https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1d36e5ef9f73662e3957aa5c0c66310b.pdf 176d33f70a26e9c11e309bf4791baf44 PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28th, 2001 '' #y< H^f °/ A regular meeting of the Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board was held on Wednesday, March 28th, 2001 at 8 P.M. in the Village Hall, zS Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y. PRESENT: James Nazemetz, Chairman Elvira Aloia Robert Barstow Sean McCarthy Barbara Fina Thomas Capossela Louis Falasca ALSO PRESENT: James Margotta, Building Inspector Ed Larimers, Attorney Chairman Nazemetz called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. 1. ROBERT & CARRIE WELCH, 260 KELBOURNE AVENUE-ADDITION. Mr. McCarthy recused himself from participating in the meeting as he is the Architect for the project. Mr. McCarthy presented affidavit of proof of mailings to the Clerk. Mr. McCarthy outlined the plans for an additiion to the property located at 260 Kelbourne Avenue stating it would be an addition of a small dormer to the third floor attic, an extension to the existing one story on the southwest side of the house and a 4 x 4 one story entry attached to the house. He also stated that new windows would be installed, internal alterations would be made, and that the new addition would match the old portions of the house. Mr. McCarthy presented photographs as the house now exists, and stated that he has received approval of the Zoning Board for the project. Mr. Mccarty stated that the addition will be a Master Bedroom, with bath and closet, it will enlarge the kitchen and breakfast room and the 4 x 4 entry way. Mr. Falasca moved, seconded by Ms. Fina to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. Mr. Nicholas Robinson of 258 Kelbume Avenue presented a letter dated March 26, 2001 stating hia objections to the proposed addition (copy in official minutes). Mr. Robinson stated he also objected to Mr. McCarthy being a member of the Board and representing Mr. & Mrs. Welch. Mr. Robinson asked that the application be withdrawn and they go back to the drawing board and confer with him and his wife. Mrs. Robinson stated thay had lived in their house for over thirty years and had a beautiful view of xhe River but^the addition is too big and would block their view. Mrs. Cartenuto, a resident of Philipse Manor stated she felt that the addition was too big and would block the view for the neighbors. �-2Mr. McCarthy stated that the drawings corresponds to the survey as submitted, he has complied with the Zoning and the N.Y.. Bui±ding Code which allows for a two story addition. He also stated there is a distance of fifteen feet from the side property line and not nine feet as Mr. Robinson has stated. There being no further comments, Mr. Falasca moved, seconded by Mr. Capossela to close the meeting for public comments, carried. Discussion followed regarding the rights of an Architect to serve on the Board and to represent applicants for approval of plans. Mr. Lammers stated that the Code calls for tv*o architects to be members of theKrchitectural Review Board and if Mr. McCarthy recuses himself from making a decision it is not a violation of the Code unter the Section on Ethics. He also stated that according to the Code an Architect should notify the Board of Trustees that he represents someone appling for approval of an application and recuse himself. Mr. McCarthy stated he has been a member of the Board for over eight years and has always recused himself from participating when he represents a client, but it is his livelihood and if need be he would resign from the Board. He also stated he lives in the Village and enjoys donating his time for the Village. Chairman Nazemetz stated he would meet with the Mayor to discuss the matter. Mr. Capossela moved, seconded by Ms. Fina to approve the project as submitted. Mr. Nazemetz polled the Board as follows: Ms. Aloia - No Ms. Fina - Yes Mr. Capossela - Yes Mr. Barstow - Recused. Mr. Falasca - Yes Mr. Nazemetz - Yes Mr. Nazemetz declared the motion carried. 2. LOREN FOX & JOHN BARAN, 260 MILLARD AVENUE - ADDITION & ALTERATION. Mr. Mouarthy recused himself as he is the Architect for the applicant. Mr. McCarthy presented affidavit of proof of mailings to Clerk. Mr. McCarthy presented plans and pictures showing the house and outlined the proposed alterations and addition, which would include reconstruction of the garage, provide access from the garage to first floor of house, create a new porch, add to present kitchen, restucco the house, install skylights, and install a new roof. Mr. Falasca moved, seconded by Ms. Aloia to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There being no public comments, Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. Capossela to close the meeting for public conments. Carried. �-3After discussion, Mr. Falasca moved, seconded by Mr. Barstow to approve the application as submitted. Carried. 3. HAIG & VALERIE BGHIGIAN, 225 HUNTER AVENUE-CONTINUED. Mr. Bohigian stated that at the last meeting the Board had raised four issues, mainly posts, railings, ground cover and the deck and the right side balcony. Mr. Falasca moved, seconded by Mr. Capossela to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. Barbara Daly a resident of Hunter Avenue for over thirty years stated she had no objection to the project. There being no further public comments, Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Ms. Aloia to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. After discussion, Mr. Barstow moved, seconded by Mr. Capossela to approve the plans as requested. Carried. 