2 25 3689 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/03483d5d23fe6228e9ed92f409766ff0.pdf 6bba46002fe8c4df5c12b9c4f3dc640b PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 4,2003 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 Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Doug Maass Absent: Donald Stever Karin Adir George Lence Also Present: Angie Kahn (Saccardi & Schifi/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Minutes of January 2003 meeting Omnipoint Communications Dan Beaton/309 North Washington Street Peter Zegarelli/Ridge Street Kennedy/Pokahoe Drive + Hemlock Drive - vacant lots Parking for Committee members 1) Minutes of January 2003 meeting The minutes from the January 2003 meeting were not reviewed. The Chair asked if the minutes could be re-distributed to the Board members. 2) Omnipoint Noelle Kinsch is representing Omnipoint. She summarized the Planning Board application to date. The Chair stated that he would like to know the specific changes from the original application. Noelle Kinsch summarized the proposed changes. She stated that the equipment cabinets have been moved to the rear. She stated that there are also changes in cabling and antennas. �The Chair asked if the antennas were higher. Noelle Kinsch responded no. She reviewed the previous proposal using computer simulations. The Chair stated that the only impact is from Route 9. Ralph Gunderman asked why the antennas needed to be above the chimney. Noelle Kinsch responded that there is a height requirement based on the terrain of Sleepy Hollow. The Chair asked if there was any effective way to screen the antennas. Noelle Kinsch responded no. Ralph Gunderman stated that it could increase the size of the structure. Noelle Kinsch spoke about the benefits of co-located sites. The Chair noted the receipt of the Draft Generic EIS from the Planning Board. Raplh Gunderman stated that Village Hall is already a communication site. He stated that he would not find this application inconsistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass asked about the antennas on the eastside. Noelle Kinsch stated that there are no antennas on the eastside. Terance McGlynn stated that the benefits outweigh the impact. Doug Maass agreed that it was consistent with the LWRP. It was determined that the application was consistent by a vote of 3-1 (Chair). 3) Dan Beaton Jeffrey Shumedja is representing this application along with Dan Beaton. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that this application is for a 2-lot sub-division. He stated that both lots are conforming to the Village Zoning Code. He also stated that the new lot would have 11 parking spaces. There was an open discussion on parking spaces and the proposed easements. The Chair asked if the lot was visible from Route 9. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that it will be visible in the wintertime. The Chair asked why are 11 spaces proposed for a 2-family residence. Dan Beaton responded that parking would be provided for the 5-family residence next door. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4,2003 �The Chair stated that policy l(k) applies to this application. It was determined that this application was consistent with the LWRP by a 4-0 vote. 4) Peter Zegarelli/Ridge Street Lawrence Borges is the project architect and is representing this application. He stated that this property is part of the Douglas Hill sub-division and was already approved by the Architectural Review Board. He summarized the proposed project. The Chair stated that new homes are now under Waterfront Advisory Committee jurisdiction. There was an open discussion on which policies apply to this application. It was agreed that policy 5(b) does apply and that policies 23, 23(a), 23(b), 25, and 25(a) do not apply. The Chair asked what surrounds this property. Lawrence Borges spoke about the house and the surrounding land and elevations. He also spoke about the appearance of the house. The Chair asked if water, sewer, etc are available. Lawrence Borges responded that electric would be installed underground, water would be provided from Ridge Street and that sewer is available in the area. Doug Maass asked about the zoning. Lawrence Borges responded that it is in an R-3 district. It was determined that the application is consistent with the LWRP by a 4-0 vote. 5) Kennedv/Pokahoe Drive + Kennedy/Hemlock Drive - vacant lots Dennis Rubich is the project architect and is representing this application. He spoke about the proposed construction of (2) one-family houses. There was an open discussion on the location of each house on the sub-division. There was an open discussion on the wetlands on the site. Angie Kahn stated that the Planning Board has requested information of the wetlands in the area. The Chair asked for a copy of the report. Angie Kahn agreed. There was an open discussion on the public's view from the property and from the site. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4,2003 3 �Doug Maass asked about the Village's opinion on two curb cuts. Angie Kahn responded that she would find out. The Chair stated that policy 5(b) was not relevant but policies 23 and 25 (a) were relevant to this application. The Chair asked how the applicant would mitigate the views from the Fremont House. Richard Blancato spoke about the location of the house on the lots. He spoke about the Architectural Review Board application to date. The Chair stated that the burden is on the applicant to comply with the LWRP. He asked the applicant how they would mitigate the view from the Fremont House since it is a historic landmark. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant would not be touching the historic landmark. Ralph Gunderman read policy 23 on historic resources. Richard Blancato stated that the proposed houses are in scale with the neighborhood. Doug Maass stated that the houses in the neighborhood are not as large as the houses proposed in this application. There was an open discussion on the size of the neighboring houses and lots. The Chair allowed public comments. Leonard Andrews (11 Pokahoe Drive) spoke. He read a letter to the Board opposing the application. Art McKinley (18 Kingsland Ave) spoke. He is the President of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. He spoke about the concerns with the proposed development. He stated that no house in Sleepy Hollow Manor has a 3-car garage. He asked about the McMansion's Law and the size of the proposed developments. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public comment period. Richard Blancato stated that the application complies with the McMansion's Law. He stated that the sub-division was legal and the building lots are legal. He stated that the only issues are the architectural features of the houses. Doug Maass spoke about the impact to trees. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant would go before the Tree Commission also. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4,2003 4 �Doug Maass referred to policy 25(b). He stated that the application was inconsistent with trees and several issues of policy 25(b). He stated that he would like to see both houses and the Fremont house on one plan. He also stated that the plans were not sealed by the architect/engineer. He also referred to the Coastal Assessment Form regarding storm water and wetlands. Richard Blancato responded that he disagreed with the Coastal Assessment Form comments. The Committee reviewed each policy separately. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is inconsistent with policy 23 of the LWRP (4-0). The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is inconsistent with policy 23 (a) oftheLWRP(4-0). The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is inconsistent with policy 25 of the LWRP (4-0). The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is inconsistent with policy 25 (a) of the LWRP (4-0). It was also agreed that the vote would apply to both applications. 6) Parking for Committee members The Chair read a letter from George Tanner regarding available parking for Board members for meetings. He stated that a request should be sent to his attention at Village Hall if interested. Doug Maass made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:54 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DeiVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4,2003 5 �RECEIVED * Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 JUN 1 7 MM VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Installation of Wireless Communication Facilities at 28 Beekman Avenue (Village Hall) The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 4, 2003, a proposal by Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (the "Applicant") for the installation of wireless communication facilities (the "Facilities") 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 Noelle M. Kinsch, Esq. of the law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, LLP, counsel for the Applicant. Ms. Kinsch responded to the Committee's questions. Four members of the Committee, comprising a quorum, were present at the meeting. The Committee, by a vote of three to one, found the proposal consistent with the LWRP. The Proposal The Facility would consist of a number of antenna panels that would be affixed above the roofline at the top of Village Hall. Related equipment would be placed behind Village Hall 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 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, in considering the consistency of the proposal with Policy 25B noted that an array of antennas had previously been approved and had been installed by Verizon Wireless at the top of Village Hall. The Committee considered that, while the proliferation of antennas could, at some point, create an excessive imposition upon the protected viewshed, but concluded that the addition of the proposed Omnipoint antennas to the rooftop site would not present a significant additional burden for the viewshed. The Committee also took note of the fact that the Facilities as originally proposed had been modified to place the support equipment �/ * cabinet out of sight, behind Village Hall. Ms. Kinsch further advised the Committee that another wireless facility previously-approved for the Village Hall site, that of Nextel Communications, was not being implemented, so that Applicant's Facilities would be the second, not the third, antenna array at the Village Hall location. The Committee, in reaching its findings, took into account the public need for reliable wireless communications service and the economic benefit to the Village that would be derived from the project in the form of rental income. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of three to one, that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 25B. �06 17 2003 13:07 FAX 203 552 2869 CR0MPT0M COFP LAW DEPT 2)002 RECEIVED JUN 1 7 2003 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 26 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York. 10801 VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Residential Construction ~ Hemlock Drive and Pokahoe Drive The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee*') considered, at its meeting on June 4,2003, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the construction of two single family residences, one on Hemlock Drive and one on Pokahoe Drive, in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Sites"). The applicant for the Proposal is James Kennedy Construction Co. Inc. ("Applicant"). Mr. Dennis Rubich, architect for the proposed project, and Richard Blancato, Esq., counsel for the Applicant, presented the Proposal and responded to questions from the Committee. Four members of the Committee, comprising a quorum, were present at the meeting. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed construction would be inconsistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof applicable to the Proposal. Although the two Sites were submitted to the Committee as separate applications, Mr. Blancato consented to the consideration of the two Sites at the same time. The Committee's findings were applicable to both Sites. The Proposal The Sites consist of one lot of 15,928 square feet with frontage on Hemlock Drive and one lot of 16,985 square feet with frontage on. Pokahoe Drive. Both lots are zoned R-2A. The Applicant wishes to construct a single-family residence consisting of 3,145 square feet on the Hemlock Drive Sice and a single-family residence consisting of 3,388 square feet on the Pokahoe Drive Site. Both Sites are adjacent to Pokahoe (also known as Fremont House), the home of Civil War General John Charles Fremont, which has been identified in the LWRP as a resource "of significance in the history, archaeology or culture of the Village." Consistency Findings Since the Proposal consists of the construction of single family residences, the Committee's review is, under the Consistency Review Law (as amended) implementing the LWRP, limited to actions that "will or may have an effect on the policy standards and conditions set forth in LWRP Policies 5B, 23,23A, 23B, 25 or 25A " The Committee found that all of these polices would be applicable to the Proposal other than Policies 5B and 23A. 