, 25 and 25(b). He stated that policy 23 does not apply to this application. He stated that policies 25 and 25(b) apply but do not cause adverse impacts to Phillipse Manor. He spoke about the definition of the term "gateway". The Chair stated that the term "gateway" was used only as a metaphor. Vincent Farrandino stated that: 1) Homes built on the proposed sub-division would be the same size as the surrounding homes. 2) There would be no adverse impacts on views from surrounding homes. The Chair responded that the Committee's previous findings did not speak about view sheds but only scenic sub-units. He stated that the Committee agreed that views to and from the Hudson River would not be impacted. He stated that the historical research performed by Michael Doorley was well done. He stated that the Committee was evaluating Phillipse Manor in its current configuration. George Lence asked if there were any similar sub-divisions proposed since the LWRP was adopted in 1997. Michael Doorley responded yes. He stated that on Hunter Ave in 1998-1999. He stated that it was smaller than the proposed lots in this application. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 2 �Geraldine Tortorella stated that this specific site was no mentioned in the LWRP. The Chair agreed. Geraldine Tortorella stated that the proposed lots would not impact any scenic Phillipse Manor resources. She also stated that the applicant would submit to some architectural controls to the limit the types of houses permitted on the lots. Ralph Gunderman spoke about Policies 23 and 25 (b). He stated that the homes on Merlin Avenue and Monroe Avenue were out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that this house on this site with the existing landscaping would be destroyed by the proposed development. He spoke about Figure 6 and Figure 9 (rendering of future development from the submitted report). He stated that the renderings are not accurate with regards to the garage (Fig 6) and the property scale (Fig 9). He stated that he is opposed to the sub-division. The Chair stated that he still finds Policy 23 applicable. Terrance McGlynn stated that in previous discussions, it was stated that the lots might be sold to adjacent landowners to further expand their properties. He stated that the current proposal has renderings of houses. Geraldine Tortorella responded that they are presenting the worst-case scenario. There was an open discussion on selling the property to adjacent landowners. Geraldine Tortorella spoke about identified scenic resources according to the LWRP. She stated that none of the listed scenic resources relate to this site. She stated that this site is not a scenic resource according to the LWRP. She stated that measures could be placed to ensure the landscaping characteristics would be maintained. She stated that after the sub-division, the Doorley's would still have the largest lot among the four proposed lots. Doug Maass stated that Figures 11 and 12 are the same. There was an open discussion on the house renderings. There was an open discussion on the proposed lot sub-divisions. Doug Maass asked about Figure 10. He stated that the proposed curb cut and driveway were omitted. Vincent Farrandino responded that the pictures tried to provide a conceptual view. He stated that they are not perfect renderings. George Lence stated that Policy 25 refers to "protect, restore and enhance". He asked which one the applicant was proposing that the application would achieve. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 3 �Geraldine Tortorella responded that she was referring to "protect". She stated that this sub-division would protect and preserve the Phillipse Manor sub-units. She also stated that the applicant would come up with a landscaping plan. Ralph Gunderman responded that he does not feel that the applicant could come up with a landscaping plan that would maintain the level of landscaping that currently exists. Geraldine Tortorella asked if the Palmer Avenue sub-division was the primary reason that the Committee was not in favor of this application. She stated that if the applicant did not propose the Palmer sub-division, would the Committee approve the application. The Chair responded that the Committee does not respond to hypothetical scenarios. The Chair allowed the public to speak. Pat Pierson (Millard Ave) spoke. She stated hat she opposes the sub-division. She stated that the LWRP was not in place when the original Phillipse Manor was divided. Michael Doorley responded that he could not substantiate the carving of large estates into smaller lots. He stated that there could be one instance or two. The Chair asked if there were any other comments. There were none. Geraldine Tortorella stated that this is private property. She also stated that no variances would be required. Vincent Farrandino stated that the applicant would submit a proposal to place conditions to protect the landscaping and preserve the scenic resources. The Chair responded that the Committee would review the proposal once it is submitted. He stated that the Committee would not comment on abstract proposals. Ralph Gunderman stated that he cannot see any plan that would mitigate the damage that would be caused by the sub-division and potential construction. Vincent Farrandino responded that based on the lot size, the applicant could build a 6000sf house (McMansion) on the lot. He stated that the Village would have no recourse because it would conform to the Village Zoning Code. The Chair asked the Committee for comments. Doug Maass responded that the three lots are in conformance with the Village Zoning Code. He stated that he feels it is consistent with the LWRP. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find the application inconsistent with regards to Policies 23 and 25. George Lence seconded. It was found inconsistent by a 4-1 vote (Maass). Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 4 �Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 9:05 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 �RECEIVED Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 JUL - ? 700? VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Subdivision - 247 Palmer Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") considered, at its meeting on June 5, 2002, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the subdivision of the property located at 247 Palmer Avenue (the "Property"). The Proposal had been previously reviewed by the Committee at its meeting on October 3, 2001 and found to be inconsistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Re vital ization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. Following the Committee's October 3, 2001 meeting, the owners of the Property, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Doorley ("Applicants") presented a Viewshed Analysis and additional materials purporting to demonstrate that the findings of the Committee were erroneous, and requested a reversal of the prior findings. As pointed out to the Applicants at the June 5 meeting, the Committee, in the past, has reconsidered its findings only in cases where an applicant has modified a proposal in order to meet objections raised by the Committee. Where, as in the instant case, a proposal remains unchanged and the grounds for reconsideration are simply the applicant's conviction that the Committee erred in its findings, the applicant's procedural remedy is to seek to convince the entity authorized to act on the application (in this case, the Village's Planning Board) to reject the Committee's advisory findings and to make contrary findings of its own. Nevertheless, despite the lack of any obligation to rehear a proposal previously considered, the Committee, recognizing the substantial time and money invested by the Applicants in developing their Viewshed Analysis and additional materials, and believing that the Planning Board might wish to have the advice of the Committee in light of these materials, agreed to allow the Applicants to present their argument that the Committee's earlier findings were in error. Applicants were present at the meeting and were represented by Geraldine Tortorella, Esq. from the law firm of Shamberg Marwell Hocherman Davis & Hollis, P.C. and Mr. Vince Ferrandino from Ferrandino & Associates Inc., Planning and Development Consultants. At the end of the meeting, the Committee concluded that some details of its prior findings had been in error, but concluded that those findings that the Applicants' Proposal was inconsistent with the LWRP remained valid. The Proposal The Property consists of approximately 1.5 acres, abutting Palmer Avenue to the south and Highland Avenue to the north. There is a two and one-half story stone residence and a separate stone garage situated on the Property. The proposed subdivision would create two lots �abutting Highland Avenue, as well as one lot on the Palmer Avenue side of the Property, to the east of the remaining portion of the Property on which the residence and garage are located. Each of the proposed lots would have a frontage of seventy-five feet and would be approximately one hundred fifty feet deep, and would be conforming lots under zoning requirements of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Arguments of the Applicants and Responsive Findings The materials presented by the Applicants and the presentations made by Applicants' counsel and their planning and development consultant contend that the Proposal is not inconsistent with the LWRP for various reasons. The reasons articulated include, among others, assertions that Policy 23, one of the bases of the Committee's October findings, is not applicable to the Proposal, that the proposed subdivision (assuming future construction on the proposed new lots) would not impede views to or from the Hudson River, that the Property is not one of the original Philipse Manor development homes as assumed in the October findings, that the LWRP does not have provisions applicable to a "gateway" (a description applied to the site in the October findings) and that, in any event, the Proposal would not impair views of or from the bridge over the Metro North tracks at the end of Palmer Avenue (which Applicant presumes to be the "gateway" referred to in the Committee's findings). It was further