4. MICHAEL J. PALAZZI, 11 LAKEVIEW AVENUE RENOVATIONS. Mr. Palazzi presented affidavit of proof of mailings to Clerk. Mr. Palazzi presented plans and outlined the project which would consist of changing roof lines, patio work, installing brick on front of house and other minor repairs. Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. Capossela to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There being no public carments, Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Ms. Aloia to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. After discussion Mr. Barstow moved, seconded by Mr. Falasca that the application be approved as submitted except that the roof be changed from a hip roof to a gable roof. Carried. 5. DOLPHIN FITNESS CLUB, 300 N. BROADWAY-SIGNS. Mr. Sam Viera, Architect representing Dolphin Fitness Club asked for approval of temporary signs at the Club and stated they would be making repairs at a future date. Discussion followed regarding size, type of signs, parking, size of garage doors, and awnings. Ms. Fina moved, seconded by Ms. Aloia to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There being no public comments, Ms. Aloia moved, seconded by Mr. Falasca to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. Discussion followed and it was stated that the Building Inspector was allowed to renew the application every thirty days. �-4Mr. Falasca moved, seconaed by Mr. Capossela that the application be approved as submitted. Carried. 6. IATIN COURIER EXPRESS, 110 BEEKMAN AVENUE-CONTINUED. Applicant did not appear. 7. IAURENTINO RODRIGUES ENTERPRISES, 180 VALLEY STREET-CONTINUED. Mr. Ron Turnquist representing Mr. Rodrigues presented plans and revised drawings, stating the elevations are different but jblans are the same as previously submitted. Mr. Turnquist stated that the parapet wall has been raised and will be covered with vines or ivy, there will be a security gate installed, fence will be painted black with detail and gates to match and stated there will be planting in front of building and at the back of the building. Mr. Turnquist stated he has received approval of the Planning Board and the Waterfront Commission. Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. Capossela to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There being no public comments, Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Ms. Aloia to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. Discussion followed regarding the height of the building, with several members stating they felt the building was too tall, that the Board's suggestion regarding columns was taken, and the cupola would match the cupola on the adjacent building, also owned by Mr. Rodrigges. Mr. Falasca moved, seconded by Ms. Fina to approve the plans as submitted. Mr. Nazemetz polled the Board as follows: Ms. Aloia - Yes Mr. Capossela - Yes Ms. Fina - Yes Mr. Barstow Mr. Falasca Mr. Nazemetz - No - Yes - Yes. Mr. Nazemetz declared the motion carried. MINUTES Mr. Falasca moved, seconded by Mr. Capossela that the minutes of the meeting held on February 28th be approved as submitted. Carried. Mr. Nazemetz stated that the next meeting of the Board would be held on April 25th, 2001. There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Falasca moved, seconded by Mr. Nazemetz that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully suimifeted, C I j IRENE AMATO, ACTING CLERK \ �Shelley & Nicholas Robinson 258 Kelburne Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 (914) 631-7028 March 26, 2001 Mr. Robert Welch 260 Kelburne Avenue Sleepy Hollow New York 10591 BY HAND DELIVERY Dear Bob, Thank you for your certified letter dated March 16, 2001, advising us that you had on March 16th filed plans with the Sleepy Hollow Board of Architectural Review for a substantial addition to your house, including expanding the second floor, raising the roof over the master bedroom and adding dormers to the attic. We picked up the letter from the post office last week. We have reviewed the plans on file with the Village, and would request that you reconsider them. Fundamentally, the way you plan to add to the bulk of your building will interview with the view of the Hudson from our property and from the public lane which provides access to both our properties. We have tried to be helpful to you as neighbors since you moved in. We were not pleased, as you know, with your decision to place your noisy air conditioning compressor unit opposite our front porch, without discussing this with us first. We did not object to your removal of the five foot fence that the Lewis' had maintained for decades between our small yards, or to your decision to cut down several mature trees that graced your property. We have been tolerant of the trucks you have in the lane, although they have often impeded Shelley's response to ambulance calls. We did not object to your acquisition of the paper road owned by the Village west of your property. Your present proposal, however, would be injurious to us and we are constrained to object. Your proposed addition of a much expanded second and third story to your house will significantly affect the quiet enjoyment of our property. Before describing our serious concerns, may 1 point out two technical problems you have. First, you are using an old 1957 survey, and you should use a current survey. In actuality your present building is only 9 feet from the lot line on the side lot between our properties, and you do not have the set back of 10 feet required under the Village Code (Schedule of Regulations, Part III, for R-2 zone lot) in order to expand the bulk of that portion of your �* Robert Welch -2- March 26, 2001 building. If you can produce a current survey that shows otherwise, I would be happy to take a look at it. Second, the New York State Building Code limits a building