https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/b970f5afcc7fa1a64652229bfebb26a9.pdf 81485ee600777574a2800d300ab08568 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING June 28, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Jim Nazemetz, Chair at 8:08 p.m. Present Jim Nazemetz, Chairman Sean McCarthy Elvira Aloia Louis Falasca Barbara Fina Tom Capossela Absent Robert Barstow Also Present Ed Lammers (Village Attorney) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) 1_ ~?A tfo-z. Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) 0 Thomas Burnette Dari Realty - 139 Cortlandt Street Historic Hudson Valley Sam Vieira - 140 Valley Street Karen & Jeflery Altabef Louis & Reinemarie lorio Fence Sign Continuation - Sign Approval of renovation Approval of addition Approval of addition & alteration Announcements: The Chair stated that Anthony DelVecchio would be the Stenographer for tonight's meeting The Chair stated that Robert Barstow would not be attending tonight's meeting. a) Thomas Burnette * f Thomas Burnette submitted the mailings to the Chair. Thomas Burnette stated that he intends to replace the existing fence at 515 Bellwood Ave with the exact same fence that is currently present. He submitted a 4' tall sample but the actual fence would be 3' tall. Thomas Burnette also stated that he would not be adding or subtracting any parts of the fence just replacing it The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing Louis Falasca seconded. It was unanimous. There were no comments from the public. Sean McCarthy made a motion to close the public hearing Tom Capossela seconded It was unanipious. �Barbara Fina made a motion to approve the application Louis Falasca seconded It was unanimously approved b) Pari Realty - 139 Cortlandt Street The Chair asked if the mailings were received The applicant stated that there were no mailings since there are no neighbors next to this property The Code was reviewed to see if mailings are required It was determined that since it was not a Code requirement, the Board wilJ disregard the mailings This topic will be discussed with the Village Attorney and the Mayor. The Chair stated that the Board would not request mailings from any applicant present this evening Sam Vieira (applicant for 140 Valley Street) stated that he has the mailings and would submit them for the record so not to have any potential future problems. The applicant's proposed sign is a self-illuminated internal sign that is 2' high by 16' long sign The Chair stated that the Code states that a sign cannot cover more than 75% of the street footage and cannot exceed 24" in height Louis Falasca made a motion to open the public hearing Sean McCarthy seconded It was unanimous There were no comments from the public Sean McCarthy made a motion to close the public hearing Barbara Fina seconded It was unanimous Sean McCarthy asked the applicant if there would be an awning installed in the future. The applicant stated that he did not know Tom Capossela stated that he is against this application since this Board has been approving awnings and it would not fit in with the Village. Louis Falasca made a motion to postpone this application to the next meeting and allow the applicant to investigate the possibility of installing an awning Barbara Fina asked about the height of the letters on the sign. The applicant responded that the letters would be 17" tall The Chair polled the Board Barbara Fina stated that she would be against this application Tom Capossela stated that he would be against this application. Sean McCarthy stated that he would be against this application. Architectural Review Board Meeting, June 28, 2000 2 �Louis Falasca stated that he would be against this application The Chair stated that there are 5 negative votes Elvira Aloia made a motion to consider having the applicant return next month with an awning instead of a sign Tom Capossela seconded It was unanimous The applicant asked if the awning could have the same colors and logos since this was part of a chain of stores and they did not want to deviate from the other stores. Elvira Aloia stated that the applicant should bring in some samples c) Historic Hudson Valley This is an application to replace the sign for Philipsburg Manor on Route 9. This is a continuation of last month's meeting The applicant stated that based on last month's meeting, the sign has been downsized. He gave an overview of the new proposal via a sketch The new proposal will remove the current two- (2) signs and replace them with a system of three (3) flagpoles with panels. The square footage of the previously proposed sign was 126 sq. ft. The new proposal allows for 90 sq ft. signs (9' x 10'). Louis Falasca stated that the signs are 180 sq ft The applicant stated that the signs would have writing on both sides but you can only see 90-sq ft at any time. He also stated that only the size is changing not the configuration. The current signage totals 62-sq. ft., which is an increase of 28 sq ft. Louis Falasca stated that it is an increase of 56-sq. ft. because you must include both sides Barbara Fina asked about the lettering on the signs. The applicant responded that the lettering would be with a classic Garamond typeface. Barbara Fina asked about the lettering for Kykuit. The applicant responded that the typeface would be a script typeface. They use different typefaces for different situations. Barbara fina stated that the sample is not in a classic Garamond typeface. The applicant responded that instead of spending a lot of money on a sample, he did the best that Jie could on his computer Barbara Fina asked about the Headless Horseman logo. The applicant stated that they intend to use a logo for the Headless Horseman. Architectural Review Board Meeting, June 28, 2000 3 �Barbara Fina asked about the fastening methods to be used to fasten the signs to the flagpoles The applicant stated that they intend to use the same fastening methods that are currently being used. He used some photos to demonstrate Sean McCarthy asked if the temporary signs would still appear The applicant responded that all other signs would be eliminated. The Chair stated that there are three (3) flagpoles with the largest one being in the middle The applicant stated that the flagpoles would hold up the signs. The Chair asked about the size of the flag. The applicant stated that he was not sure The Chair measured the scaled drawing and stated that the proposed flag measured 3'x 5'. The Chair asked what was the height of the tallest flagpole. The applicant responded 36'. The Chair stated that he was concerned about the size of the flag. The applicant stated that he would get any size flag that the Board would approve. He was only concerned about the signs. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous There were no comments from the public. The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing Louis Falasca seconded. It was unanimous The Chair asked about the height of the current flagpole. The applicant stated that he thinks it is 36'. Tom Capossela asked about the height of the other two- (2) proposed flagpoles. The Chair stated that they would be 28' There was an open discussion on the height of the sign. The Chair asked if the applicant could possibly lower the height of the sign. The applicant responded that he would lower the height of the sign. Barbara Fina asked about the background colors. The applicant responded that it would be white with blue background but it depends on the season Architectural Review Board Meeting, June 28, 2000 4 �The Chair stated that the flag should be 6' x 9' max The Chair also stated that the sign should be dropped to T above the ground The Chair stated that the height of the first panel would be 6' high and 2* above for the top panel to match the height of the flag The sign would be T above the ground and 15' total The height would be reduced by 1' total Barbara Fina stated that the sign should be completely approved The Board would only be approving the sign concept The Chair made a motion to approve the application in the following manner: The bottom edge above grade would be 7-0" instead of 8'-0" The height of the first panel would be 6'-0" instead of 7'-0" The height of the upper banner (stretching between the two (2) poles would be 2'-0" x 10'-6" The total height of the sign would be 8'-0" instead of 9'-0". The total height would be 15'-0". The height of the flagpoles would be 36' for the main flagpole and 28' for the secondary flagpoles The applicant will be required to return with the banners, logos, colors, etc for the signage that is to be used Sean McCarthy seconded the motion. Barbara Fina asked about the flagpole construction and color. The applicant stated that the flagpole has balls on top of the pole and it would be white or silver. The motion was unanimous. d) Sam Vieira - 140 Valley Street Before the application began, the Chair asked the Village attorney to make an announcement regarding mailings Ed Lammers stated that mailings are required He stated that it is located in the Village Code in Section 63 Subsection b Sam Vieira stated that the mailings were given to Jim Margotta last week for this application Sam Vieira gave a brief overview of the proposed changes. He also stated that this application has been before the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and both Boards have approved. Sam Vieira stated that as per Code, four-(4) new windows need to be added. Architectural Review Board Meeting, June 28, 2000 5 �The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Sean McCarthy seconded It was unanimous There were no comments from the public The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing Elvira Aloia seconded. The Chair asked about the existing finish Sam Vieira responded that it is stucco The Chair asked if it could be matched Sam Vieira responded yes. Tom Capossela made a motion to approve Louis Falasca seconded It was unanimous. e) Karen & Jeflerv Altabef Sean McCarthy represented the applicant. This application involves adding an additional floor on top of an existing extension The second floor structure would match up with the existing second floor facade. Sean McCarthy gave an overview of the entire proposal. Sean McCarthy stated that the exterior would also be stucco to match the exterior. The color will also be matched. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous. There were no comments from the public. The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing Barbara Fina seconded. It was unanimous Barbara Fina asked what the function of this addition would be Sean McCarthy responded that this would be an extension of the existing master bedroom Tom Capossela made a motion to approve the application. Barbara Fina seconded. It was unanimous. 0 Louis & Reinemarie lorio Sean McCarthy represented the applicant This application involves several additions. The additions involve adding to the back of the house, to the north side, adding a porch and a complete second floor The second floor will include four bedrooms and a full bath On the first floor, the kitchen would be extended and a large family room would be added. Architectural Review Board Meeting, June 28, 2000 6 �Sean McCarthy referred to the submitted drawings for aesthetics. The new siding will be cedar shingle and trim to blend with the cedar siding. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Louis Falasca seconded. It was unanimous The Chair stated that the only public present was the applicants. The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing Louis Falasca seconded. It was unanimous. Louis Falasca made a motion to approve the application. Tom Capossela seconded. Barbara Fina asked if the diamond window would be centered. Sean McCarthy responded that it is centered with the landing. Barbara Fina asked if there was an overhang Sean McCarthy responded that this was illustrated on the drawings. The application was unanimously approved Other Topics: The minutes from May 2000 meeting were reviewed. The Chair stated that the next meeting would be July 26, 2000. The Chair also stated that there would be no meeting in August. The Chair made a motion to adjourn Louis Falasca seconded. It was unanimous. Adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Submitted Anthony DelVecchio Recording Secretary Architectural Review Board Meeting, June 28, 2000 7 � 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-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_ARB_2000-06-28 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board 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