argued that the Proposal is not inconsistent with Policies 25 and 25B, because the elements that are believed by Applicants to have led the drafters of the LWRP to include Philipse Manor as one the Village's scenic subunits would not be impaired by the subdivision. Applicants also noted that more than fifty percent of the residences in Philipse Manor are on lots with seventy-five foot frontage. The Committee discussed and responded to the points raised on behalf of the Applicants. It was noted that the Committee's findings were in no way predicated upon any impact on views to or from the Hudson River and that when the Committee referred to the Property as sitting "at a sort of 'gateway' to Kingsland Point Park, the Philipse Manor Yacht Club, the Metro North Train Station and the Hudson Valley Writer's Center", the "gateway" reference was clearly used as a metaphor for the significance of the Property's location. The Committee agreed with Applicants that their materials did conclusively establish that the Property was not, in fact, one of the original Philipse Manor development properties, but noted that the Property, in its present state, had long been a part of the Philipse Manor area at the time of adoption of the LWRP. The Committee acknowledged that many lots in Philipse Manor might have frontages of only seventy-five feet, but noted that such subdivisions predated the adoption of the LWRP and that the present scarcity of large properties in the Manor gave the Property even greater significance for the quality of the Philipse Manor scenic subunit. The majority of the Committee also agreed that Policy 23 was not properly applicable to the Proposal. Nevertheless, the Committee again concluded, by a vote of four to one, that the Proposal would irrevocably damage the scenic value of the Philipse Manor scenic subunit, and was inconsistent with Policies 25 and 25B. POLICY 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC 2 �QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. POLICY 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS (citing Philipse Manor as one of nine scenic landscape subunits]. The Committee considered, as it had in October, the scenic assessment of the Philipse Manor subunit in the LWRP "Inventory and Analysis" section, which includes, as scenic components of Philipse Manor, the following characteristics: "The residential neighborhood is laid out in a formal grid, and appears more open than the adjacent residential development in the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit. The houses are designed in a variety of styles and are set in landscaped settings, with lawns, shrubs and garden trees combining with mature street trees to form a vegetative canopy that screens development from the adjacent U.S. Route 9 and the Hudson River. "The Philipse Manor subunit was also identified as part of the candidate Haverstraw Bays Park SASS. The subunit features a variety of contrasting housing styles set in a distinctive landscaped setting. . . ." The Committee also noted once again that the LWRP scenic importance analysis identifies the Philipse Manor subunit as one of the "Identified Landscapes of Statewide Scenic Importance and Landscapes of Regional Scenic Importance", particularly subject to the LWRP provisions protecting overall coastal scenic quality. After thorough consideration, the Committee could not conclude that the subdivision of the Property into four lots (allowing the construction of three new residences, and potentially losing forever the distinctive present vista of the large stone house sited in its large open landscaped setting) would protect or enhance the scenic value of the Philipse Manor subunit. Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee RichardD/Weiss, Chairman 3 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 10,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:17 p.m Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Doug Maass Absent: Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Robert Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of June 2002 meetings b) Douglass Hill sub-division a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the June 2002 meeting were reviewed. Several corrections were noted: Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). b) Douglass Hill sub-division Andy Tung is the project planner. He is representing this application along with attorney, John Marwell. Andy Tung spoke about the proposed sub-division plat proposal. He referred to a map that detailed the existing 57-acre parcel. He stated that the proposal would create two parcels of approximately equal size. He stated that 1.4 acres would be sold to Peter Zegarelli. He stated that Mr. Zegarelli already owns the two adjacent lots and the "U" shaped parcel would be merged to the existing 2 lots to allow Mr. Zegarelli to build one large house on the total combined land. Andy Tung spoke about transferring approximately 1.0 acre from David Rockefeller owned property to allow an existing driveway to fall entirely within upper lot "A". �Andy Tung spoke about adding a no-disturbance line to keep the views from Kykuit intact. Don Stever asked if there are any restrictions that could limit the height of structures that could be built. Andy Tung responded that the Village Zoning Code would restrict the height of any such structures. The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created. Don Stever asked if any part of this parcel is visible from the Hudson River. Andy Tung responded that it should fall below the hills of Kykuit. John Marwell stated that the existing trail would be kept as a formal easement. He stated that it would remain open to the public. Don Stever asked if lot A would be accessed from Gory Brook Road. Andy Tung responded no. Don Stever stated that Gory Brook Road is currently an un-maintained public way. He stated that the Village would then have an obligation to improve the road. He stated this would be in violation of policies within the LWRP. Andy Tung responded that the purpose of transferring the driveway to lot "A" would resolve this potential problem. Don Stever stated that the Planning Board should be notified that a restriction might be needed on Gory Brook Road. The Chair asked if the Committee had any questions for the applicant. There were none. Don Stever stated that he finds this application consistent with the LWRP. The Chair agreed. It was unanimous (4-0) that the application was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourn at 8:47 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 10, 2002 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2002-07-10.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d06242da53ca6af0eaaf0bc8a840676b.pdf 89ca9920a2161cf5cb64db31f77a4706 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 4, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn RECEIVED SEP 1 1 ?0M VILLAGE CLERK Doug Maass Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of July 2002 meetings b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the July 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 2, change: "The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created." To read: "The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created. The Chair stated that any development of this parcel would have to come before the Waterfront Advisory Committee for approval." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Adir not present). b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Vincent Savino is the attorney representing this application along with Vincent Amendola (Engineer). �I D IS IB E 11 V 1 T 2002 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 PI ill OING DEPARTMENT] CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Preliminary Piatt Application- Douglass Hill Subdivision The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") considered, at its meeting on July 10, 2002, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the subdivision of a parcel in the Village of Sleepy Hollow known as "Douglass Hill" (the "Property"). The applicant for the Proposal is the David Rockefeller Fund ("Applicant"). Representing the Applicant at the meeting were Mr. Andrew V. Tung of the firm of Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP, who presented the Proposal, and Mr. John S. Marwell. of the law firm of Shamberg Marwell Hocherman Davis & Hollis, P.C., counsel to the Applicant. Messrs. Tung and Marwell responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed subdivision of the Property would not be inconsistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Property consists of approximately 56.9 acres of unimproved land that is presently open meadow and woodlands. It is zoned R-l. The Applicant wishes to subdivide the Property into two lots, one approximately 33.3 acres and the other approximately 22.2 acres. In addition, the Applicant proposes to transfer to Dr. Peter and Mrs. Carol Zegerelli 1.4 acres of the Property, which would be merged with two building lots now owned by Dr. and Mrs. Zegerelli to create a single building lot, and to acquire from David Rockefeller, the owner of the adjacent property to the north of the Property, approximately one acre in order to bring a driveway now serving the Property entirely within the Property's boundaries. The proposal does not cite any development plans for the Property, although Mr. Tung acknowledged that the two resulting parcels could be sold to developers for eventual residential development. Consistency Findings Although the proposal does not include any specific development plans, it is the policy of the Committee to consider any application for a property subdivision based on the most intensive lawful use that could be made of the land, without further review, in the event that the requested subdivision were approved. The Committee noted that the Property is located in the Sleepy Hollow scenic subunit, protected by Policy 25B and noted that there were other policies applicable to the area east of the Old Croton Aqueduct, where the Property is sited. The Committee noted that the proposed subdivision, by itself, would not have any adverse effect under any policies of the LWRP. The Committee further observed that any commercial development of the Property in