https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d2f48b6187fb45c7c8a9e34223c3717b.pdf 14fcb32b0696267eb0e16997b291607a PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING - APPROVED February 16, 2006 The meeting was called to order at 8:03 pm by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman David Perlmutter Gary Malunis Ed Napoleon Ed McCarthy Absent: George Tanner Nicholas Cicchetti Also Present: Owen Wells (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Mike Stein (Dolph Rotfield/Village Engineer) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/ Village Planner) Nick Ward-Willis (Keane & Beane/Village Special Land-Use Counsel) Announcements – None. Proposed Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 128 Cortlandt Street, LLC New parking lot 97 College Ave Carol Lyden Horse Stable 150 Gorey Brook Rd Sleepy Hollow Cemetery Community mausoleum Village Comprehensive Plan preparation Mill Point Partners Mixed use bldg 300 North Broadway KWD Realty site plan approval 309-313 N Broadway Doorley sub-division Palmer Avenue Robin Bernacchia Swimming pool 4 County House Rd George Samaras site plan approval 76 Chestnut Street Site Plan compliance Planning Board procedures Minutes of December 2005 and January 2006 meetings David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 1) 128 Cortlandt Street - �John Hughes requested an adjournment so that the engineering analysis can be completed. David Perlmutter made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Carol Lyden – This is a continuation from previous meetings. Bob Snyder stated that the applicant has decided to relocate the proposed horse stable to another location on the property. He submitted several sketches to the Board and asked that this application be sent to the Waterfront Advisory Committee for consistency with the LWRP. David Perlmutter made a motion to send this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee and to adjourn the public hearing to the Board’s next meeting. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Sleepy Hollow Cemetery Ed Napoleon recused himself from this application. Len Andrews is presenting this application along with project engineer Dan Pennella and attorney Kyle McGovern. Ed McCarthy made a motion to re-open the public hearing. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) Napoleon abstained. Len Andrews stated that the Board had requested that other locations within the cemetery property be studied as possible alternatives. He stated that other alternative locations had been examined, but this is the only location that this mausoleum can be constructed. Dan Pennella followed-up by stating that several locations on the cemetery property were studied. He reviewed each location and provided specific reasons why each location was not feasible. Reasons ranged from increased visual impacts to substantial topographical issues. The Chair asked how the viewshed would be mitigated. Dan Pennella responded that the proposed structure would be screened with appropriate APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, February 16, 2006 2 �landscaping. He presented a landscaping plan to the Board. Len Andrews also stated that there is an existing hedge on Route 9 that can be allowed to grow to a higher level for additional screening. Len Andrews stated that the applicant is not here to make a profit. He stated that the mausoleum must be built for the preservation of the cemetery. He stated that the proposed mausoleum is the smallest mausoleum that can be built that has a chapel-like presence. He discussed some of the architectural features of the mausoleum. He stated that the roof would be slate and the building would be granite to match the existing building. Tom Mullen (contractor – