https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/647e30c2f5ac7f32371f5251ff984ea8.pdf 078ee0cd8a518bfbaa157145b899ee85 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING April 5,2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:05 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir Ralph Gunderman Donald Stever Absent None Also Present: Jerome Fine (Village Engineer) James Margotta (Building Inspector) David Smith (Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Nicholas Cicchetti (Planning Board) George Tanner (Planning Board) Announcements: The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following items: a) County House Road b) Philipsburg Manor a) County House Road The Chair stated that this was a sub-division of 11.9 acres. This will involve 11 one-family lots. The Chair asked if any Board member had any comments. Ralph Gunderman asked if there was a size restriction on footprint of house. Jim Margotta responded no if the building meets front and side yard boundaries. There is a visual restriction on building lot sizes. He also stated that for Rl zoning it is 15%. The code requirements are as follows: For 1 acre: Front Yard One Side Yard Both Side Yards Rear Yard Max height Max size 100 feet 100 feet 200 feet 100 feet 35 feet 45,000 sq. feet. �Dave Smith stated that under NYS law, the Planning Board could vary the design criteria in order to get a more favorable design. Dave Smith gave a brief overview of the County House Road layout. Doug Maass inquired why grass-Crete was crossed out. Dave Smith responded that there is a suitable sub-base to access facility. He also stated that sometimes with grass-Crete, the grass dies and the concrete substructure would remain. The Chair asked what measures would be in effect to force the applicant to keep a certain amount of lawn space. Jim Margotta stated that the maximum lot coverage is 15%. George Lenco inquired if the builder uses the full 15% for the footprint, what would be left. Dave Smith responded that the coverage is defined as the percent of lot area covered by the building area. Doug Maass inquired if the detention basin would have water in it at all times. Dave Smith responded no. There would be a gradual release of water. Doug Maass inquired if the detention basin would be fenced in. Dave Smith responded that it would be landscaped. Dave Smith stated that a l-in-5 slope is easy to get out of. Ralph Gunderman stated that the detention basin restricts the flow into the stream. The Chair inquired if it was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair read clauses on open space and noted reduction in open space and the mixed consistency on LWRP Policy 5B (Open space character East of the old Croton Aqueduct). Ralph Gunderman inquired about the re-zoning of the area. Jim Margotta stated that this was previously zoned as an R3 (5000 SF). The Village Board increased it to 1 acre. Dave Smith stated that there are 11 lots under the property boundary. He also stated that there is an open space component. There will be a fee paid by the applicant to maintain the dedicated area. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Karin Adir inquired if there would be an establishment of a Homeowners Association. Dave Smith stated that that would be a personal decision. Doug Maass inquired about the easement on Lot #10. Dave Smith responded that this was necessary in order to avoid a curb cut on Bedford Road. The Chair stated that the plans take measures to minimize damages on flooding and erosion (policy #11). The Chair stated that the plans take measures to protect hillsides (item #17a). The Chair stated that this plan conflicts with Policy #25 (Scenic Quality of the Coastal Area). Ralph Gunderman stated that there are many measures in the plans that protect and comply within the LWRP. The Chair stated that efforts were made to spare as many trees as possible. Dave Smith stated that a tree survey was prepared. It was discussed that most of the trees were preserved. Ralph Gunderman inquired about preventing erosion during construction. Dave Smith responded that this was outlined in the EAF. During construction, the developer will use Westchester County erosion plans when developing on slope. The Chair inquired about steep slopes. Dave Smith responded that the developer is staying off of the steep slopes. The Chair inquired about what the Village would do to prevent homeowners from further developing the property. Don Steer responded by a deed restriction. The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously that it was consistent with the LWRP. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �b) Philipsburg Manor The Chair stated that a representative of the Historic Hudson Valley wishes to speak to the Committee. The applicant gave a brief overview of the entire history of the dredging project. The T21 grant was also discussed. Don Steer asked Steven Huske to go over dredging project. Steven Huskie gave a brief overview of the project. He also discussed the hydraulic method of dredging. Doug Maass asked how many gallons/minute would be dredged. Steve Huskie responded 850-1200 gallons/minute. Doug Maass asked what % of this would be solid. Steve Huskie responded 10-15% and the rest is liquid. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant was excavating an area to create a pond? Steve Huskie responded that an embankment would be built. Doug Maass asked where the material from previous dredging was placed. Steve Huskie responded that it is in the same area. Don Stever asked if this is a drudge disposal site already. Steve Huskie responded yes. Doug Maass asked about the turbidity of the water in Pocantico River. Steve Huskie responded that it was standard. The Chair asked about the refill rate of the silt. Steve Huskie responded 1500 cubic yards/year. Doug Maass asked what time of year would this be performed. Steve Huskie responded after the spawning season. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Steve Huske then discussed wetlands. He stated that there is only 2/10 of an acre and it is low quality wetlands. Don Stever asked if it was isolated. Steve Huskie responded that some areas are isolated and other areas might not be. The Chair asked if the pipe was going to remain. Steve Huskie responded that it would remain for drainage. If it were ever needed, it wouldn't disturb the other areas. Don Steer asked if the applicant would return the substrate to its natural elevation with the exception of the pipe. Steve Huskie responded that the pipe needs support. He also stated that it would be filled about halfway. Doug Maass asked how permeable will the pipe be. Steve Huskie responded that it depends on the mixture. Doug Maass asked about on-site mitigation Steve Huskie responded that it would not be suitable. He also stated that the Fish and Wildlife Society suggested an offsite Wetlands restoration. The Chair asked about the wetlands in Sleepy Hollow. Steve Huskie responded that they would only be restored within the Historic Hudson Valley. Don Stever asked the applicant where they were in terms of the 404 permit. Steve Huskie responded that the Fish & Wildlife Society has accepted mitigation verbally. The Army Corps of Engineers has the final say. Don Stever asked about the title wetlands permit from DEC. Steve Huskie responded no. Don Stever asked if they were required. Steve Huskie responded no. Don Steer recommended that the applicant check with the DEC. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Steve Huskie responded that they would. Dave Smith stated that the expanded EAF was sent to the DEC. The Chair asked the committee to look at the LWRP policy on this project. The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 19b The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 23. The Chair also referenced one of the significant sites listed on HI-48 (Philipsburg Manor and Upper Mills). The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 25. The Chair stated that the applicant has addressed concerns of Policy 35 A (fish spawning). There was an open discussion on Policy 7B due to the fact that the wetlands were not being restored within Sleepy Hollow. Don Steer referenced Policy 35B. There was an open discussion on Policy 44 (Wetland protection). Ralph Gunderman asked if there was any way to support pipe without raising grade. Give title wetlands a chance to restore itself. Steve Huskie responded that it would probably not be worth it due to the degree of disruption. Ralph Gunderman asked what is the jurisdiction of this committee of LWRP. Don Stever responded that the Waterfront Advisory Committee interprets the LWRP. The Chair stated that Sleepy Hollow should get mitigation instead of Croton. Don Stever responded that there is no policy on local mitigation. Ralph Gunderman stated that these wetlands are not significant to Sleepy Hollow. Doug Maass stated that he favors Croton. The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously that it was. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Other Topics: Don Stever discussed the EIS draft on Kendall. Once DEIS is complete, Kendall will be invited in. The Committee meetings will be open. The Historic Hudson Valley applicant stated that they are interested in appearing to Waterfront Advisory Committee on GM site in order to address some issues. Don Stever stated that he should wait until the selected developer knows what will be done with the site. The draft of findings from this meetings agenda will be sent to Planning Board. A representativefromthe Scenic Hudson Valley spoke to the Committee. They are also interested in GM site. The representative also expressed an interest in meeting with the Waterfront Advisory Committee. There is no plan as of yet but they are looking at specific ideas and objectives. Adjourn to next meeting. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, April 5,2000 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application of County House Road, LLC The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on April 5, 2000, the proposal submitted by County House Road, LLC (the "Applicant") for a development project consisting of the construction of eleven residences on approximately 11.9 acres (the "Tract") located on County House Road at the intersection with the Bedford Road (Route 448) (the "Project"). The Village's planning consultant, David Smith of the firm of Saccardi & Schiff, Inc., provided an overview of the Project and was available to respond to questions posed by the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the Project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Project The Project consists of the subdivision of the Tract into eleven lots and the construction of eleven single-family residences, arranged in a cluster configuration. The Project also provides that approximately 1.5 acres of the Tract (including a parcel affording a notable view of the Hudson River and the opposite shore at the intersection of the Bedford Road and County House Road) will be dedicated to the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village"), to be preserved as open space, and that, in addition, approximately 0.84 acres of the Tract will also be preserved as open space pursuant to a conservation buffer easement that will run along the frontage of the Tract at the Bedford Road and County House Road. Consistency Findings In addition to the reviewing the general purposes and policies of the LWRP, the Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the Project with the LWRP, gave consideration to Policies 5B, 11, 17A and 25B of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to the Project. Policy 5B - Retain the rural residential, agricultural, and open space character in those areas of the Village east of the old Croton Aqueduct. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 5B. The entire Tract is currently open space and the Committee recognizes that any development at this site will necessarily reduce the open space character of the site. However, the Committee notes that, at the time the LWRP was adopted, the Tract was zoned "R-3," which would have allowed the development to proceed with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. The Tract has been upzoned by the Village's Board of Trustees, in anticipation of this development and with the concurrence �of the Applicant, to UR-1," which requires a minimum lot size of 43,560 square feet. This significant reduction in the density potential for the site, the Applicant's decision to place the houses that are to be built in a clustered configuration and the retention of a large number of the trees presently existing on the Tract, together with the preservation of a portion of the Tract as open space (by means of the open space areas to be dedicated to the Village and the grant of the conservation buffer easement), assure that the development will have a rural residential character and that the site will retain, to a reasonable degree, its present open space character, as contemplated by Policy 5B. Policy 11 - Buildings and other structures will be sited in the coastal area so as to minimize damage to property and the endangering of human lives caused by flooding and erosion. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 11. The placement of residential structures in a cluster should result in minimization of disturbance to the site. For example, use of common driveway areas should reduce the amount of land covered by paved surfaces and thus should reduce water run-off. The Project includes a detention pond to receive stormwater, which will thus be collected and can be gradually released to an existing watercourse. This feature should result in a reduction of the flow of stormwater to a level less than that occurring at the site in its present state. The siting of construction away from steep slope areas will reduce the risk of erosion (see also, Policy 17A). Policy 17A - Protect the steep slopes and hillsides throughout the Village through the use of nonstructural measures, when practical, to prevent erosion, especially through the retention, or planting of vegetative covers. The Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 17A. The area of the Village in which the Tract is situated appears on Map 2 of the LWRP as an area of steep slopes, and a portion of Tract, in fact, consists of a relatively steeply sloped hillside. The LWRP specifically notes that the removal of vegetation from steep slope areas creates a risk of erosion and could impair the scenic quality of the Village. The cluster configuration selected for the Project avoids the placement of any structures on or adjacent to the portion of the Tract that is steeply sloped, and the trees and vegetation existing on the steeply sloped segment of the Tract will be retained. Policy 25B - Protect or enhance the following identified scenic resources as areas and viewsheds of local scenic significance. The Committee observes that the viewshed from the intersection of County House Road and the Bedford Road is not one that is specifically identified in the LWRP as among the Village's twenty-three viewsheds of local importance. Nevertheless, the view from this intersection is similar to that "from the intersection of Route 448, Pine Street, and the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail," which is one of the viewsheds so identified in the LWRP. The Committee believes that this viewshed from the intersection of County House Road and the Bedford Road, even if not specifically identified in the LWRP, is, nonetheless, a valuable scenic asset of the Village. The protection of this viewshed is, therefore, consistent with the general policies of the �LWRP and with the philosophy underlying Policy 25B. The Project includes the dedication to the Village of a part of the Tract situated at this intersection, which will be maintained as open space. Maintaining this land as open space will be protective of this viewshed and thus the Committee has concluded that the Project is consistent with the goals of the LWRP applicable to protection of viewsheds and protection of scenic assets. kichard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS HISTORIC HUDSON VALLEY: PHILIPSBURG MANOR POND DREDGING The Waterfront Advisory Committee considered the Philipsburg Manor Restoration pond dredging and dredged spoil disposal proposal at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 5, 2000, upon referral from the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board. The Board, in public session, heard from the applicant and its consultant, Huskie Engineering, and discussed the matter with the Village's planning consultant, David Smith, of Saccardi & Schiff. The Committee has unanimously concluded that the project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), and that it is consistent with the applicable specific policies thereof. General Consistency The purpose of the project is to restore the aquatic integrity of two ponds located on the historically significant property, Philipsburg Manor. There are two ponds, a manmade freshwater impoundment originally constructed as a mill pond (the "upper pond") in ancient times, and a natural still water portion of the mouth of the Pocantico River below the mill dam, which is influenced by the tidal action of the Hudson River (the "lower pond"). Both ponds have been dredged periodically since the 1940s, and both are significantly degraded as aquatic habitat by an accumulation of silt primarily resulting from urban street run-off, but significantly exacerbated byfloodingcaused by Tropical Storm Floyd late in 1999. Philipsburg Manor is a critical element of the post-industrial economy of Sleepy Hollow. Preservation and enhancement of historic tourism is one of the fundamental goals of the LWRP. Since the activity directly enhances the property, it is consistent with that goal, and with specific Policies 19, 23A and 25B, which articulate that goal. Specific Policies The Committee considered the project against the following other applicable policies of the LWRP: 7B, 35A-D, 44. Policy 7B. The Philipsburg Manor and Devries Field wetland/watercourse areas of the Pocantico River shall be protected, preserved, and, where practical, restored so as to maintain its viability as a locally significant habitat. The Committee believes that the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Although some minor wetland loss will occur if the plan to dispose of dredged spoil �onsite is implemented, the Committee concludes that restoration of open water habitat, which has been seriously degraded by sediments contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons from street run-off falls squarely within this policy. The activity will improve two significant aquatic habitats, one a freshwater habitat and the other an estuarine habitat, without materially compromising locally important wetland values. Policy 35. Dredging and dredged spoil