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 COMMUNITIES OR THE NATION. �OR 17 2005 13:07 FAX 203 552 2869 CROMPTOM COFP LAW DEPT 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 "[ajmong the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those structures or areas which are of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance, and mandates protection including "concern not just with specific sites, but with areas of significance, and with the area around specific sites (Explanation of Policies). 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.). Fremont House is identified in the LWRP Section II Inventory and Analysis (page 11-58) as being listed on the Westchester County Inventory of Historic Places and on the State and National Registers of Historic places and, an previously noted, is among the ''resources*' specifically listed on the LWRP's roster of "structures of significance in the history, architecture of culture of the Village.*' The LWRP cites factors that would constitute adverse changes to structures covered by the LWRP policies and provides standards that are to be applied in considering 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'* (Explanation of Policies). Among the activities cited by the Explanation of Policies as a "significant adverse change" is the following: "All proposed action within the 500 feet of the perimeter of the property boundary of the historic, architectural, cultural, or archaeological resource and all actions within an historic district than would be incompatible with the objective of preserving the quality and integrity of the resource" (Id). The Committee noted that the side yard set backs for the two proposed homes would place them only ten feet away from the property boundary for Fremont House and only a very short additional distance from Fremont House itself. The size and placement of the proposed structures would necessarily have a significant, and adverse, impact on the character of the Fremont House resource. Although the Committee recognizes that Fremont House has undergone significant structural changes since it served as General Fremont's residence, it has recently undergone a significant renovation by its new owners. While this renovation does not purport to be a faithful recreation of the portions of the original structure that were lost several decades ago, it does restore some original elements, and pays sympathetic homage to other portions, of the original stone mansion. It should also be noted that at the time the LWRP identified Fremont House as a significant Village resource, the mansion had already undergone major structural modification and appeared less like the original Fremont residence than it does following the recent renovations. The Comrmttee did not receive, and therefore did not review, details as to the proposed design, material, composition, line, color, texture, detail or landscaping of the proposed residential structures (elements cited in the above-referenced Explanation of Policies as relevant 2 �08 17 2003 13 08 FAX 203 352 2869 CR0MPT0M CORP LAW DEPT 2)004 to the analysis of compatibility of the proposed action with the protected resource), but the Committee did observe that the addition of the new structures would, because of their proposed architectural style, scale, proportion, mass and setback, introduce a jarring dissonance with the Fremont House resource. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously concluded chat the Proposal not only would do nothing to protect, enhance, restore or preserve Fremont House, but that it would significantly, permanently and adversely affect it, and that the damage to this Village resource made the Proposal 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 2SA - 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. The Committee noted that the two proposed residences would not enhance, but would rather impair, views of the Hudson River from Hemlock Drive and Pokahoe Drive, publicly owned property. (The Committee did observe, however, that they might not be visiblefromthe Hudson River.) There is currently a desirable Hudson River view from Hemlock Drive that would be lost after installation of the residence at the Hemlock Drive Site. There is also a potential river view from Pokahoe Drive that could be improved by the pruning of overgrown shrubbery (an improvement that, the Committee pointed out, the Village has the power to mandate). The Explanation of Policies applicable to Polices 25, 25A and 25B emphasizes that the LWRP policies contemplate that "action will be taken so as to protect, restore or enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. The Explanation of Policies specifies, as an activity "which could impair or further degrade scenic quality: "the addition of structures which because of their 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." This Explanation of Policies notes a number of "(s]tandards for minimizing scenic impairment and [promoting] visual access." These include: "incorporating sound, existing structures (especially historic buildings and structures) into the overall development scheme; "using appropriate scales, forms, and materials to ensure that buildings and other structures are compatible with and add interest to the landscape; 3 �una 1 3 : 0 9 FAX 2ft3 5 5 2 2889 CROMPTOM CORP LA* DEPT &005 "any new construction or activities in the Village must be undertaken so as not to obstruct view identified in Policy 256. Particular attention must be paid to view from public parks and public rights of way, "construction within the identified viewsheds and scenic corridors must be in a manner that will not obstruct the view and identified important elements of that view to the maximum extent practicable ..." The Proposal appears inconsistent with these standards in numerous respects. Although Fremont House is not part of the development area for the proposed action, it is adjacent to the construction Sites. The Proposal appeared to the Committee to have the following defects: The proposed structures, due to size, scale and location, are inhospitable to the integrity of the Fremont House historic site and incompatible with a landscape that consists of a historic mansion in an unobstructed setting, and the proposed residences clearly obstruct protectedriverviews. All views of the Hudson River from public property are generally protected by Policy 25A and the river viewsheds from Pokahoe Drive are, in addition, specifically identified in Policy 25B (referred to in the Explanation of Policies as an important point of visual access). Although views of the Hudson from Hemlock Drive are not similarly referenced in the Explanation of Policies, the views across the Hemlock Drive Site are not dissimilar to those from Pokahoe Drive and are no less entitled to the protection of river views mandated by Policy 25A. Thus the Committee found that the Proposal was inconsistent with Policy 25A Of similar importance was the Committee's recognition that Fremont House in its riverfront setting is clearly identifiable as a man-made resource which contributes to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. As such this the Committee concluded that this resource would neither be protected, enhanced nor restored by the proposed construction of large structures on either side of it Accordingly the Committee determined that the Proposal was inconsistent with Policy 25. For the foregoing reasons, the Committee unanimously found that the Proposal is inconsistent with Policies 23,23B, 25 and 25A. 'Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 4 �r —1VED JU* 1 7 2003 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 Vli^w-*. CLERI CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Subdivision at 309 North Washington Street At its meeting on June 4,2003, the Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed a proposal by Mr. Dan Beaton (the "Applicant") for the subdivision of a single lot located at 309 North Washington Street in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Site") and the construction of a two-family house on the new lot so created. The Committee reviewed Mr. Beaton's plans and discussed the project with him, and concluded that the subdivision and construction of the new residential structure would not be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"). Four members of the Committee, comprising a quorum, were present at the meeting. The Proposal The Site is located at the northern end of North Washington Street and subdivision would create a new "flagpole lot" that would include eleven parking spaces to accommodate the parking needs of the new residence and of a multifamily residence occupying a contiguous property. The upper portion of the new residential structure would be partially visible from Route 9, particularly during seasons when the trees are not in leaf. 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. 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 considered the size and location of the proposed new structure and concluded that the degree of its visibility from Route 9 was not significant and that, to the extent it would be visible from the Route 9 corridor, the structure would blend with surrounding residences. The Explanation of Policies applicable to Policy IK includes standard "e" ('The �action must lead to development which is compatible with the character of the area with consideration given to scale, architectural style, density, and intensity of use") and standard "i" ("Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for all uses). North Washington Street includes numerous multifamiiy dwellings and the style and materials for the proposed new residence have been selected to echo the style and materials of the residence currently on the Site. The Applicant advised the Committee that building height was consistent with surrounding structures and with applicable zoning requirements as required by standard "k" ("In order to foster and maintain the small scale historic character of the Village, all new developments and structures shall not exceed the building heights of surrounding structures and that allowed by the zoning district where such use is proposed"). Moreover, the Applicant is providing more parking spaces than are required by Village zoning for the new two-family home, thus providing some relief from the strained parking resources of North Washington Street. Thus, it did not appear to the Committee that the proposed subdivision would adversely affect the Route 9 corridor and its scenic viewshed. The Committee unanimously found that the proposal was not inconsistent with Policies IK and 25B. �r Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 " ~EIVED •WN t 7 2003 Vll...