the future would require further Planning Board approvals and would, therefore, necessarily have to be presented to the Committee for review of the consistency of that development with the LWRP. The Committee concluded that the only development �action that could take place as a result of the granting of the current application (subdivision of the Property into two lots) would be the construction of one single-family residence on each such lot. The Committee unanimously found that, even if such action were taken, it would not have a materially adverse effect on the Village's Sleepy Hollow scenic subunit (Policy 25B) and that nothing in the proposal or in any action that could be directly taken after implementation of the proposal appeared to be inconsistent with the LWRP. (The Committee observed that, although, no plans have been formulated or sites selected for residential construction, and thus it could not be determined whether any such residences might be visible from the Hudson River, the two homes, even if visible from the River, would not materially impair views from the River (Policy 25A - Protect or enhance views of the Hudson River, the Hudson River Valley, and the Opposite Shore from the immediateriverfrontas viewed from publicly owned properties). The Committee also took note of the facts that Mr. Tung, in his presentation, stated that views from Kykuit would be protected by restrictions that would limit the use of parts of the Property visible from Kykuit. He also stated that it was intended that the trails crossing the Property, which the Applicant currently permits to be used by pedestrians during daylight hours, would remain accessible to the public. As presented, the proposal contemplates that access for the two lots created by the subdivision would be to and from Webber Avenue. However, the Property also abuts a portion of Gorey Brook Road that is in disrepair and, if access to and from Gorey Brook Road for the Property were sought, improvement and maintenance of the roadway could impose a significant burden on the Village and could create a consistency issue under Policies 5 [Encourage the location of Development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate] and 5B [Discourage the development of uses which, by reason of their demand for new community services and facilities or their imposition of burdens on existing services and facilities, would require disproportionate public cost in comparison to public benefits]. The Committee, therefore, recommended to the Planning Board that, in its consideration of the subdivision application, it fully explore with Applicant any possibility that Gorey Brook Road access might be sought for any part of the Property. Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee # Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 2 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 4,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn RECEIVED SEP 1 * ?0M VILLAGE CLERK Doug Maass Also Present: Anthory DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of July 2002 meetings b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the July 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 2, change: "The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created." To read: "The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created. The Chair stated that any development of this parcel would have to come before the Waterfront Advisory Committee for approval." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Adir not present). b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Vincent Savino is the attorney representing this application along with Vincent Amendola (Engineer). �Vincent Savino summarized thefindingsfromthe December 5, 2001 Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting. He stated that the applicant is seeking a similar recommendation for the application at 28 Beekman Avenue. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant was seeking to install antennas at both location or at either location. Vincent Savino responded that the applicant is seeking approval at either location. He stated that the applicant was referred back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee as per the Planning Board. Ralph Gunderman asked if the application at 95 Beekman would be withdrawn if the application at 28 Beekman Avenue were approved. Vincent Savino responded yes. Ralph Gunderman asked if the coverage was similar. Vincent Savino responded that the coverage would be close but not identical to the proposed coverage at 95 Beekman Avenue. Karin Adir stated that coverage would be needed at the GM site. Vincent Savino responded that this was made clear to the Planning Board. The Chair asked the applicant how this application corresponds to the LWRP. Vincent Savino responded that the antennas would blend in with the existing antennas on 28 Beekman Ave. Ralph Gunderman asked if there were any industrial standards on the proximity to residences concerning the radiation emitted by these antennas. Vincent Savino responded that a Health & Safety report was prepared to show that the antenna proposal would be well below the FCC standards. He stated that this applies to both locations. There was an open discussion on the ways that radiation will be emitted on both proposals. The Chair stated that the previous decision was based on the fact that there was no visible impact. He stated that the current proposal is very visible. George Lence referred to an article from the Wall Street Journal concerning a new technology that could reduce the visual impact on Village Hall. Vincent Amendola responded that he was not aware of this new technology. George Lence stated that he was concerned about having Verizon install an old technology on top of Village Hall. The Chair asked about the height of the antennas. Vincent Amendola responded that they would be 15-feet above the roofline. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 4,2002 2 �The Chair stated that he has a problem with the aesthetics associated with this proposal. Ralph Gunderman spoke about the impact versus the benefits. The Chair asked about the terms of the lease. Vincent Savino responded that the applicant is in negotiations with the Village. The Chair referred to Policies 18 (b), 23 and 25 (b). He summarized the relevance of the LWRP to this application. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find that this application is consistent with Policy 18 (b) and inconsistent with Policy 25 (b). He also stated that Policy 23 does not apply. He stated that his motion is based on the fact that the applicant is not improving the architecture of Village Hall. George Lence seconded. Don Stever stated that it is not visible from the Route 9 - Beekman Avenue intersection. The Chair agreed with Ralph Gunderman. There was an open discussion on Policy 25 (b) and the overall recommendation to the Planning Board. Ralph Gunderman's motion to find the application consistent with Policy 18 (b) was approved unanimously (5-0). Ralph Gunderman's motion to find the application inconsistent with Policy 25 (b) was approved (4-1) (Stever). It was agreed (unanimously) that Policy 23 does not apply to this application. Don Stever made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP based on the positive consideration from Policy 18(b) outweighing the negative impacts from Policy 25 (b). It was approved (3-2) (Gunderman, Chairman Weiss). George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 8:37 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 4,2002 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 RECEIVE crp o L onp •» VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Installation of Wireless Communication Facility at 28 Beekman Avenue (Village Hall) The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on September 4, 2002, a proposal by New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the "Applicant") for the installation of a public utility wireless communication facility (the "Facility") atop Village Hall, at 28 Beekman Avenue in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. (The 28 Beekman Avenue site is hereinafter referred to as "Village Hall" and the Village of Sleepy Hollow is hereinafter referred to as the "Village"). The proposal was presented by Vincent Savino, Esq. of the law firm of Snyder & Snyder, LLP, counsel for the Applicant, with the participation of Mr. Vincent Amendola, an engineer from the H2M Group. Mr. Savino and Mr. Amendola responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee found the proposal consistent in part, and inconsistent in part, with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and concluded, by a vote of three to two, that the proposed installation would, on balance, be consistent with the LWRP. The Proposal The Facility would consist of a panel of antennas that would be affixed to the chimneys above the roofline at the top of Village Hall. Related equipment would not be visible to the public. The proposal is an alternative to a proposal that was made by Applicant in 2001 and was reviewed by the Committee at its meeting on December 5,2001. That earlier proposal contemplated affixing the Facility to decorative cornices on the Van Tassel Apartment Building at 95 Beekman Avenue. The Committee made a determination, at its December 5 meeting, that the proposal for the 95 Beekman Avenue site would be consistent the LWRP. The Village's Planning Board subsequently requested that Applicant consider the use of Village Hall as an alternative site for the Facility. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 18B and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. The Committee determined that Policy 23, one of the policies on which the Committee's December 5 findings were based, was not applicable to the Village Hall site because Village Hall did not have historic and architectural significance to the Village of Sleepy Hollow, as the Van Tassel Apartment Building does. Policy 18B - TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH �ACTIONS ON COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE SUCH RESOURCES SUPPORT. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The nine identified scenic landscape subunits include the Upper and Lower Village, and the twenty-three identified viewsheds of local importance include Beekman Avenue at the intersection with U.S. Route 9.) The Committee, in considering the consistency of the proposal with Policy 18B concluded that the social interests of the Village could be protected by the economic benefit to the Village that would be derived from the project. The installation of the Facility at the Village Hall site would produce rental income for the Village. The Explanation of Policies applicable to this Policy directs that economic interests of the Village should be weighed in considering proposed actions that would affect certain specified areas of concern, such as natural resources and recreation. Although the proposed action does not directly affect any of the areas of concern referred to the Explanation of Policies section, the Committee concluded that the intent of Policy 18B permitted the Committee to take into account the potential economic benefit to the Village that would be derived from installation of the Facility at the Village Hall site. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously found that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 18B. The Committee was, however, unable to conclude that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 25B. Although the Committee recognized that Village Hall does not have any particular historical or architectural significance, the Committee observed that it is an attractive building. Moreover, it is located at a highly visible location near the intersection of Route 9 and Beekman Avenue. The Committee noted that the Beekman Avenue corridor would provide the principal access to the General Motors site, where major development is contemplated for the future and that any adverse visual impact on the area is of concern. Since the antenna array that would comprise the visible portion of the Facility could not be flush mounted (as was proposed for the Van Tassel Apartment Building site), the antennas would rise approximately fifteen feet above the Village Hall chimney, making them very apparent from portions of Route 9 and Beekman Avenue. Although the Village's own antennas for police and fire department communications are visible at their location above the Village Hall roofline. they are less noticeable than the Facility's antennas would be. The visual impact from the Facility was considered significant and undesirable. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of four to one, that the proposal would not be consistent with Policy 25B. After its findings of partial consistency and partial inconsistency of the project with the policies of the LWRP, the Committee considered whether, after weighing the elements of the Project's consistency and inconsistency, the project, on balance, was or was not consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. The Committee took into account the need of the Applicant for enhanced wireless communications coverage and the obligation of the Village, under federal law, to permit antenna placement at suitable locations. The economic benefit to the Village from rental payments by Applicant to the Village was weighed against the severity of the diminution of the aesthetic qualities of Village Hall and Beekman Avenue. It was the finding of the �Committee, by a vote of three to two that, on balance, the proposed placement of the antennas above Village Hall would be consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2002-09-04.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9caf7fe639864a24ba7454aad6596f74.pdf 244041332612a6400127c8d139a0b8d3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 21, 2002 RECEIVED NOV - 8 ?fW The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 7:34 p.m. The ChaWkAtAPE CLERK that all of the Committee members were present. ^ M _ _ Q Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman KarinAdir George Lence Terence McGlynn Doug Maass Absent: None (ji^2^- lt^r~ /^c^^f^1^^^, / W '/ °f^3 Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Minutes of September 2002 meeting Ichabod's Landing Antonio Rodrigues Revisions to the Waterfront Consistency Review Procedures McMansions 1) Minutes of September 2002 meeting The minutes for the September 2002 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). 2) Ichabod's Landing Bruce Lozito is representing the project along with attorney Henry Hocherman. He gave a brief overview about the site with relation to the GM site. He explained the original planning ideas and their impact to the LWRP. He discussed several previous site plans and how they have developed into the present version. He stated that the residential units have been reduced by 25% and town houses are now proposed. He stated that retail space on River Street has been added. He also spoke about public access to the waterfront. �Bruce Lozito spoke about the linkage study and the concerns addressed by the public as a result of the study. He spoke about how the comments were incorporated into the site plan. The Chair stated that this is not before the Committee for findings. He stated that the applicant is only here tonight for initial comments. Henry Hocherman stated that the applicant has requested a time extension from the Village. He stated that the applicant wants to work with the Committee to reach their findings. Terrance McGlynn asked if some of the renderings shown in the presentation were from the GM site. Bruce Lozito responded yes. He spoke about a possible common road to both properties, which would be an extension of Beekman Avenue. Don Stever asked if the applicant had received a commitment from Roseland (GM developer) concerning the common road. Bruce Lozito responded not yet. He stated that Roseland is not ready to submit yet. He stated that they are not against the idea. He also stated that the property is self-sufficient. He stated that parking is located within the property. He also spoke about access from Beekman Avenue as well. Ralph Gunderman asked for an explanation of the parking and traffic plan. Bruce Lozito stated that cars would park at 90°. He stated that traffic would travel in both directions. Ralph Gunderman stated that 90° parking is not typical. Bruce Lozito responded that it is not a public street. He stated that it is a parking area aisle. The Chair asked if the portion of the promenade that is to be dedicated includes the part of the property that is underwater. Bruce Lozito responded that he was not sure. Doug Maass asked about the life expectancy of steel bulkheads. He stated that riprap should be used wherever a boat will not dock. Bruce Lozito responded that he could change the plan to include riprap. Don Stever stated that riprap should be used on the western edge. He stated that the southern edge could be developed where floats or vessels could be used. There was an open discussion on whether the site must be maintained if riprap is to be used. Doug Maass stated that he preferred the access to the water with the steps. He stated that he would like to see more riprap included in the plan. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 21, 2002 ? �Don Stever stated that access to the river is marginal. He stated that insufficient water (low-tide) makes it useless. He also stated that additional drainage would enhance the existing access and provide a waterfront dependent use. There was an open discussion on boats and other possible methods to access the river. The Chair stated that the site plan is very dense. He stated that it cuts off the Village from the river. Ralph Gunderman asked about the elevations. Bruce Lozito explained the elevations and their relation to the site plan. Doug Maass spoke about the view as they apply to the LWRP. Bruce Lozito referred to 4-50 in the LWRP. Doug Masss stated that River Street has a view of the river. Bruce Lozito responded that the property only borders River Street for 250-feet. He stated that the river is not visible from this portion of River Street. Doug Maass stated that the view that should be maintained is the one at the end of Beekman Avenue. Ralph Gunderman asked about the loft portion (4th story). He asked if the height could be mitigated. Bruce Lozito responded that he would investigate. He stated that it is an integral part of the design. He also stated that they are below the height requirements for a Riverfront district. The Chair stated that the development is too dense. He stated that if there were spaces in between the units, light would be able to get in. The Chair asked if Federal funding is not available, what would happen. Bruce Lozito responded that the applicant would seek alternatives once funding is not available. He stated that the applicant is counting on Federal funding being secured. The Chair spoke about having the lofts restricted so that they are not used as bedrooms. Dave Smith stated that if the Committee provides comments to the Village Trustees by the end of the second public hearing, the applicant must answer as part of the DEIS. The Chair acknowledged Dave Smith's comments. 3) Antonio Rodrigues Sean McCarthy is the project architect. He is representing this application along with Antonio Rodrigues. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 21,2002 3 �Sean McCarthy showed some photos of the present site. He stated that the property has several stone and wood retaining walls. He spoke about the existing delicatessen and abandoned garage. He showed a proposed site plan. He spoke about the parking spaces and proposed traffic flow. Hs also spoke about vegetation and landscaping on the property as well as the proposed building. Sean McCarthy stated that the Planning Board has some concerns related to the flow of traffic. Doug Maass asked if the traffic light would be a 6-way light. Sean McCarthy responded yes. He also stated that a traffic consultant would review the traffic proposal. The Chair asked about one of the existing retaining walls. He asked if it could be made more decorative to mitigate the aesthetics. Sean McCarthy responded that the wall will be stepped down some but aesthetically the walls will remain the same. Doug Maass asked about the loading dock and trash compactor room exteriors. Sean McCarthy responded that they would match the building exterior. Doug Maass asked about the height of the building in relation to the surrounding buildings. Sean McCarthy responded that it would be 10-15 feet below the neighboring buildings. Ralph Gunderman asked what is involved in cutting into the slope for the first floor. Sean McCarthy responded that they would have to be shored-up to construct footings. The Chair asked about the proposed terrace area. Sean McCarthy responded that it would be similar to the other building on the property. He stated that benches and plantings are planned for the area. Karin Adir spoke about recommending that no left-hand turns be allowed into the sir.e. Sean McCarthy responded that the traffic consultant would analyze all traffic information. The Chair stated that two policies apply to this application. He stated that they are policies l(k) and 25(b). The Committee unanimously agreed (7-0) that the application is consistent with the LWRP with regards to policy l(k). The Committee unanimously agreed (7-0) that the application is consistent with the LWRP with regards to policy 25(b). Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 21,2002 �4) Revisions to the Waterfront Consistency Review Procedures Dave Smith spoke about formalizing the process regarding the Waterfront Consistency reviews. Several changes were made to the text. There was an open discussion on how applicants come before the Committee. It was decided by consensus that the applicant of a large development will come before the Committee for initial/preliminary comments. After the lead agency is ready for final EIS approval, the Committee would make an official consistency finding for the lead agency. Don Stever made a motion to find this procedure consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP as amended. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. (7-0). 5) McMansions Dave Smith gave an overview of the McMansions amendment. He spoke about the ordinance in the other local municipalities. Dave Smith reviewed the ordinance. He stated that the ordinance is based on the FloorArea-Ratio (FAR). He stated that new developments would not be so massive. He stated that if two (2) lots were purchased to build one (1) house, the Planning Board would take this into consideration for site plan approval. The Chair asked if an applicant decided to finish their basement, would they have to comply with the ordinance. Dave Smith responded no. He stated that it applies only to what is seen. George Lence made a motion to approve with minor language amendments. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Karin Adir made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 10:03 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ^ A (hi• / - Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 21,2002 5 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2002-10-21.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/827bc0ddee0341a70c6bca370563b944.pdf 3d042561711ae3816484ef658df3a134 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 6, 2002 R F P FIV F '» |\jQy - 8 ^non The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. The $hauflt9t£<t;LfcHK that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman RaJphGundennan /Lfy] £jd\^&—^—C^>" i ^ ^ J [ George Lence Absent: f /£/c) Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Doug Maass Also Present: Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The Chair read a letter from George Tanner, Parking Authority Chairman stating that parking rules will be suspended in the immediate area around Village Hall for any Village meeting. Bob Stiloski stated that this is a temporary solution until Tornello Citgo completes paving repairs to his property. Once repairs are completed, Village board members would be allowed to park at the gas station with a permit. Agenda: 1) Gaps in the LWRP coverage 2) CFF Reality 1) Gaps in the LWRP coverage The Chair spoke SEQRA type II actions that are not required to come before the Committee. He spoke about renovations to Pokahoe house as an example. He spoke about the fact that it is being renovated and it is not coming before the Committee although it has been designated by the Village as a local historic landmark. He stated that the property has already been sub-divided so that also would not come before the Committee. Bob Stiloski responded that the sub-division is still in question. The Chair stated that recommendations should be made to the Village Trustees concerning SEQRA type II actions that should be brought before the Committee for LWRP consistency reviews. The Committee reviewed the list of SEQRA type II actions. ^ �The Committee discussed several policies in the LWRP for relevant examples. There was an open discussion as to whether or not this would bring many unnecessary applications before the Committee. It was agreed that the Village Attorney should be consulted. The Chair stated that he would contact the Village Attorney. 2) CFF Reality The Committee looked over the submitted materials. Since nobody was present to represent the applicant, no action was taken. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 8:31 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, <Xv Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 6,2002 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2002-11-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/aba7396d81c2d16538f4a92617c80e2c.pdf 5c50dee2c76acf087e3770ddf1ea4b08 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 8, 2003 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Doug Maass Karin Adir Absent: Ralph Gunderman George Lence Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Sehiff/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The Chair stated that the discussion on the LWRP coverage gaps would be added to tonight's agenda. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Minutes of October 2002 and November 2002 meetings 361 North Broadvvay/CFF Reality Nextel Communications Laurentino Rodrigues/172 Valley Street Expansion of Barnhart Park Gaps in the Waterfront Consistency Review Law 1) Minutes of October 2002 and November 2002 meetings The minutes from the October 2002 meeting were reviewed. Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes from November 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page I, change "The Chair spoke SEQRA type II actions that are not required to come before the Committee." �To read "The Chair spoke about SEQRA type II actions that are not required to come before the Committee." Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) CFF Reality Viktor Solarik is the project architect. He is representing the application on behalf of CFF Reality. He described the property location. He spoke about the approvals needed from the Zoning and Planning Board's and that the Architectural Review Board has approved of the project. Victor Solarik spoke about the 2nd floor addition. He described the building exterior in detail. He stated that the plans have been revised as per the Architectural Review Board's comments. Doug Maass asked about the distance that the garage door would be recessed. Victor Solarik responded 4'-6". Don Stever asked if any parking variances would be needed. Viktor Solarik responded no. He stated that the proposed parking plan exceeds the parking requirements. The Chair asked if there was any external lighting proposed. Viktor Solarik responded yes. He provided a data sheet showing a picture of the proposed light fixture. He stated that there would be no light pollution from these fixtures since they would be pointed downward. The Chair stated that ingress and egress for this site is a concern. Viktor Solarik spoke about the existing curb cut into the property. He stated that the only way to enter the site is traveling Southbound on Route 9. The Chair asked if there were any other comments. There were none. The Chair referred to LWRP policy l(k). I le stated that this is the only policy that applies to this application. He also stated that according to this policy, he feels that the application is consistent with the LWRP. Don Stever stated that the applicant meets policy l(k). He stated that this project would improve this area. The Chair asked about the current use of the building. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, January 8, 2003 1 �Viktor Solarik responded that the building is currently being used for storage. The Committee agreed unanimously (5-0) that this application is consistent with the LWRP. 3) Nextel Communications The Chair asked if the Committee had received the most recent set of plans. The Committee agreed that they had received the most recent set of plans. Robert Gaudioso is representing Nextel. I le spoke about the revised stealth enclosure that would be installed on the roof of Village Hall. He stated that the equipment would be placed behind the building. He showed a drawing of the stealth enclosure and the equipment in relation to the Verizon antennas. The Chair commented that the stealth enclosure has the appearance of a false chimney. The Chair referred to LWRP policy 25(b). He stated that this is the only policy that applies to this application. He also stated this application is similar to the recent cellular communication application. Don Stever stated that this cellular application is less intrusive than the previous one. The Committee agreed unanimously (5-0) that this application is consistent with the LWRP. 4) Laurcntino Rodrigues/172 Valley Street Vitaly Sanko is the project architect. He is representing this application along with Laurentino Rodrigues. Vitaly Sanko spoke about the existing property. He spoke about the proposed new construction. He described the nine (9) apartments and one (1) store that would be built. He stated that the size of the store would only be 400 square feet. The Chair asked if there were any parking issues. Vitaly Sanko responded that there were some previous parking problems but an underground garage was added to alleviate most of the parking problems. Don Stever asked if the applicant was meeting the parking requirements. Vitaly Sanko responded that the applicant would need to obtain a variance for Vz -space from the Zoning Board. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, January 8, 2003 �Doug Maass asked about the elevation of this proposed structure and the height of other neighboring properties. Vitaly Sanko showed photos of existing buildings. He stated that they would be very similar in height. The Chair asked about the windows on the adjacent building. Vitaly Sanko responded that the windows would be blocked. Doug Maass asked about the number of clock faces. Vitaly Sanko responded that there would be three (3) clocks. Doug Maass asked if the clocks would be working clocks. Laurentino Rodrigues responded yes. The Chair referred to LWRP policy l(i). He stated that this is the only policy that applies to this application. Don Stever referred to map #4. He stated that it is within the district that is referred to in policy l(i). The Chair asked if other variances were required. Vitaly Sanko responded a side yard variance would be needed as well. Don Stever stated that LWRP policy 5(a) would apply if the applicant were not meeting the necessary parking requirements. The Chair asked about the building exterior. Laurentino Rodrigues responded that the building would have a stucco exterior similar to other properties on the street. The Chair encouraged the applicant to add some more architectural details to the exterior. There was an open discussion on the stucco recommendations. The Chair asked about exterior lighting. Vitaly Sanko responded that there would be some. He stated that they would be installed under the awning. The Chair asked if there were any other comments. There were none. The Committee agreed unanimously (5-0) that this application is consistent with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, January 8,2003 4 �5) Expansion of Barnhart Park Dave Smith summarized the approved grant application for the Barnhart park improvements. He stated that the Village wants to expand the park. Don Stever spoke about the history of the Duracell site. He stated that the Gillette Company would develop the property. He stated that the Village needs additional recreational property in this area. There was an open discussion on the property layout, parking access and traffic. Doug Maass spoke about the proposed trees around the soccer field. He stated that if evergreens were used, the view shed would be blocked. He stated that deciduous trees should be used. Don Stever agreed. Doug Maass referred to the Coastal Assessment Form. He asked if pesticides would be applied to the site. Dave Smith responded yes. Doug Maass referred to the proposed water consumption of 6500 gallons/day. Dave Smith responded that the water consumption is calculated based on the use sprinklers. Doug Maass stated that he is concerned with the pesticides and water consumption. The Chair stated that LWRP policies 25(a) and 25(b) apply to this application. The Committee agreed unanimously (5-0) that this application is consistent with the LWRP. 6) Gaps in the Waterfront Consistency Review Law The Chair distributed a list of the SEQRA Type II actions that have a direct impact on the Committee's jurisdiction. There was an open discussion on the recent events that involve SEQRA Type II actions. The Chair asked if the law is amended and the applicant does not need to apply to some Village board, how would an inconsistency finding be handled. Don Stever reviewed the SEQRA Type II actions listed in the distributed document and stated that in all cases, a Village board would be involved. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, January 8, 2003 �Doug Maass stated that by modifying this exception, the Waterfront Advisory Committee would use the law to add leverage to their jurisdiction. Don Stever stated that the Village Trustees would need to hold a public hearing before amending the law. The Chair stated that this would apply to applicant effecting specific LWRP policies only. Doug Maass made a motion to recommend to the Village Trustees to adopt the amendment. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Don Stever made a motion to adjourn. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:34 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for February 5, 2003. Respectfully Submitted. Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, January 8, 2003 6 �RECEIVED Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 FEB " 6 2003 VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Construction at 172 Valley Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on January 8, 2003, the application submitted by Laurentino Rodrigues Enterprises ("Applicant") for replacement of an existing structure at 172 Valley Street with a new structure (referred to as the "Clock Tower Building") consisting of two parking levels with twolevels of residential units above. The proposal was presented to the Committee by Mr. Vitaly Sonkin, the architect for the project. Mr. Sonkin and Mr. Rodrigues 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 172 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 Clock Tower Building would include parking and office space on the ground level, parking and a handicapped-accessible apartment on the first floor and apartments on the second and third floors. One level of parking would be accessible from Valley Street and the other, from Depeyster Street. A total of fifteen parking spaces would be provided within the structure. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II, and Policy 5A 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 found that the Clock Tower Building would accomplish the mandated rehabilitation, replacing an old building that is out of character with the surrounding area, with new housing. The addition of a clock tower at the �corner of the structure would provide architectural interest and a distinctive profile to the Valley Street/Depeyster Street area. Recognizing that Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recommendsrehabilitationof both the commercial and residential properties in this area ("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 Committee concluded that the proposed construction of the Clock Tower Building would satisfy the LWRP's goals ofredevelopmentand rehabilitation in this part of the Village. 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 DIPROPORTIONATE PUBLIC COST IN COMPARISON TO PUBLIC BENEFITS. The Committee also took note of the fact that adequate parking, as defined by the zoning requirements of the Village of Sleepy Hollow, was an integral part of the proposed construction proposal. The fact that the proposed Clock Tower Building would place no additional burden on parking demands in a part of the Village that already suffers from a serious shortage of parking was deemed significant by the Committee and contributed to the Committee's finding of consistency. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the proposed Clock Tower Building would consistent with Policy II and Policy 5A and with the LWRP. C^LM^^— Richard D. Weiss, Chairman �RECEIVED JAN I 4 2003 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Site Improvements at 361 North Broadway The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on January 8, 2003, a proposal by Frank Cerqueira (the "Applicant") with respect to certain site improvements at 361 North Broadway in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Site"). The proposal was presented for the Applicant by Viktor L. Solarik of VKS Architects. Mr. Solarik responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed Site improvements would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Site is located on the south side of Route 9 along the corridor commonly referred to in the Village of Sleepy Hollow as "gasoline alley". The proposed site improvements would add a second story to an existing building at the Site that is, at present, substantially unused. Alterations would also be made to the present first floor portion of the building. The building, as improved, would be used to house a construction business. The proposed action at the Site includes installation of drainage facilities and includes all off-street parking required by Village Zoning standards. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies IK and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy IK - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP THE AREA ALONG, AND ON BOTH SIDES OF NY ROUTE 9 (NORTH BROADWAY) WITH APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO LANDSCAPING AND SCENIC VIEWSHED PROTECTION, BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH BEEKMAN AVENUE AND THE BRIDGE CROSSING THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The twenty-three identified viewscapes of local importance include U.S. Route 9 (North Broadway)]. The Committee noted that the proposed actions at the Site promised another positive step in the direction of visually improving the "gasoline alley" streetscape. The Committee observed �that the proposed action seemed to provide adequately for off-street parking and drainage; the position of the parking at the rear of the Site appropriately screens the parking areas from Route 9. These factors are consistent with standard "i" of the Explanation of Policies applicable to Policy IK. ("Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for all uses. Parking areas shall be sufficiently drained so as to contain all drainage on a site and to prevent ponding. Whenever feasible, parking areas shall be placed at the rear of buildings and/or screened by plantings so as [not] to be highly visible from the waterfront and Village streets"). It appeared to the Committee that exterior lighting planned for the facility would be appropriate in accordance with standard "n" ("Lighting facilities and lighted signs shall be placed and shielded in such a manner as not to create direct light to shine on other properties, and shall not be permitted to create a hazard on public streets"). Significantly, the transformation of the existing structure at the Site from an unused or underutilized building to a viable, non-automotive, business operation appeared to satisfy standard "d" ('The action should improve the deteriorated or underutilized condition of a site and, at a minimum, must not cause further deterioration"), as well as standard "f * ("The action should have the potential to improve the existing economic base of the community, and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize this base"). Thus