https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9a2c3b2719f45df50fed51ca4ea67d06.pdf e6bba65108f09f6a0dd8b62401112def PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING June 7, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:09 p.m. Present Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass George Lence Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Absent Karin Adir Donald Stever Also Present James Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Announcements: The agenda for tonight's meeting will include the following: a) Philipse Manor Beach Club b) SamVieira Fence replacement 140 Valley Street a) Philipse Manor Beach Club Lee Kennedy is representing the applicant Lee Kennedy stated that this application is for a replacement of an existing 6' -6 " fence with a new wood picket fence at a height of 6 ' - 0 " The applicant will request through the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance of T - 0 " if 6' -0 " is not approved. Lee Kennedy stated that a 6' -0 " fence is the acceptable commercial height of a fence. The Chair inquired about the location of the existing chain link section. Lee Kennedy responded that it is on the North End. The Chair asked if it would be replaced with a picket fence also. Lee Kennedy responded yes Lee Kennedy stated that the Architectural Review Board approval is for 6' - 6 ". Doug Maass asked if this fence is for security or privacy. Lee Kennedy stated that one foot would not make a difference as far as privacy is concerned. The Chair inquired about the visual impact of the fence. Lee Kennedy stated that the boards of the fence would be apart as opposed to the current fence, which is not transparent at all �Doug Maass asked if the applicant would duplicate the fence that is currently installed There was an open discussion on board spacing. Lee Kennedy proposed 1" to 1 - Vi" spacing as long as they can be uniform. George Lence asked when would this work commence. Lee Kennedy stated that work would start as soon as it is approved. It was openly agreed for a minimum of 1" board spacing and a height of 6' - 6" at the base of the shoulder (of the picket). The Chair asked if there were any other findings. Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP The Committee agreed unanimously that it was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee will refer its recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals. b) 140 Vallev Street Sam Vieira is the applicant and co-owner. He gave an overview of the existing layout. Doug Maass stated that he would not participate in this discussion since it is a conflict of interest. Sam Vieira gave an overview of the proposed phases in the conversion from commercial to residential. The Chair asked about the surrounding uses. Sam Vieira responded that primarily it was residential (on College Ave.) with some commercial (on Valley St.). The Chair asked if there were any other changes besides the windows. Sam Vieira responded that there is a loading dock that will be removed in the back of the property. The Chair asked about zoning in this area. Jim Margotta responded that it is in a C2 district. He also stated that mixed use is allowed in a C2 district. The Chair stated that LWRP policy l(i) approves this work. The Chair read this section aloud. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 7, 2000 �The Chair asked if there were any other findings Since there was no response from any of the Committee members, the Chair asked if this plan was consistent with the LWRP. The Committee agreed unanimously (with one abstraction) that it was consistent with the LWRP Other Items: A new Chairman needed to be selected. Doug Maass nominated Richard Weiss. Ralph Gunderman seconded. There were no other nominations. Richard Weiss was unanimously elected. There was an open discussion on a proposed purchase on River Street and its relevance to the LWRP. It was determined that the Committee will not give an opinion without an application. The Committee agreed to follow the other Village Boards by not holding an August meeting. The minutes from the April 5, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Richard Weiss made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourn to next meeting. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 7,2000 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Change of Occupancy at 140 Valley Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 7, 2000, the application submitted by Messrs. Samuel F. and Samuel S. Vieira ("Applicants") for a change of occupancy of an existing building at 140 Valley Street from commercial to residential use. The proposal for the conversion of the site was presented to the Committee by Samuel Vieira, an architect and co-owner of the building. Mr. Vieira also responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, the proposed conversion of the site from commercial to residential use would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. Mr. Maass, whose wife rents studio space in the building, abstained from participation in consideration of the proposal. The Proposal The building at 140 Valley Street is located in an area that includes both residential and commercial uses and that is zoned for both uses. Mr. Vieira advised that the surrounding area on Valley Street was principally residential, although it was more commercial across the street from the site. Mr. Vieira also explained that the exterior of the building would undergo no significant changes other than the addition of a number of windows, and that use of the property for residential apartments would result in less vehicular and pedestrian traffic than the current commercial use. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy II 23 of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy II - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND WHEN APPROPRIATE REDEVELOP THE URBAN RENEWAL AREAS SURROUNDING CORTLAND AND VALLEY STREETS, AND THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND ANDREWS LANE, THE AREA BETWEEN HUDSON STREET AND THE HUDSON RIVER, AND THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALONG BEEKMAN AVENUE. (See Map 4) Review of Map 4, referred to in Policy II, identifies Valley Street as one of the Village's urban renewal areas. And the applicable Policy explanation describes the urban redevelopment areas identified on Map 4 as sites that "have been identified by the Village as either underutilized, deteriorated, in need of rehabilitation, or any combination of all three." �Section II of the LWRP (entitled "Inventory and Analysis") recognizes the ''traditional mixed use nature of these neighborhoods" and recommends rehabilitation for the commercial and residential properties in these areas: "In addition to commercial building rehabilitation, it is recommended that the Village continue and intensify residential rehabilitation programs. Residential rehabilitation programs should be encouraged in high impact areas that are part of and adjacent to the Beekman Avenue, and Valley and Cortland Street Business Districts." The proposed reuse of the 140 Valley Street site for new apartments will meet these LWRP goals of redevelopment and rehabilitation and, therefore, the Committee has concluded that the proposed conversion of 140 Valley Street is consistent with Policy II. The Committee further notes that, although, the LWRP has explicitly recognized the mixed use nature of the Valley Street neighborhood, the proposed conversion of the site from commercial use to residential use will not upset the mixed use character of the neighborhood. Mr. Vieira has advised the Committee that it is even possible that, since the conversion has been planned in two phases, part of the site may remain commercial. However, this possibility was not critical to the Committees consistency findings. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application of Philipse Manor Beach Club The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 7, 2000, the application submitted by the Philipse Manor Beach Club (the "Applicant" or the "Beach Club") for replacement of an existing fence along the west side of Applicant's parking lot. The plans for the new fence were described to the Committee by Mr. E. Lee Kennedy, an architect and a member of Applicant's Board. Mr. Kennedy also responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee unanimously concluded that, since the proposed new fence was a replacement of an existing fence structure, and since Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of the Applicant, has undertaken to implement certain modifications to reduce any potential adverse impact of the new fence, approval of the proposed fence replacement would not be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Beach Club site is located along the banks of the Hudson River, to the west of the Philipse Manor train station and the paved parking area owned by the Philipse Manor Improvement Association. The new fence, which would replace approximately two hundred thirty feet of six and one half to seven foot high fencing, (mostly wood, but some chain link) is proposed to be wood picket on a galvanized frame. Mr. Kennedy advised that the new fence is likely to be six feet in height, since this is a stock size, but that the Applicant is seeking a zoning variance that would permit a seven foot fence, in order to allow flexibility in finalizing specifications with Applicant's supplier. Proposal Modifications The Committee recognized that a fence presently exists at the site, and that views of the Hudson River are already impaired by the existing fence structure. However, the Committee felt that the new fence should not in any way be allowed to further impair views of the River at this location. Mr. Kennedy, on behalf of the Applicant, committed to certain specifications for the new fence to assure that it would not cause increased impairment of River viewsheds. Mr. Kennedy agreed that the open spaces between the fence boards would be up to one and one half inches, but in no event less than one inch, in order to create a relatively "transparent" effect. By contrast, the overlap of the boards of the existing fence presents an opaque appearance. In addition, although the Applicant is seeking a zoning variance that would allow a maximum fence height of seven feet, Mr. Kennedy has agreed that the height to the shoulders of pickets (that is, the height at which the vertical planes of the fence boards start to angle toward their points) would not exceed six and one-half feet. �Consistency Findings In addition to reviewing the general purposes and policies of the LWRP, the Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the Project with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 2 A and 25B of the LWRP as being particularly relevant to Applicant's proposal. Policy 2A - DOCKS, BOAT RAMPS, MOORING FACILITIES, AND OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES OR FACILITIES WILL BE DESIGNED AND SITED TO PROTECT NAVIGATION, ASSURE ACCESS BETWEEN WATER AND SHORE, AND MINIMIZE VISUAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Applicable portions of the LWRP explanation of this Policy notes that the Village has designated the Beach Club as one of the locations "best suited for water-dependent and water-enhanced uses." It is listed as an "existing water-dependent use." The Committee has concluded that replacement of an old Beach Club fence that is in disrepair with the proposed new fence would not be inconsistent with Policy 2A. In addition, part of the new fence construction will include a reinforced steel gate with a forty-eight inch active leaf and a ten-foot inactive leaf. This improved access for boats and boat trailers would enhance the water dependent uses of the Beach Club site. The Committee has concluded that this will be consistent with Policy 2A. The design limitations referred to, with respect to Policy 25B, below, will also minimize visual impacts, as contemplated by Policy 2A Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. The Committee observes that the viewshed from the Philipse Manor train station is not specifically identified in Policy 25B as one of the Village's twenty-three viewsheds of local importance. Nevertheless, the LWRP clearly recognizes the value of Hudson River views, and protection of those views is a significant element of the LWRP. Indeed, the Hudson River view from Kingsland Point Park is one of the viewsheds identified in Policy 25B, and the Committee notes that the views from the train station are substantially identical. The placement of fencing almost adjacent to the River will, necessarily, impair such views. However, that impairment already exists by virtue of the existing Beach Club fence. The Committee has determined that the replacement fence will not make the interference with views of the River any worse. The Committee also noted the steps being taken to minimize the visual impact of the new fence. The greater "transparency" of the new fence as compared with the old, the fact that the fence boards will be picket boards with open spaces formed by the angles between the pickets at the top and the fact that Applicant has agreed that the picket "shoulders" will be no higher than six and one- �half feet, have led the Committee to conclude that Applicant's proposal is not inconsistent with the LWRP goals applicable to protection of viewsheds and protection of scenic assets. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_WATER_2000-06-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Village of Sleepy Hollow All Rights Reserved. Type The nature or genre of the resource Text