„oe CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Residential Construction - Ridge Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") considered, at its meeting on June 4, 2003, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the construction of a single family residence on Ridge Street in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. The applicants for the Proposal are Peter and Carol Zegarelli. Mr. Lawrence Borges, architect for the proposed project, presented the Proposal and he and Mr. Zegarelli responded to questions from the Committee. Four members of the Committee, comprising a quorum, were present at the meeting. The Committee Unanimously concluded that the proposed construction 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 78,818 square feet of unimproved land at the top of Ridge Street. It is zoned R-3. The Applicant wishes to construct a single-family residence at the site for personal use. Consistency Findings Since the proposed project consists of the construction of a single family residence, the Committee's review is, under the Consistency Review Law (as amended) implementing the LWRP, limited to actions that "will or may have an effect on the policy standards and conditions set forth in LWRP Policies 5B, 23, 23A, 23B, 25 or 25A." The Committee noted that the only applicable LWRP Policy that could be affected by the proposed construction was Policy 5B. Policy 5B - RETAIN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL, AND OPEN SPACE CHARACTER IN THOSE AREAS OF THE VILLAGE EAST OF THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT The applicable Explanation of Policies applicable to Policy 5B generally includes the following development goals for the Village: "strengthen existing residential, industrial and commercial centers; "foster an orderly pattern of growth; "increase the productivity of existing public services and moderate the need to provide new public services in outlying areas; �"preserve open space in sufficient amounts" Messrs. Borges and Zegarelli outlined the existing infrastructure available to provide services to the site, and the Committee concluded that these resources appeared adequate so that the proposed construction would not place undue burdens on Village resources. The Committee also referred to the types of development projects and activities that are cited in the applicable Explanation of Policies as being outside the more restrictive development guidelines of Policy 5B. The Committee observed that the proposal seemed to qualify as "Development which, because of its isolated location and small scale, has little or no potential to generate and/or encourage further land development." Similarly, the Committee noted that the use of the site seemed to be consistent with the goal of Policy 5B to maintain the rural character of this part of the Village. The applicable Explanation of Policies includes the following notation, of particular relevance to this site: "To maintain the existing rural agricultural/residential and open space characteristics of the eastern portions of the Village, emphasis will be placed during project review on preserving open space, encouraging development to place in the more built-up areas of the Village and reusing existing building stock." The Committee observed that the use of a sizable building lot for the construction of one residence, rather than the use of the available land (and, perhaps, adjacent properties) for smaller lots and a greater number of homes, would tend to preserve the rural character of this portion of the Village. In addition, Mr. Borges emphasized that the style of architecture chosen for the site was selected with the express purpose of maintaining a rural feeling at this location. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously found that the proposed construction of the proposed single family home would not be inconsistent with Policy 5B. Cg AJ< y^— Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 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 Architectural Review Board 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_2003-06-04.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/1334ee9025f2fa5aeace834f5c6d03ad.pdf ce7c715136accd55f5eae0a0c934da49 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED September 3, 2003 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 Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Doug Maass Donald Stever Karin Adir George Lence Absent: None Also Present: Angie Kahn (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of January 2003 and June 2003 meetings 2) Ichabod’s Landing 3) Other business 1) Minutes of January 2003 and June 2003 meetings The minutes from the January 2003 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 6, change: “The Chair stated that this would apply to applicant effecting specific LWRP policies only.” To read: “The Chair stated that this would apply to applicant affecting specific LWRP policies only.” Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Gunderman absent). �The minutes from June 2003 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 3, change: “The Chair stated that new homes are now under Waterfront Advisory Committee jurisdiction.” To read: “The Chair stated that new homes impacting specific LWRP policies are now under Waterfront Advisory Committee jurisdiction.” On page 5, change: “He stated that a request should be sent to his attention at Village Hall if interested.” To read: “He stated that a request should be sent to George Tanner’s attention at Village Hall if interested.” Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Gunderman absent). 2) Ichabod’s Landing Bruce Lozito is representing this application along with Adam Wekstein. Bruce Lozito summarized some of the major changes from the October 2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting. He stated that changes were made to the proposed project based on input received from the Village Trustees. Bruce Lozito summarized the previous comments raised by the Waterfront Advisory Committee and summarized the original proposal. Some of the changes mentioned were concerning the reduction from 50 dwelling units to 44 units. He also stated that some of the retail units were eliminated. Bruce Lozito compared the architectural features between the original and revised proposals. He spoke about revisions to the access into “Horan’s Landing”. He also spoke about the compatibility to the GM site and the views from Beekman Avenue. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 3, 2003 2 �Ralph Gunderman asked about the number of 2-bedroom units and 3-bedroom units in both proposals. Bruce Lozito responded that the original proposal included 42 (forty-two) 2-bedroom units and 8 (eight) 3-bedroom units. The revised proposal includes 30 (thirty) 2-bedroom units and 14 (fourteen) 3-bedroom units. The Chair asked about the parking configuration. Bruce Lozito spoke about the available driveway and garage spaces and courtyard spaces. The Chair expressed concerns over the proposed garage/driveway parking uses. Doug Maass stated that he was impressed with the proposal. He stated that Policy 2A refers to access from a vessel. He stated that appropriate cleats and bollards should be added for additional support. Karin Adir stated that the proposal did not include trees on the esplanade. Bruce Lozito responded that the trees would be reviewed during the site plan approval process. The Chair stated that he is still concerned with the block effect of buildings from Beekman Avenue. He encouraged the applicant to break-up the façade. There was an open discussion on whether or not a consistency finding could be given tonight. It was decided that a consistency determination could be given at this meeting. The following policies were reviewed: Policy 1 Policy 1 (h) Policy 1 (j) Policy 2 Policy 2 (a) Policy 5 Policy 5 (a) Policy 7 Policy 7 (d) Policy 11 Policy 13 (a) Policy 13 (b) Policy 14 Policy 16 (a) Policy 16 (b) Policy 17 Policy 18 Policy 19 Policy 19 (c) APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 3, 2003 3 �Policy 19 (e) Policy 20 Policy 20 (a) Policy 21 Policy 22 Policy 25 (a) Policy 25 (b) Policy 30 Policy 33 Policy 37 It was unanimously agreed that the application complies with all of the above policies. 3) Other Business The Waterfront Advisory Committee reviewed the landscaping plan for the development. The Committee was concerned with the removal of the existing buffer on County House Road. The Committee agreed that there are considerable discrepancies between the site plan and the actual work being performed. The Committee will submit a letter to the Planning Board to enforce the approved site plan. Doug Maass made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 9:51 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 3, 2003 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 Architectural Review Board 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_2003-09-03.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 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/fc05b8c4e48bb39cd3b67f872118a33b.pdf 126fd6df7d8690c600aebb59ea298318 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED November 3, 2004 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:02 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Donald Stever George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Phil Zegarelli (Mayor, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) Minutes of March and September 2004 meetings Water Supply Improvement Project DEIS Larry Doyle Sleepy Hollow Designs 1) Minutes of March and September 2004 meetings The minutes from the March 2004 meeting were reviewed. Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The minutes from the September 2004 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Water Supply Improvement Project DEIS Mayor Zegarelli gave an overview of the Village Water Supply System. He stated that the Village is required to keep a one-day supply of water in storage for Village residents. He spoke about the existing storage tank located in the Rockefeller State Park. He stated that the current water storage tank holds 800,000 gallons. Mayor Zegarelli stated that as per Westchester County, the Village needs to develop more stored water facilities based on potential developments. He stated that the Village has spoken �to the Rockefeller family concerning some alternate locations for the Village’s proposed water storage tank expansion. Mayor Zegarelli stated that the Village needs to have the proposed tank at a similar elevation to the existing tank. He also stated that the plan must be in place prior to occupancy of the Ichabod’s Landing development. The Chair asked if the Committee is required at this time to prepare consistency findings for the park preserve property only or on the alternates as well. Dave Smith responded that the expansion of the existing water storage tank is the only item before the Committee. He stated that the Committee should only comment on the submitted DEIS. Dave Smith stated that the current storage capacity of 800,000 gallons would be expanded by 1.6 million gallons for a total volume of 2.42 million gallons. He stated that the needs of the GM site and the Phelps Hospital expansion along with the new Department of Health requirements are driving this expansion. He stated that the existing storage tank is currently about 6-feet above ground. He stated that the proposed tank would be 46-feet tall and would be 78-feet in diameter. He illustrated the visual impacts of the proposed tank via a rendered photo. He stated that the photo rendering does not include any landscaping, birms, etc. Ralph Gunderman asked about the alternative sites. Dave Smith reviewed some of the alternative sites. Don Stever recused himself from voting on this application. He elaborated on several issues. He stated that policy 7(e) is an issue for the Village according to the current proposal. There was an open discussion on how to possibly mitigate the visual impacts based on policy 7(e). Doug Maass asked about the size of the concrete pad required to accommodate a 78-foot diameter tank. Dave Smith responded that the pad would not be much larger than the tank. Since there were no further discussions or questions, this item was adjourned. No action was taken. 3) Larry Doyle Robert Barstow is the project architect. He is representing this application along with the owner, Larry Doyle. Robert Barstow spoke about the existing house and the parking area. He stated that the site APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 3, 2004 2 �lighting would be improved. He stated that a stone retaining wall would be constructed to accommodate the additional parking. He also stated that the existing curb cut would remain intact. Ralph Gunderman asked about the number of 6-inch caliber trees that are proposed to be removed. Larry Doyle responded that he did not know. He stated that the Tree Commission application was filed earlier today. Ralph Gunderman stated that he was concerned with the removal of the 18-inch caliber tree between spaces 4/5. He asked if the tree could be saved. Larry Doyle responded that he would like the extra spaces to address the neighbors concerns of parking on Bedford Road. Doug Maass asked if the parking area is level. Robert Barstow responded that the parking area is mostly level. The Chair stated that parts of policy 1 are applicable. Don Stever stated that the property is visible from Route 9 but the proposed changes are not. The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 1 and all of its sub-policies have been satisfied and that this application was consistent with the LWRP (6-0). 4) Sleepy Hollow Designs Robert Barstow is the representing this application. Robert Barstow showed photos of the current site and the surrounding properties. He discussed the proposed site plan. He discussed the proposed parking layout. Doug Maass asked if the Hudson River was visible from the street. Robert Barstow responded no. The Chair stated that Policy 1(i) was applicable. He referred to Map 4. Don Stever stated that he was concerned with the proposal having sufficient on-site parking. Robert Barstow responded that the proposed parking plan meets the Village Code requirements. The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 1 (i) has been satisfied and that this application was consistent with the LWRP (6-0). Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 9:38 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 3, 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_2004-11-03.