the Committee found that proposal would be consistent with proposal would be consistent with Policy IK. In addition, implementation of the proposal would substitute a well-designed commercial building for a poorly maintained and unattractive barn-like structure, thus effecting a substantial visual improvement for the Route 9 corridor. The Committee recognized that recent design modifications to the project plans initially submitted to the Committee for consideration have significantly improved the appearance of the proposed building. For example, a tile facing, designed to resemble brick, and decorative architectural elements have been added, making the structure more visually consistent with the Philipse Professional Building diagonally across Route 9 and with the design plans for Philipse Plaza, expected to be built across the street from the Site. The Committee believed that a positive visual impact on Route 9 would be derived from the completion of Applicant's project and, thus, the project was found by the Committee to meet the goals of Policy 25B, which makes U.S. Route 9 (Broadway) a viewshed "of local scenic significance". Accordingly, the proposal was unanimously determined to be consistent with the LWRP. �RECEIVED Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 N0V " 7 ?002 VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Phil ipse Plaza, 362 North Broadway The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on October 21, 2002, a proposal by Mr. Antonio Rodrigues (the "Applicant") with respect to construction of a two-story commercial building at 362 North Broadway in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Site"). The proposal was presented by Sean McCarthy, the architect for the proposed 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 is located on the east side of Route 9 and the proposed construction replaces a proposal for a larger commercial structure at this location that was submitted to and approved by the Village's Planning Board a number of years ago, prior to the formation of the Committee. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies IK and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy IK - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP THE AREA ALONG, AND ON BOTH SIDES OF NY ROUTE 9 (NORTH BROADWAY) WITH APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO LANDSCAPING AND SCENIC VIEWSHED PROTECTION, BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH BEEKMAN AVENUE AND THE BRIDGE CROSSING THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The twenty-three identified viewscapes of local importance include U.S. Route 9 (North Broadway)]. The Committee noted that the proposed structure would result in the replacement of both the unsightly "Uncle Jerry's" delicatessen building and an unattractive parking area with an attractive new commercial building that would visually complement the nearby Philipse Professional Building and a new, landscaped parking area. It was believed that the construction would continue improvement of the Village's "gasoline alley" corridor. A number of the standards specifically included in the Explanation of Policies applicable to Policy IK appear to �•* be appropriately addressed by the proposed construction. As noted, the proposal includes provision for off-street parking with appropriate landscaping (standard "i"). Policy IK also contemplates the promotion of commercially beneficial, non-automotive, business operations along the Route 9 corridor. The proposal would place well-designed office space at a site that is currently deteriorated and underutilized (standard "d") and would, thus "have the potential to improve the existing economic base of the community" (standard "f'). The visual improvements for Route 9 promised by the Applicant's plans and the promotion of appropriate non-automotive business use in the area were felt by the Committee to meet the goals of Policy IK and Policy 25B, and the proposal was, accordingly, determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The Committee, however, was conscious of potential traffic concerns with respect to ingress to and egress from the Site and requests that the Planning Board exercise the utmost vigilance in overseeing these elements of the final Site plan. The Committee has also recommended that the Applicant consider the addition of appropriate decorative elements in the retaining wall at the rear of the Site to minimize any potentially adverse visual impact that might be caused by a large of expanse of cement. Possible alternatives include attractive vegetation growing out of the wall or design features in the cement. Richard D. Weiss, Chai Chairman �RECEIVED JAN 1 4 2003 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Installation of Wireless Communication Facility at 28 Beekman Avenue (Village Hall) The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on January 8, 2003, a proposal by Nextel of New York, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Communications (the "Applicant") for the co-location of a public utility wireless communication facility (the "Facility") atop Village Hall, at 28 Beekman Avenue in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. (The 28 Beekman Avenue site is hereinafter referred to as "Village Hall" and the Village of Sleepy Hollow is hereinafter referred to as the "Village"). The proposal was presented by Robert Cordioso, Esq. of the law firm of Snyder & Snyder, LLP, counsel for the Applicant. The Committee unanimously found the proposal consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP). The Proposal The Facility would consist of a panel of antennas that would be affixed above the roofline of Village Hall. The antennas would be camouflaged by a brick structure that would appear, to an observer, as an additional chimney (similar in style to the false chimneys currently standing at each end of the Village Hall roof). Related equipment would not be visible to the public. The Facility would be co-located with the antenna array previously proposed by New York SMS A Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon") for the Village Hall rooftop. The Verizon proposal had been reviewed by the Committee at its meeting on September 4, 2002 and found to be consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. The Verizon antennas have since been approved by the Village. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The nine identified scenic landscape subunits include the Upper and Lower Village, and the twenty-three identified viewsheds of local importance include Beekman Avenue at the intersection with U.S. Route 9.] The Committee concluded that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 25B. At the time of its consideration of the Verizon proposal described above, the Committee had recognized that Village Hall is an attractive building, located at a highly visible site near the intersection of �Route 9 and Beekman Avenue. The Committee had also addressed the potentially adverse visual impact on this area from the addition of a highly visible antenna array above the roofline. Although the Committee had found at its September 4 meeting that, taking account of all applicable factors, the Verizon proposal would, on balance, be consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP, the Committee also found that the adverse visual impact of the Verizon array made Verizon's proposal inconsistent with Policy 25B. The Nextel proposal as initially submitted to the Committee by the Applicant would have added twelve antennas to the Village Hall roof, eight of which would have been mounted so as to extend above the roofline. Some members of the Committee, in reviewing that version of the proposal had been concerned (for the reasons articulated above as to the Verizon antennas) about the cumulative visual impact resulting from the addition the Nextel antenna array to the approved Verizon antennas. However, Nextel has revised its submission and its new proposal includes the brick-faced chimney-like structure described above. The Committee felt that this feature would mask the antennas and would effectively eliminate the undesirable visual impact of the initial Nextel submission. Thus, the Committee unanimously concluded that the proposal, as modified, would be consistent with Policy 25B and with the goals and policies of the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2003 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_2003-01-08.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2003 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003 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/e6b0a225764c96b75e3c271674311f53.pdf c3893a589574d8cda6d90733fcd15f13 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED January 7, 2004 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Donald Stever George Lence Absent: Karin Adir Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of September 2003 meeting 2) Zegarelli Holdings 1) Minutes of September 2003 meeting The minutes from the September 2003 meeting were reviewed. Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Zegarelli Holding John Hughes is representing this application. He stated that the site is 3.2 acres and is currently a 5-lot sub-division. He stated that the applicants want to reduce the number of lots from five (5) to four (4). He stated that the property has been in the Zegarelli family for over 50 years. He stated that the family wants to divide the property equally among the four children. John Hughes stated that there is not desire to build on the lots in the near future. He stated that the lots are currently zoning compliant and will remain zoning compliant. Don Stever stated that the allowable density would be reduces and he feels that the application is consistent with the LWRP. The Chair stated that the applicant could choose to build five (5) houses on this site. He referred to Policy 5(b) regarding increasing rural open space characteristics. �It was unanimous that this application is consistent with the LWRP (4-0). Doug Maass made a motion to adjourn. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 8:26 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, January 7, 2004 2 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2004 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_2004-01-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 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/58a97126f1d645079bb324bf4bfa0146.pdf 389cd8ae7ca7de5e0e8ff787f686e40c PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED March 3, 2004 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Donald Stever George Lence Karin Adir Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Absent: None Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect) Nicholas Ward-Willis (Keane & Beane/ Village Attorney) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of January 2004 meeting 2) Pocantico Homes, lot 5 3) Fremont House 1) Minutes of January 2004 meeting The minutes from the January 2004 meeting were reviewed. George Lence made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). 2) Pocantico Homes, lot 5 John Dolan is the representing the applicant. He introduced John Slaker (Landscape Architect) and John Nemeth (Project Manager). John Dolan summarized the Architectural Review Board approval. He stated that the Board requested some architectural changes. John Slaker stated that the landscape changes were made based on comments regarding the landscaping along County House Road. He stated that more deciduous trees were �added. He also stated that lot 5 (house 4a) was lowered by a total of 4-feet to address the massing concerns expressed by the Architectural Review Board. There was an open discussion on why this matter was before the Waterfront Advisory Committee. It was decided that the general policy involves views of the Hudson River. Ralph Gunderman questioned the approval of the house on lot 8. Sean McCarthy responded that the scale and massing of the house on lot 8 was not realized until the house was built. He stated that this was the first house built on the site. The Chair stated that the existing landscape buffer was supposed to be maintained. He expressed his approval in the current efforts to restore the buffer. The Chair stated that some advice was given to the applicant regarding the landscaping. The Committee unanimously agreed that the house on lot 5 is not within their jurisdiction. The Chair allowed the public to speak. Art McKinley (18 Kingsland Ave) stated that the houses on the site are too big. 3) Fremont House Don Stever made a motion to enter executive session. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). The Committee entered executive session at 8:28 pm. The Committee resumed their meeting at 8:43 pm. No action was taken. The Chair noted that the applicant was not present at the meeting but was informed of the opportunity to present new information to the Committee. Sean McCarthy showed the original (dated 04/07/03) and revised (dated 08/28/03) plans for the Pokahoe Drive and Hemlock Drive lots. The Chair asked about the wetlands issues before the Planning Board. Nick Ward-Willis responded that the issues are still open. He stated that the applicant has not submitted any new information to the Planning Board. Sean McCarthy stated that some of the issues that the Architectural Review Board reviewed included: 1) the size of the houses APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 3, 2004 2 �2) materials proposed 3) mass of the houses 4) comparisons to other houses in the community Sean McCarthy discussed the changes to the lot coverage, height, and materials between the original and revised plans. He stated that the proposed driveways were also reduced. It was agreed that Policy 23 is applicable concerning the historical site. Ralph Gunderman stated that he would like to see some elevation views. He also stated that he would like to see views that would compare the proposed houses to the Fremont House. Doug Maass stated that the proposed house is large in comparison to other homes in the community. The Chair asked how the revised drawings address the inconsistency findings previously made by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. It was agreed that the revised drawings do not address the inconsistency findings. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant has been given a fair chance but failed to present new material to the Committee and has failed to respond to the Committee’s previous comments. The Chair allowed the public to speak. Len Andrews (11 Pokahoe Drive) addressed the Planning Board’s wetlands review. He stated that the required submissions have not been made. He also stated that the proposed houses are massive in comparison to the community. He stated that houses in the area are typically less than 3000 square feet. He submitted a letter to the Committee (see attached). Dennis Catlin (4 Pokahoe Drive) stated that he is concerned with the mass of the proposed houses. Art McKinley (18 Kingsland Ave) spoke about the recent history of the Fremont House. He stated that there are many errors in the applicant’s presentation and data submitted. Ralph Gunderman made a motion that since the applicant has not made any efforts to address the Committee’s original findings, the Committee would not issue new findings. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). There was an open discussion on whether or not the Committee should provide comments to the applicant. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 3, 2004 3 �Ralph Gunderman made the motion that the applicant propose houses that would be no larger than 50% of the Fremont House in terms of footprint and habitable space. Doug Maass seconded. It did not pass by a 3-3 vote (Gunderman, Maass, Lence voted in favor) (Stever abstained). It was agreed that the Committee could not provide any suggestions to the applicant since the applicant has failed to provide any new information. The Chair stated that the plans of 04/07/03 and 08/28/03 were reviewed and no new findings would be written based on the lack of new information submitted by the applicant. Don Stever made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 9:50 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 3, 2004 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-2004 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_2004-03-03.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 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/ea1434339a668e9bfb076a2e1c2dccc8.pdf bc181622293340f5e1c19ca9808baf77 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED September 1, 2004 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Absent: Donald Stever George Lence Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Village Building Inspector) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of March 2004 meeting 2) Phelps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project 1) Minutes of March 2004 meeting The minutes from the March 2004 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. 2) Phelps Memorial Hospital Expansion Project - Andy Tung is the project planner and is representing this application along with Phelps Hospital CEO, Keith Safian and Phelps Hospital Counsel, Steve Silverberg. Andy Tung spoke about the master planning of Phelps Hospital. He spoke about the site plan application with the Planning Board. Andy Tung described the NYS DOT property purchase in detail. He stated that Phelps has filed appropriate papers to have the newly acquired parcel annexed from Mt. Pleasant to the Sleepy Hollow. Andy Tung spoke about the existing structures and the proposed new structures. He spoke about the site improvements (parking, relocated Emergency Room entrance, etc.) �Ralph Gunderman asked if there were any visuals to further illustrate the parking lot on the North side. He stated that he was concerned with the visual impacts by the proposed removal of the existing birms that are adjacent to Rockwood Road. Keith Safian responded that the parking use would be extended to visitors of the State Park. Ralph Gunderman asked about the architectural features of the proposed medical building. Andy Tung showed a rendering of the proposed medical building. He discussed some of the architectural features. The Chair asked if the proposed rentable space would be taxed. Keith Safian responded yes. Ralph Gunderman asked about the approximate percentage that would be taxed. Keith Safian responded about 30-40%. He stated that the space would be rented to medical professionals. The Chair asked if the existing sewage system could handle the increased usage. Andy Tung responded that the expansion of Phelps was factored into the Kendal-onHudson designs. Doug Maass asked if the boilers and electrical service need to be increased based on the proposed demand. Keith Safian responded that the boilers were upgraded several years ago. He also stated that all of the plumbing fixtures have been recently upgraded to reduce the water usage and the impacts to the sewage systems. Andy Tung spoke about the underground utility plan. He also discussed the proposed storm water modifications. The Committee reviewed the following policies in detail: Policy 5 The Chair asked if the new buildings would require additional Village services (fire, police, etc). Keith Safian responded that the hospital’s fire alarm system would be completely upgraded. He stated that he did not anticipate needing any additional Village services. Andy Tung stated that the entire project would be completed within 30-36 months. Policy 5(a) Policy 8 APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 1, 2004 2 �Policy 18 The Chair asked if these items were addressed in SEQRA and site plan review process. Andy Tung responded yes. Policy 18(a) Policy 18(b) Policy 18(c) Policy 19 The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 19 was not applicable to this application. Policy 19(d) Policy 21(d) Policy 25(b) Policy 32(a) Policy 33 Policy 37 Policy 41 Policy 41 (a) Policy 43 The Chair stated that since no policies were found to be inconsistent, the overall project is consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously (5-0). Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:15 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 1, 2004 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2004 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_2004-09-01.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 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