disposal in coastal waters will be undertaken in a manner that meets existing State dredging permit requirements and protects significant fish and wildlife habitats, scenic resources, natural protective features, important agricultural lands and wetlands. The lower pond dredging and spoil disposal will occur in waters that are coastal waters. There are no State permit requirements for the dredging aspects of the project, and the applicant has affirmed that it will comply with any State permit requirements that are applicable to the dredged spoil disposal. The activity must be authorized by a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The applicant has applied to the COE for a permit. The applicant proposes to utilize the least intrusive dredging technology. The overall improvement of the aquatic habitat that will result from the removal of accumulated contaminated silt and sediment will protect significant fish and wildlife habitats. There is no significant loss of important wetlands and no loss of agricultural lands. The Committee concludes that the activity is consistent with Policy 35, conditioned upon the Applicant's securing and fully complying with all applicable state and federal permits. Policy 35A. Dredging shall not occur during fish spawning seasons and must be authorized by an appropriate permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Applicant represented to the Committee that it will not undertake its dredging during any fish spawning season. With respect to permits, see discussion under Policy 35. The Committee finds that the project is consistent with Policy 35A. Policy 35B. Dredge Spoils shall not be deposited in wetlands or fish and wildlife habitats, as identified in the Sleepy Hollow LWRP. The Applicant proposes to place dredged spoils in a disposal impoundment situated on its property south of the area where the lower pond will be dredged. The impoundment is the site of prior dredged spoils disposal, and thus is already disturbed land. Two small areas of low quality, emergent, isolated wetlands will be impacted by construction of the berm and placement of the dredged material within it. The disposal area will have a system of dewatering underdrains to convey water from the site back to the Pocantico River. The discharge pipe will require excavation of a small (approximately 20 foot wide) area of tidal wetland at the edge of the river. �The Committee reviewed the wetland identification map, Map 3, of the LWRP. The isolated wetlands that will be impacted by the disposal of dredged spoils are not shown on Map 3. Thus, the Committee has concluded that they are not "identified in the Sleepy Hollow LWRP". The area is not otherwise a fish or wildlife habitat. The fact that the spoil disposal area has been used for that purpose in the past tips the balance heavily toward consistency with this policy. The water discharge pipe will negatively impact a small portion of a wetland identified in the LWRP. However, because the deposit of dredge spoil will not occur in this area, Policy 35B is not applicable to that aspect of the project. It is discussed in relation to Policy 44. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 35B. Policy 35C. Reclamation of dredge spoil sites, including landscaping, shall be required where it is practical to do so. Policy 35D. Dredge spoil site design will incorporate considerations for natural features, view sheds, and shall, where feasible, conform to existing land forms. The sediment basin design includes reclamation. The dredged material will be covered with clean soil and will be partially revegetated with native grasses. The unvegetated area is an area that is already used as a parking lot. That area will be restored and upgraded for use as a relief parking lot. It will not be paved, but instead finished in gravel. The finished grade of the site will be consistent with the general surroundings and will conform to the existing land form. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 35C and Policy 35D. Policy 44. Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and wetland/watercourse complexes and preserve the benefits derived from these areas. At present, the accumulated sediment in the upper pond and the lower pond contains a sufficient concentration of contaminants that it is prohibited from being disposed of in the marine environment. It is categorized as "category 2 material". Only "category 1" dredged material (cleaner material) is allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be disposed of in the marine environment adjacent to New York and New Jersey. Category 2 material is considered too toxic to critical biota for ocean disposal. Thus, the Applicant is removing from the wetland/watercourse complex a large amount of material that is unsuitable to remain there. Presence of the contaminated sediments adversely impacts both the Pocantico River and the adjacent wetlands. This fact in and of itself satisfies Policy 44. The project will, however, result in the loss of a small amount (less than 0.1 acre) of tidal wetland adjacent to the Pocantico River. This loss will result from construction and maintenance of a dewatering pipe that will convey water from beneath the disposal area back to the Pocantico River. The Committee is concerned about this wetland impact, and has encouraged the Applicant to design the project so as to minimize the amount of wetland permanently lost. The Committee also encouraged the Applicant to �continue its efforts to secure an upland disposal site on the adjacent former General Motors property, and to implement the on-site upland disposal only as a last resort. To comply with federal regulatory requirements, the Applicant has committed, in connection with its application for its federal dredging/disposal permit, to restore or enhance a greater acreage of Hudson River estuarine wetland at its Croton River property than will be lost at Philipsburg Manor. Thus, there will be no net loss of wetlands. While it would be preferable for the mitigation parcel to be in Sleepy Hollow, the Committee is without jurisdiction to address that issue other than by way of comment. The Committee concludes that the project is consistent with Policy 44. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-04-05.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text