such as yours (Type 5 construction) to 2 stories, and even if you put the dormer windows into your attic that story could not legally be habitable space (Sections 705.2(b), and 606.3(2)(100) of the NYS Building Code). It appears that the Village does not have the authority to grant you the changes that you are seeking, and therefore it would be appropriate for you to withdraw your application and to reconsider your plans. Even if these problems did not exist, however, there are several reasons why we invite you to withdraw your application. We gathered from your discussions with us when you sought to buy the Village paper road to the west of your property that you intend eventually to expand your house in that direction, with the addition of a new garage and second story above it. Would it not would make much more sense for you to submit all your plans together, so that the neighbors and Village officials can properly evaluation the full scope of your intended changes? Your house was designed with an integrity of scale, to fit onto a difficult site. The addition of bulk on the back of your house deprives it of a balanced design and compromises the integrity of the building. Your proposed plans, in short, would not be as lovely as the existing building, and from aesthetic considerations alone should not be endorsed by the Board of Architectural Review. Our Village does not need to evolve toward "MacMansions." Had you wanted to live in a larger home, there are many to be found. Your proposal will eventually have to be referred to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Committee for consistency findings under the Village LWRP. The proposed interference with the viewshed violates the Village of Sleepy Hollow's LWRP Policies 23, 23A, 23B, 23C and 25, 25A and 25B, and should be revised so as not to violate those policies. The Village should not have new bulk added to houses so as to wall off views of the River from other parts of the Village. The views from the public lane are important, especially since the lane is narrow. The views from the lane should not be encroached upon. You need to reconsider your ideas in light of these Village coastal zone planning policies. More fundamental from our neighborly perspective, is the way your proposal would destroy much of our south-west views toward the Hudson River. Our house once faced the River, as yours does now, and when your house was build (blocking the full River view from our house) the original builder was careful to leave corner angle views �Robert Welch -3- March 26,2001 from our property. We have enjoyed these views. We moved to Philipse Manor in 1972 because the neighborhood was fully built (with the exception of a few vacant lots) We did not expect building proposals that would further restrict our River views. The proposed roof raising and expansion your second story restrict our southwesterly river views from our patio, yard, garage sun roof, and from the interior windows of our house. For instance, your proposal to raise the roof over your master bed room will wipe out the southwest view of the Hudson from our master bed room. Moreover, since river views add substantially to real estate value, your plans to restrict our views could diminish our property value. If you persist in your application, we shall have to rely on the Board of Architectural Review to respect our existing property rights, and ask the Board not approve your plans which, if approved, would - in effect - constitute an act of inverse condemnation, and be an unlawful taking our property rights and values. Your proposals to add new windows are also an intrusion since the new windows peer directly into our back year. Our first reaction to your plan was that now we shall have to build back the five foot fence between our lots, just so that we can restore a modicum privacy to our lot. The dormer windows, from the non-habitable attic, will loom toward our yard. There are other ways to bring light into your attic that are less intrusive to your immediate neighbors. Have you considered them? Finally, we note that you have retained a fine architect for your proposal, Sean E. McCarthy, and we are grateful that you seek to maintain the same architectural style (if not the bulk) with a quality architectural firm. However, we must note that it is not proper for a Member of the Board of Architectural Review to appear before that same Board representing you as an applicant. It is fundamental element of good government and ethics in New York State that Board Members not appear before the Boards on which they serve. It is not enough to have a member recuse himself or herself as employment conflicts arise. We do not wish to recommend that Sean McCarthy step down from his service on our Village's Architectural Review Board, or seek a formal ethics ruling about his status thus far, and it would just be best if you simply withdrew your application in �Robert Welch -4- March 26,2001 light of these problems also. After you have withdrawn your application, may we respectfully suggest that you consider retaining a representative to appear before the Board whose position will not entail the appearance of a conflict of interest. We look forward to discussing your plans with you, and hope that you will reconsider your proposals. Very truly yours, Shelley M. Robinson cc: Mayor Board of Architectural Review Building Inspector Barstow, Cartenuto, Dionne, Engle, Gilliat, Hawes, Kelly, Marlow, and Pappas Harrie Lewis Nicholas A. Robinson � 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-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_ARB_2001-03-28 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board 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