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/663f18bda2df0d44469ef9f9995de545.pdf 20d13f3b46b42120c807f42113fb72ff PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE-APPROVED February 2, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:01 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Announcements: Dave Smith spoke about scheduling a joint meeting with the Planning Board to discuss the Lighthouse Landing application. It was agreed that February 17, 2005 at 7pm would be the date for the joint meeting. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Minutes of November 2004 meeting Mario Freire Mounco Construction & Development Corp. Anthony Marmo Other 1) Minutes of November 2004 meeting The minutes from the November 2004 meeting were reviewed. Doug Maass made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair requested that the Recording Secretary e-mail the minutes to the Committee members about a week prior to the meeting when the meetings are spaced far apart. 2) Mario Freire Sam Vieira is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. �Sam Vieira spoke about the proposed project. He stated that the two lots were merged due to an error at the closing. He spoke about the proposed alterations. He described the proposed parking layout and the required variances. The Chair asked about the scale of the proposed house to neighboring houses. Sam Vieira provided photos of other neighboring homes for comparison. Doug Maass asked if the parking lot could be restricted to passenger cars only. Sam Vieira responded that parking is proposed for tenants only. The Chair stated that the proposed construction does not apply to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). It was unanimously agreed that the Committee does not have jurisdiction over this application. 3) Mountco Construction & Development Corp. Ken Gentile is the Director of the North Tarrytown Housing Authority. He is representing this application along with Neil Conuck. Ken Gentile gave an overview of the housing needs in the Village. Neil Conuck showed the proposed structure via a rendered drawing. He stated that the proposed building is a 9-story building with a 2-story parking level underneath. He stated that the building would contain 65 affordable housing units and one 2-bedroom unit for the building superintendent. He spoke about the status of the NYS grant application. The Chair questioned whether the Committee could give final consistency findings since the plans are not complete. Neil Conuck stated that the general framework is set. He stated that the only outstanding issues are on the façade, parking flow, etc. He stated that the number of units would not change. Ralph Gunderman questioned the number of parking spaces taken away by the building and the number of parking spaces provided. Neil Conuck responded that there are 44 resident spaces on site and 3 parking spaces for the North Tarrytown Housing Authority staff. He stated that the College Arms have some allocated parking spaces as well. He stated that ½ -parking space/apartment is proposed. He stated that based on the parking calculations, 33 parking spaces are required and 81 parking spaces are proposed. Ralph Gunderman asked about the access to the 2nd floor parking level. Neil Conuck discussed the proposed parking lot access. The Chair asked about the impact of the river views from the College Arms. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 2, 2005 2 �Ken Gentile responded that there are no river views from the street level. He showed the location of the site on the Village map. Doug Maass asked why 66 units are proposed. Neil Conuck responded that the original plan had 75 units. He stated that due to Village concerns, the number was reduced. He stated that the number of dwelling units could not be reduced any further for the project to be economically viable. The Chair stated that LWRP policy 1(i) is applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed the policy. Ralph Gunderman stated that the new construction height should not exceed the height of surrounding buildings and the proposed structure meets that requirement. Sean McCarthy stated that this property is in the R-6 zoning district, which is the densest in the Village. Ralph Gunderman asked if there were any problems with water and sewer in the area. Sean McCarthy responded no. He stated that the proposed improvements to the reservoir would handle the increased demand. The Chair asked why a Coastal Assessment Form was not submitted. Sean McCarthy provided a copy to the Committee. Ken Gentile spoke about the need for affordable senior housing in Westchester County. George Lence asked if priority would be given to Sleepy Hollow residents. Neil Conuck responded that preference would be given to people on the waiting list and current occupants of Margotta Courts that would be moving over to the new development. He spoke about how some long-time residents have 2-bedroom units who no longer need the extra space. The Chair inquired about the vacancies that would be created at Margotta Courts. Ken Gentile responded that there are over 150 names on the current waiting list for a 2bedroom apartment. Doug Maass asked if this development would eliminate the need for senior housing at the GM site. Neil Conuck responded that he did not know. Policies 18, 18 (b) and 1 (i) were reviewed by the Committee. The Committee unanimously agreed that Policies 18, 18 (b) and 1 (i) have been satisfied and that this application was consistent with the LWRP (5-0). It was also stated that any noninterior material changes might requires the applicant to return to the Committee for a reevaluation of the proposal. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 2, 2005 3 �4) Anthony Marmo Anthony Marmo is the applicant and is representing this application. Anthony Marmo spoke about the proposed project. He stated that he needs additional storage for his business. He noted the location of the property on the Village map. He described the proposed changes via the submitted drawings. He stated that the existing garage would be demolished and a new larger garage would be constructed. He stated that the new garage would be double the footprint of the original. The Chair asked about the square footage of the existing garage. Anthony Marmo responded less than 1250 square feet. The Chair stated that under the expanded law, accessory structures do not fall within the jurisdiction of the LWRP. It was unanimously agreed that the Committee does not have jurisdiction over this application. 5) Other It was agreed that the Committee would remind other Village Boards to request specific LWRP policies guidance from the Committee. There was an open discussion on the recent Council of Committee meeting. Doug Maass summarized the meeting. The Lighthouse Landing DEIS was distributed to the Committee members. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:34 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, February 2, 2005 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2005-02-02.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b726b246864a9d7781931d433bfef8e3.pdf 7dc49ce019f84288f8ab8e19f94284e5 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED March 2, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:10 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Absent: Donald Stever Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting 2) Lighthouse Landing 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting The minutes from the February 2005 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. 2) Lighthouse Landing The Chair referred to Dave Smith. Dave Smith spoke about the sub-committee meetings. He discussed the recent traffic and transportation meeting. He spoke about some of the parking issues. The Chair asked if Beekman Avenue would be widened. Dave Smith spoke about a few of the design options. Jonathan Stein (Roseland) stated that some traffic options were discussed at the sub-committee meeting because the options can help the Village’s existing traffic flow. �Ralph Gunderman spoke about some of the traffic delay times that are listed in the DEIS. Jonathan Stein stated that he is not prepared to discuss the traffic calculations listed in the DEIS because the traffic consultant was not present. There was an open discussion on the build and no-build statistics. Mark Weingarten (Roseland’s zoning counsel) stated that the proposed traffic increase data used to calculate the traffic growth rate in the Village was 2%/year. Jonathan Stein stated that based on the data received from the Village’s and Roseland’s traffic consultants, the Village’s traffic growth over the last 14 years has been only 2% in total. The DEIS estimated a 20% growth over the next 10 years. The Chair referred to the public for comments. Jeffrey Anzavino (Scenic Hudson) summarized his letter (attached). Victor Tafur (Riverkeeper) commended the Village on the thoroughness of its LWRP. He noted three policies that apply to this application. They are policy 1(h), 21 (c) and 22 (a). He stated that policy 1(h) discussed water-dependent uses and there are no water-dependent uses in the DEIS. He referred to page 235 of the LWRP that discussed water-dependent recreational uses. There were no other public comments. The Chair stated that the most effective way to proceed with this application was to review each policy individually. Policy 1 The Committee reviewed policies 1, 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h), 1(i), 1(j) and 1(k). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 1, 1(a), 1(f), 1(g), and 1(h) were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(i), 1(j), and 1(k) were not applicable to this application. The Chair spoke about the reference of water related and water dependent uses. He stated that the proposed fishing pier is the only water-dependent use in the plan. Jonathan Stein spoke about how the parcel’s recreational use was view comprehensively. The Chair stated that he would like to see more water-dependent uses at the waterfront. Doug Maass strongly agreed. Jonathan Stein stated that the applicant would endorse other Village waterfront recreational uses. He stated that the plan is only a draft. He stated that the Village should make APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 2 �recommendations on potential uses and the applicant will respond. Ralph Gunderman noted inconsistency with policy 1(h). He stated that the proposal is too dense and does not keep with the existing character of the Village. Jonathan Stein stated that the proposal is based on the linkage study and the RF district zoning code. He stated that the analysis was done on the inner Village. He noted that the density of the inner Village is 15.6 units/acre and the proposal is 15.5 units/acre. He also stated that the density numbers do not include the large apartment buildings located in the inner Village. Ralph Gunderman stated that he would like to see a reduction in the scaling and massing. The Chair noted that although the exteriors are different, the buildings still give a massing effect. Jonathan Stein reviewed the overall plan. He stated that the building density proposed 36 acres of the 94 acres to be saved for open space. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 1, 1(a), 1(f) and 1(g) were consistent with the LWRP. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant should create a shuttle to run up and down Beekman Avenue. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 1(h) was not consistent with the LWRP. Policy 2 The Committee reviewed policies 2 and 2(a). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 2 and 2(a) were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 2 and 2(a) were not consistent with the LWRP. Jonathan Stein asked if the Committee approved of the fishing pier proposal. The Committee agreed that the pier should not be eliminated but that the applicant should provide more water-dependent recreational activities. Policy 3 The Committee reviewed policy 3. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 3 was not applicable to this application. Policy 4 The Committee reviewed policy 4. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 4 was not applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 3 �Policy 5 The Committee reviewed policies 5, 5(a) and 5(b). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 5 and 5(a) were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 5(b) was not applicable to this application. Ralph Gunderman thought that the proposal would benefit without the train station. He stated that shuttles to the Tarrytown and Philipse Manor train stations would help. Mark Weingarten stated that the proposed mixed-use is the least impacting use on traffic that could be developed. George Lence asked about the reference to “sufficient funding” for the train station. Jonathan Stein spoke about possible public and private funding sources. He stated that efforts to securing funding would proceed if Metro-North allows the train station to be built. He stated that Metro-North has not made a decision regarding the train station as of yet. George Lence asked when the development is expected to be fully occupied. Jonathan Stein responded that they expect phased occupancy starting in 2007 and being fully occupied by 2012. George Lence asked about water impacts based on the Village’s current reservoir capacity. Dave Smith spoke about the Westchester County requirement to increase the Village’s water storage capacity. He stated that the Village must be able to accommodate its current users. Jonathan Stein stated that the reservoir is only used for water storage. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 5 and 5(a) were not consistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass asked if there were any plans to increase the gas usage. Jim Derito (Divney, Tung, Schwalbe) responded no. Policy 6 The Committee reviewed policy 6. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 6 was not applicable to this application. Policy 7 The Committee reviewed policies 7, 7(a), 7(b), 7(c), 7(d) and 7(e). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 7, 7(a), 7(c) and 7(e) were not applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 7(b) and 7(d) were applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 4 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 7(b) and 7(d) were consistent with the LWRP. Policy 8 The Committee reviewed policies 8, 8(a) and 8(b). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 8 and 8(a) were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 8(b) was not applicable to this application. There was an open discussion on how decreasing the amount of impervious area would decrease the amount of pollutants. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 8 and 8(a) were consistent with the LWRP. Policy 9 The Committee reviewed policy 9. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 9 was applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that based on policy 1(h) and other general discussions regarding waterfront recreational uses, policy 9 was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Committee discussed the size and location of the proposed fishing pier. Ralph Gunderman recommended that the pier be as capacious as possible. There was an open discussion on the size of the proposed fishing pier. Policy 10 The Committee reviewed policy 10. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 10 was not applicable to this application. Policy 11 The Committee reviewed policy 11. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 11 was applicable to this application. Doug Maass asked about the elevations of the proposed structures. Jim Derito stated that there is a little differential between the Hudson River elevation and the elevation of the proposed structures. Doug Maass asked if basements are proposed. Jim Derito responded no. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 11 was consistent with the LWRP. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 5 �Policy 12 The Committee reviewed policy 12. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 12 was not applicable to this application. It was agreed by the Committee and the applicant that a special session would be held on March 15, 2005 at 7pm to continue the LWRP consistency review of this application. George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 10:32 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 2, 2005 6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2005-03-02.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/016bd76888d7d393fcf2a9b95bf85698.pdf 9dfc18d4d1a3c31fb740b236141b2339 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED March 15, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 7:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman George Lence Absent: None Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dwight Douglas (Village Administrator/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting 2) Lighthouse Landing 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting The minutes from the February 2005 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) (Lence, Adir not present). 2) Lighthouse Landing The Chair asked the applicant if there was any additional information to be presented. Jonathan Stein responded no. The Committee continued this application with the review of policy 13. Policy 13 The Committee reviewed policies 13, 13a, and 13b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13 was not applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed policy 13a. �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13a was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that additional reinforcement would be needed for the bulkhead. Andy Tung responded that it is generally in good condition. The Chair asked if the applicant would repair the bulkhead. Andy Tung responded yes. There was an open discussion on the life expectancy of the riprap for a new construction project. Don Stever responded that typical life expectancy is 30 years. Andy Tung showed photos from the DEIS indicating where riprap is proposed. The Committee agreed that policy 13a was conditionally consistent with this application. The Committee indicated that the applicant must make all necessary repairs. The Committee reviewed policy 13b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13b was applicable to this application. Jonathan Stein referred to public comments regarding having the proposed stairs treated for ice build-up. Dave Smith spoke about possibly providing a boathouse near Kingsland Point Park. He spoke about other water-dependent uses. Dwight Douglas stated that he would like to get the Committee’s recommendations for waterdependent uses. Don Stever stated that policy 13b is conditionally consistent based on what the applicant is proposing and how the applicant plans to protect the activity. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13b was conditionally consistent with this application. Policy 14 The Committee reviewed policy 14. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 14 was applicable to this application. Don Stever asked if the sloped streets would increase the potential for erosion. He also asked if the proposal would increase the flooding of the Pocantico River. He also asked about the calculations used for the 100-year flood. Andy Tung stated that the lowest structure was at an elevation of 11-feet. He stated that the freeboard used was 4-feet high. He stated that the 100-year flood elevations are at 7-feet high. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 14 was consistent with this application based on the proposed plan. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 2 �Policy 15 – The Committee reviewed policy 15. Doug Maass stated that although there is no proposed dredging, the applicant should consider dredging the area to make water-dependent uses more available. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 15 was not applicable to this application. Policy 16 The Committee reviewed policy 16. Doug Maass spoke about the Boating Infrastructure Grant (BIG). Jonathan Stein stated that if public funds become available, the applicant would return with necessary information. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 16 was not applicable to this application. Policy 17 The Committee reviewed policies 17 and 17a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17 was applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17 was conditionally consistent with this application. The Chair asked about non-structural measures proposed to prevent erosion. Andy Tung spoke about some of the measures proposed to minimize erosion in the Philipsburg Manor area. The Committee reviewed policy 17a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17a was applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17a was conditionally consistent with this application. Policy 18 The Committee reviewed policies 18, 18a, 18b, and 18c. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 3 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 18, 18a, 18b, and 18c were applicable to this application. Don Stever asked if this development would be a gated community. Jonathan Stein responded no. Ralph Gunderman stated that he was concerned with the proposed project and the proposed scale. He stated that he is also concerned with the traffic impacts. Mark Weingarten stated that the LWRP refers to new roads not existing roads. There was an open discussion on the interpretation of policy 18b. Jonathan Stein stated that the Committee should look at the entire package and not one negative issue. He stated that the positive issues should also be factored into the Committee overall decision. He stated that over 30 acres would be dedicated to public use. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 18 and 18a were consistent with this application. The Committee agreed that policy 18b was consistent with this application (6-1 Adir). The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 18c was consistent with this application since it had no negative impacts on any natural resources. Policy 19 – The Committee reviewed policies 19, 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d, 19e, and 19f. Don Stever stated that the public could walk along the water but could not access the water. Doug Maass stated that he was opposed to finding this application consistent with policy 19 based on the lack of water-dependent uses. The Chair stated that the applicant should look at each sub-policy individually. Mark Weingarten stated that the applicant is meeting with the Committee at this early stage to get feedback only. He stated that the applicant is not seeking approval at this time. The Committee agreed that policy 19 was consistent with this application (5-2 McGlynn, Maass). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 19a, 19b, 19c, and 19d were consistent with this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 19e, and 19f were not applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 4 �Policy 20 The Committee reviewed policies 20 and 20a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 20 and 20a were applicable to this application. Andy Tung stated that there is no publicly owned foreshore. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 20 and 20a were consistent with this application. Policy 21 – The Committee reviewed policies 21, 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 21, 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d were applicable to this application. Don Stever spoke about the public access facilities and water-dependent uses. The Committee agreed that policies 21 and 21a were consistent with this application (5-2 Maass, McGlynn). The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 21b was consistent with this application. The Committee agreed that policy 21c was consistent with this application (5-2 Maass, McGlynn). The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 21d was consistent with this application. Policy 22 The Committee reviewed policies 22 and 22a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 22 and 22a were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 22 and 22a were consistent with this application. Policy 23 The Committee reviewed policies 23, 23a, 23b, and 23c. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23 and 23a were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23b and 23c were not applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 5 �Don Stever stated that the lighthouse is a historic structure. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23 and 23a were consistent with this application. Policy 24 The Committee reviewed policy 24. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 24 was not applicable to this application. Policy 25 The Committee reviewed policies 25, 25a, and 25b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 25, 25a, and 25b were applicable to this application. There was an open discussion on the former GM plant and its scenic impact on the Hudson River views. Andy Tung showed two photos. The first photo was of the current GM site. The second photo was a rendering of the proposed development. Jonathan Stein reviewed the renderings of the development from the Hudson River. He spoke about the planned density and the relation to the Ichabod’s Landing site. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 25, 25a, and 25b were consistent with this application. Policy 26 The Committee reviewed policy 26. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 26 was not applicable to this application. Policy 27 – The Committee reviewed policy 27. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 27 was not applicable to this application. Policy 28 The Committee reviewed policy 28. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 6 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 28 was not applicable to this application. Policy 29 The Committee reviewed policy 29. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 29 was not applicable to this application. Policy 30 The Committee reviewed policy 30. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 30 was not applicable to this application. Policy 31 – The Committee reviewed policy 31. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 31 was not applicable to this application. Policy 32 The Committee reviewed policies 32 and 32a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32 was not applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32a was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that the applicant must comply with this policy since it is a NY State law. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32a was consistent with this application. Policy 33 – The Committee reviewed policy 33. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 33 was applicable to this application. Doug Maass asked if any storm water runoff east of the Metro North tracks would be directed into the Pocantico River. Andy Tung responded that all of the runoff would be directed into the Pocantico River. He stated that the pavement in the area would be removed. He spoke about the proposed storm water management plan in detail. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 33 was consistent with this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 7 �Policy 34 The Committee reviewed policies 34 and 34a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 34 and 34a were not applicable to this application. Policy 35 – The Committee reviewed policies 35, 35a, 35b, 35c, 35d, and 35e. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 35, 35a, 35b, 35c, 35d, and 35e were not applicable to this application. Policy 36 The Committee reviewed policy 36. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 36 was not applicable to this application. Policy 37 The Committee reviewed policy 37. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 37 was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that this policy is regulated by the NYSDEC SPDES permit. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 37 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 38 The Committee reviewed policy 38. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 38 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 39 – The Committee reviewed policy 39. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 39 was applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 8 �The Committee agreed that Policy 39 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Committee reviewed policy 39a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 39a was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 40 The Committee reviewed policies 40 and 40a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 40 and 40a were not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 41 – The Committee reviewed policies 41 and 41a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 41 and 41a were applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Committee agreed that policies 41 and 41a were consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 42 The Committee reviewed policy 42. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 42 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 43 The Committee reviewed policy 43. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 43 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 44 The Committee reviewed policy 44. There was an open discussion on whether or not to make an overall consistency finding with regards to the DEIS. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 9 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 44 was applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Don Stever stated that the Pocantico River area is a tidal wetland. He stated that the west side of the development would not affect the wetlands. He expressed concerns with the locations of the proposed Village DPW area near the Pocantico River wetlands. The Committee agreed that policy 44 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Chair summarized the policies that the Committee found inconsistent with this application. The policies were: Policies 1(h), 2, 2(a), 5, 5(a) Mark Weingarten stated that a recommendation is not needed at this time. Ralph Gunderman stated that the Committee should make an overall consistency finding on the Final EIS. He stated that a preliminary overall consistency finding on the Draft EIS seems inappropriate. The Chair stated that recommendations would provide guidance to the applicant. There was an open discussion on whether a formal recommendation should be made. Don Stever expressed concerns over a possible vote of inconsistent. He stated that he would rather see a recommendation of consistency with specific recommendations. Jonathan Stein stated that a recommendation is not required at this time. He summarized the DEIS process to date. He spoke about the linkage study and the exhaustive research effort that the applicant has done to prepare the DEIS. The open discussion on whether a formal recommendation should be made continued. The Chair made a motion to make a formal consistency finding. Terence McGlynn seconded. It was approved (6-1 Stever). George Lence stated that he saw more positive aspects than negative but the negatives are too big to overcome. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Terence McGlynn stated that the inconsistencies with the LWRP outweigh the consistencies. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 10 �The Chair made two general recommendations. He stated that the development needs additional water-dependent uses and that the density of the site needs to be decreased. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass complimented the applicant on the thoroughness of the proposal. He stated that not enough attention has been paid to the waterfront. He stated that he is concerned with the density and the height of the proposed structures. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. He recommended that the applicant add other water-dependent uses to the application. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant needs to address the bottleneck ingress/egress of the site. He also stated that the development needs to be reduced in scale. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Don Stever abstained from voting. He stated that the committee members are to keep the Village’s interests in mind. He stated that too much emphasis is being placed on waterdependent uses of the development. He expressed concern over the density of the site determining a vote of inconsistency with policy 5. The DEIS was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP by a vote of 6-0 (Stever abstained). The Chair stated that written findings would be provided. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 10:18 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 11 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2005-03-15.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/80160c18fed9adbc463fa369b7ff58ad.pdf 530ebc271233168343d0cce8744f6cfd PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED April 6, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Absent: George Lence Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of March 2, 2005 and March 15, 2005 meetings 2) Miller 1) Minutes of March 2, 2005 and March 15, 2005 meetings The minutes from the March 2, 2005 meeting were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). The minutes from the March 15, 2005 meeting were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Miller Markus Luck is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. Markus Luck stated that the pool is 16’x 8’. He stated that the site is covered by several large trees but only one tree is planned to be removed. He stated that the main concerns are the view shed, the potential construction erosion and post construction runoff. He stated that the original plan proposed a larger pool and a spa but the revised plan reduces the size of the pool and eliminates the spa. He stated that native vegetation would be used to stabilize the slope. He reviewed the planting plan. �The Chair stated that screening would have to be used. Markus Luck responded that the applicants would install screening to reduce the visual impacts of the retaining wall. Markus Luck spoke about the erosion during construction. He stated that a double silt fence would be used to control erosion. Don Stever asked for clarification on the silt fence. He asked if hay bales would be used. Markus Luck responded that a geo fabric would be used along with hay bales. Don Stever stated that the Village spent monies to dredge the pond and extra measures should be taken by the owners to protect it. Terrence McGlynn asked about the possibility of chlorinated water entering the lake. Markus Luck responded that the Village Engineer proposed a drywell to offset any spillage from usage or heavy rainfall. The Chair asked the applicant to explain the impacts to the wetlands specifically the substrate composition. Marcus Luck responded that the soil is bound to be compacted because of the construction. There was an open discussion on the sensitivity of the wetlands. Don Stever stated that the lake is at elevation 75-feet. He stated that the proposed location of the pool does not appear to be located on an active vegetative wetland. The Chair stated that if the wetlands are not impacted, then the application is not in the Committee’s jurisdiction. The Committee referred to the Village Architect. Sean McCarthy responded that the property is within 100-feet of a wetland. He stated that the proposed construction is within the 100-foot buffer. Don Stever stated that if the applicant were mitigating the impacts sufficiently, then it would be consistent. Doug Maass further added that the Building Department needs to ensure that the construction of the project not adversely affect the wetlands. Sean McCarthy stated that when a retaining wall is constructed on a steep wall, special attention is paid to the footings so that the wall is structurally sound. The Chair stated that building department must be satisfied with the construction. The Chair stated that three policies are applicable: Policies 7(a), 11, 29(e) APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 6, 2005 2 �Don Stever spoke about potential flood zones. He stated that the proposed storm water management plan must be robust enough to withstand floodwaters. The Chair stated that the proposed screening should be sufficient. Don Stever stated that screening should be included in the site plan. Doug Maass asked about policy 13 regarding erosion protection structures. The Committee agreed that policy 13 is not applicable. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There was none. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is consistent with the LWRP. Adjourned at 8:27 pm APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 6, 2005 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2005-04-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1c36ff67a122372cc5355bae4e075c33.pdf 0341f13c6e4a1384bb5720223eef862a PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED July 13, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Absent: George Lence Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Owen Wells (Saccardi & Schiff / Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Minutes of April 6, 2005 meeting Inner Village Zoning changes Kennedy Construction Corp. 300 North Broadway, LLC Russell – Terrace Close Other 1) Minutes of April 6, 2005 meeting The minutes from the April 6, 2005 meeting were reviewed. Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Terence McGlynn seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Inner Village Zoning changes Owen Wells summarized some of the proposed zoning changes. He spoke about the reasoning behind the proposed changes. He stated that based on recent building department applications that few properties were able to comply with the current zoning code. He spoke about the C-2 zoning district. He spoke about the revised mixed-use standards and Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) requirements that are proposed as part of the zoning changes. �The Chair stated that the language in the proposed zoning amendment is ambiguous. Owen Wells responded that the language would be clarified. There was an open discussion on the intent of the existing Village zoning code. Don Stever expressed concerns on the conversion of C-2 to R-4. He stated that the overall concept was intended to transition the new commercial district with the old commercial district. He stated that if commercial development would be eliminated from the lower portion of Beekman Avenue, it might more harmful than beneficial. Ralph Gunderman stated that Policy 1(i) mentions the central business district on Beekman Avenue. Don Stever stated that a barrier should not be placed between the commercial and residential districts on Beekman Avenue. There was an open discussion on allowing home profession use in the C-2 district. The Chair asked about the action that is before the Committee. Owen Wells responded that the Village Trustees are asking for recommendations. Don Stever stated that he has concerns about the conversion of the C-2 zone to an R-4 zone near the railroad. Ralph Gunderman read Policy 1(i) of the LWRP regarding the central business districts along Beekman Avenue. Don Stever stated that the development at the Riverfront would not be at the expense of the business district corridor. Terence McGlynn stated that Policy 1(g) notes commercial development on Beekman Avenue. Owen Wells spoke about the reasons behind the proposed zoning changes. He stated that the Trustees want to revitalize the core of the business district. Don Stever stated that Cortlandt Street should be re-zoned to place businesses on Beekman Avenue. The Committee unanimously agreed that since the information was received tonight, the Committee would not make a recommendation this evening. 3) Kennedy Construction, LLC Emilio Escaladas is representing this application. Emilio Escaladas spoke about the site layout. He spoke about the topology of the site and the steep drop in grade towards the rear of the house. He stated that the site plan has been modified APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 13, 2005 2 �to keep all construction activities out of the wetlands buffer. He spoke about the architectural features of the house. Don Stever stated that this application was referred to the Committee for the construction of a wall in the wetlands buffer. Emilio Escaladas responded that the previous designs included a stone stabilizing wall at the end of the disturbance area. He stated that the wall would stabilize the site and control drainage. He stated that all work within the buffer area including the proposed wall has been removed. Don Stever asked if the application was valid. Sean McCarthy responded that the applicant’s attorney wanted to proceed anyway. There was an open discussion on whether this application still required the Committee’s recommendations. Emilio Escaladas stated that the applicant wants to proceed with the Planning Board’s review. He also stated that a few trees are proposed to be removed. He stated that a fence would be installed at the buffer line and that the area would not be entered. Don Stever stated that the application should be sent back to the Planning Board. The Committee unanimously agreed that this application was not within their jurisdiction. 4) 300 North Broadway, LLC Kyle McGovern is representing this application along with Dan Beaton. Kyle McGovern summarized the application to date. He spoke about the Planning Board application and the proposed zoning variances sought. Dan Beaton spoke about the existing site. He spoke about the residential and commercial zones in the surrounding area. He spoke about the proposed home profession use of the property. He described the six home profession units and the two residential units. He spoke about architectural appearance of the structure. Dan Beaton spoke about the green space on the property. He spoke about the proposed parking for the residential units and the commercial units. He spoke about the proposed flow of traffic. Doug Maass asked if the parking lot would be constructed to permit only right-hand turns out of the parking lot. Dan Beaton responded that only a sign is proposed. Dan Beaton stated that the storm water management has not been finalized. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 13, 2005 3 �Don Stever asked where the application currently stands. Sean McCarthy responded that the application has a current application before the Planning Board and is appearing before the Zoning Board this month. There was an open discussion on the architectural features of the proposed structure. The Chair stated that Policy 1(k) and 25(b) are applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed Policy 1(k) The Chair read item (d) of Policy 1(k) regarding the deteriorated and underutilization of the site. He expressed some concerns on the scale of the proposed structure. Ralph Gunderman stated that the proposed structure is out-of-scale with the surrounding structures. Kyle McGovern stated that the commercial side is more out of line with other commercial properties on Route 9. Ralph Gunderman asked if any modifications to minimize the façade on Route 9 should be considered. Dan Beaton responded that the lower commercial level is below ground. He stated that the additional floor is needed to allow for eight units in total. He stated that the eight units are needed for financial reasons. The Chair spoke about the right-hand turn out of the parking lot. It was agreed that a recommendation would be made to the Planning Board to include proper signage as part of the site plan approval. The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 1(k) was consistent with the LWRP with the condition that only right-hand turns are allowed out of the parking area on Route 9. Adequate signage is required. The Committee reviewed Policy 25(b). The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 25(b) was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is consistent with the LWRP. 5) Russell – Paul Pettretti is the engineer representing this application on behalf of the owners. Paul Pettretti spoke about the proposed structure. He stated that the proposed structure complies with the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) and all zoning requirements. He spoke about the Tree Commission application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 13, 2005 4 �The Chair referred to the Coastal Assessment Form. He referred to steep slopes on the site and how the applicant will handle the grade changes. Paul Pettretti responded that the basement would be below grade so that minimal fill will be required. He stated that there would be no deck on the back. He stated that there a rear patio will be constructed. The Chair stated that it is hard for the Committee to realize the impacts to the river views without elevations. It was decided that the Committee could not make a recommendation without elevations of the proposed structure particularly showing the views from Terrace Close. The Chair stated that policy 25 (a) is applicable to this application. Paul Pettretti spoke about a dam that was created on the site about 30 years ago to divert an existing stream. He spoke about the proposed storm water management plan. This item was adjourned until more detailed plans are available. 6) Other a) Application lead-time - The Chair spoke about the postponement of the meeting from July 6 to July 13 since applicable materials were received the weekend prior to the meeting. He stated that sufficient lead-time is required to properly review materials prior to the meeting. The Committee agreed that all materials need to be submitted to the Building Department 2-weeks prior to the meeting in order to be placed on the agenda. b) Videotaping of meetings – Don Stever spoke about the Planning Board and Architectural Review Boards have adopted. He stated that the Village Attorney has deemed that the policy is compliant with the Open Meetings Law. No action was taken. Don Stever made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 9:50 pm APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 13, 2005 5 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2005-07-13.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/e7978465ef2a216b62359d9cff615b45.pdf c64006af10518c8068eb7408e533de76 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED September 14, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:30 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir George Lence Ralph Gunderman Absent: Don Stever Terence McGlynn Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff / Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) Presby-Leyland Mausoleums Video taping of meetings Proposed Zoning amendments Minutes of July 13, 2005 meeting 1) Presby-Leland monuments Nancy Dillon from Presby-Leland Monument Company is representing this application. Nancy Dillon stated that the mausoleum can accommodate 6 burials. She stated that the total lot size is 33,000 SF. She stated that the proposed structure is 1300sf. She stated that the proposed material is granite which is consistent with other mausoleums. Ralph Gunderman asked about the elevation of the proposed structure. Sean McCarthy responded that there is a 25-foot change from the height of the structure to the road. Nancy Dillon stated that the proposed structure is about 140-feet away from the Pocantico River. The Chair asked if there are any construction runoff concerns. Sean McCarthy responded that Dolph Rotfield Engineers is looking into the matter. He stated that there based on the large lot area there is still going to be plenty of absorption area. �Vito Sorrentino responded that the Rockefeller mausoleum is much larger than the proposed structure. He noted other existing mausoleums in Sleepy Hollow Cemetery that are larger than the proposed structure. George Lence asked if the construction had started. Nancy Dillon responded yes. She stated that since a building permit was required, the work was stopped. The Chair asked if this is the only proposed structure on the lot. Nancy Dillon responded yes. She also stated that the owner has no plans to sub-divide the lot. The Chair stated that Policies 23 and 25(b) apply to this application. The Committee reviewed Policy 23 and determined that the Policy was applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed Policy 25(b) and determined that the Policy was applicable to this application. The Chair stated that he was concerned with the potential visibility from Route 9. He also stated that it is not visible from the Pocantico River. He stated that he was concerned with the size of the structure in comparison to other structures in the cemetery. The Chair referred to page III-51 (scale of materials to diminish the scenic quality). George Lence asked if the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery review Board has reviewed and approved of the mausoleum. Nancy Dillon stated that the cemetery has approved of the proposed construction. Karen Adir asked if Architectural Review Board approval is required. Sean McCarthy responded no. He stated that the Architectural Review Board’s jurisdiction is limited to public streets. It was stated that the Sleepy Hollow cemetery should be notified that a building permit is required for all structures proposed on the site. Ralph Gunderman asked about the limitations of the jurisdiction of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair responded that the proposal of a structure triggers the Committee’s review. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application was consistent with the LWRP. 2) Video-taping of meetings – APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 14, 2005 2 �The Chair submitted a proposed procedural Resolution for video-taping of the Committee’s meetings. It was decided that the Committee would review the Resolution and discuss it at the next meeting. 3) Proposed Zoning amendments Dave Smith spoke about the proposed C-2 zoning changes. Dave Smith spoke about the proposed zoning map amendments. He spoke about the zoning text amendments and the zoning map amendments. He stated that the Village Trustees are asking for recommendations from the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair stated that he has no objections with the proposed changes. The Chair stated that the Committee had requested the actual proposed text amendments to fully understand the full impact of the text changes. Dave Smith provided a copy of the proposed amendments to the zoning tables. He discussed the potential impacts of the proposed text changes. He discussed rear yard requirements, parking, and the creation of restaurant establishments. He stated that the requirement will remain in place for delicatessens and bars but will be lifted for restaurant establishments. The Chair asked if formal findings are needed. Dave Smith stated that the public hearing is still open. He stated that the application is still ongoing but the Trustees would like formal Waterfront Advisory Committee input. There was an open discussion on whether Policies 1(g) and 5 were applicable. It was agreed that the Committee would inform the Trustees that it has concerns about the lower Beekman Ave region. 4) Minutes of July 13, 2005 meeting The minutes from the July 13, 2005 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. The Chair made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:25 pm APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 14, 2005 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2005-09-14.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/691ad8f106fdec474d9343b29fa31b2a.pdf 9cb8f57d9784361550a38a54a035ee78 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED October 6, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:17 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir Absent: George Lence Don Stever Terence McGlynn Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff / Village Planner) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Minutes of July and September 2005 meetings Video-Taping policy Phelps Memorial Hospital Master Plan Carol Lyden New Stable construction Doorley Four lot sub-division 1) Minutes of July and September 2005 meetings The minutes for July 2005 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 2) Policy on video taping The Committee reviewed the policy that was distributed at the last meeting. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adopt the policy. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) 3) Phelps Memorial Hospital Center Andy Tung is representing this application along with Phelps CEO, Keith Safian, hospital counsel Bruce Allen and special counsel Steve Silverburg. �Keith Safian spoke about the proposed changes to the previous site plan. He stated that the parking garage would allow Phelps to provide parking closer to the Medical Center in order to allow patients easier access to the building. Andy Tung spoke about the Planning Board meeting. He spoke about the previously approved site plan and the proposed changes to the site plan. He discussed the proposed parking garage and the reduction of impervious areas around the site. He showed the changes to the on-grade parking lot, Robin’s Nest parking lot and the connecting roads. He provided several renderings of the proposed parking structure. He spoke about the changes to the storm water system. He stated that an additional sand filter and catch basin would be added. Karin Adir asked about the number of proposed parking spaces. Andy Tung responded 750 proposed spaces on four parking levels. The Chair asked the applicant to discuss the visual impacts to Rockwood Hall. Andy Tung stated that when the foliage is gone (winter), the top of the structure is visible. The Chair stated that the original proposal included additional parking that would be available to Rockwood Hall visitors. Andy Tung responded that the additional parking would still be available. Doug Maass asked if there was any way to orientate the parking garage to create a shorter walk from the garage entrance and the entrance of the medical services building. Andy Tung responded that the proposed garage is in close proximity to the emergency room. Doug Maass spoke about the construction phasing. Andy Tung responded that the Northeast lot is Phase 1. The parking garage construction is Phase 4. Ralph Gunderman asked why the entrance to the parking garage on the North side cuts into the existing vegetation. He asked about having the entrance constructed more directly into the road on the East side of the garage. Andy Tung responded that the grade issue between the two areas is too steep. Doug Maass asked if parking would be free. Keith Safian responded that there is no plan to charge for parking at the present time. The Committee unanimously agreed that the revisions to the site plan do not change the Committee’s previous decision on the plan. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is still consistent with the LWRP. 4) Carol Lyden – Bob Snyder is representing this application on behalf of the applicant. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 6, 2005 2 �Bob Snyder stated that the owner wants to construct a horse stable on her property. He stated that the stable is for personal use and will not be open to the public. He stated that the carriage and hay storage areas and the stable are separate. The Chair asked about the size of the stable. Bob Snyder responded that the stable building is about 4000sf and the carriage and hay storage areas are about 2400sf. Karin Adir asked about the plumbing. Bob Snyder responded that a bathroom is proposed. He stated that a 6-inch water main is proposed for fire protection. The Chair asked about the size of the parcel. Bob Snyder responded that the parcel is about 35 acres. He spoke about the environmental restrictions on the parcel. He stated that the Westchester Land Trust has approved of the proposed plan. The Chair stated that Policy 5(b) applies to this application. The Committee agreed. The Chair stated that this building would not place any burden on Village services. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find this application consistent with Policy 5(b) and consistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). 5) Doorley – The Chair stated that the Doorley application is before the Committee for reconsideration. He discussed with the Committee whether the application should be re-reviewed. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application has not changed and that they would not re-review their previous findings. Geraldine Tortanello is representing this application along with Michael Doorley. She stated that the applicant did not want to re-appear before the Committee. She requested that the Committee inform the Planning Board of their decision. The Chair stated that the Committee will not serve as the Board of Appeals for the Planning Board by reviewing the Committee’s decision on this application for the third time. Geraldine Tortanello reviewed the submitted materials before the Committee. She stated that the materials expand the potential build out of the development of the lots. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 6, 2005 3 �The Chair responded that the Committee is not willing to review potential development of the site. Michael Doorley stated that site plans with larger developments have been approved by Village Boards. He stated that Ichabod’s Landing and Kendal on Hudson are significantly larger developments and was approved. He stated that he feels that he is being singled out for trying to sub-divide this property. The Chair responded that the Committee has no malice towards the applicant. He stated that each application is under different zoning restrictions. Michael Doorley responded that Ichabod’s Landing has significant visual impacts. The Chair responded that the Committee can only review the material that is presented. Michael Doorley stated that only one neighbor has shown opposition to the application. He stated that the Phillipse Manor Improvement Association (PMIA) did not oppose the subdivision. Karin Adir responded that each application is reviewed independently. Michael Doorley showed several photos of other developments in Sleepy Hollow. He stated that the developments of Ichabod’s Landing, County House Road and Kendal-on-Hudson are more significant that this application. The Chair stated that the Planning Board needs to make their own determination. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant could have made adjustments in the application that would have been more favorable to the Committee. He stated that application has not changed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:14pm. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, October 6, 2005 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2005-10-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7c37ba70cdfcf5167df4651db05c67c5.pdf fa909b906c735e9374378a87277a7615 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED November 9, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Don Stever, Acting Chairman, at 8:17 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: George Lence Don Stever, Acting Chairman Doug Maass Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Terence McGlynn Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of October 2005 meeting 2) Cortese 3) Other Terrace Close –new construction 1) Minutes of October 2005 meeting The minutes for the October 2005 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. 2) Cortese Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application along with the owner, Andrew Cortese. Richard Blancato reviewed a package of photos that was submitted to the Committee. He showed the proposed building elevations from several angles as well as the proposed building footprint via an aerial photo. He also showed a rendering of the front elevation of the proposed house. Doug Maass asked about the grade changes shown on the submitted topographical maps. Richard Blancato responded that the submitted maps are taken from the Google Earth website and might be a little outdated. Karen Adir asked about the size of the house. �Richard Blancato responded 5200 sf. Doug Maass asked how the width of the lot is calculated as 151.4-feet. Sean McCarthy responded that the width is determined from the face of the setback. Doug Maass asked about the height of the structure. Sean McCarthy responded on how the height is calculated. The Committee reviewed the applicable LWRP policies. They unanimously agreed that Policy 25A is applicable to this application. Ralph Gunderman stated that the width of the proposed structure blocks a significant portion of the winter views of the river. Don Stever responded that the lot is a legal sized lot. Ralph Gunderman stated that the house does not have to be as wide as proposed. Richard Blancato responded that in the wintertime, the most that can be seen is the opposite side of the river. Doug Maass responded that the views on the opposite side of the river are the views that the Committee is trying to protect. Andrew Cortese responded that the only views are through the trees and there is not a clear view of the river. Richard Blancato asked if the applicant should appear before the ARB prior to the WAC making a decision since the structure might change. Don Stever responded that although the Planning Board made the referral, it might be more logical for the applicant to secure ARB approval first, then return to the WAC and finally return to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Don Stever asked the applicant to take some winter view photos and superimpose the photos on the rendering. George Lence asked about Policy 25B. It was agreed that this view shed was not an identified scenic resource. Richard Blancato stated that on each side of the house there are trees that could be removed to create a view shed. Don Stever responded that the applicant would have to apply to the Tree Commission for removing the trees. Don Stever asked if the rendering shows the entire lot. Sean McCarthy responded that the lot is a little wider that is shown in the photo. Don Stever recommended placing the rendering on a wintertime background and showing the entire width of the lot on the drawing. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 9, 2005 2 �Doug Maass stated that the scale of the house as compared to other homes in the area need to be carefully reviewed. He also suggested moving the house back farther on the lot. Richard Blancato responded that he would have to check with the engineer on whether moving the house back could be accomplished. Doug Maass asked about the maximum slope on a driveway. Sean McCarthy responded 10%. Don Stever asked if the Committee had any other questions. There were none. It was unanimously agreed that the applicant would be referred to the ARB for approval. 3) Other – There was an open discussion on the enforcement of the LWRP on the Metro-North property. It was agreed that Metro-North would be contacted to appear before the Committee to discuss the reconstruction of the Philipse Manor train station. Sean McCarthy would inform MetroNorth. Doug Maass stated that none of his documents on Kendal-on-Hudson contain any information on the large masonry wall that is constructed on the site. Sean McCarthy responded that the wall is a pre-cast concrete wall and is on the approved site plan. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 8:54 pm. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, November 9, 2005 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2005-11-09.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text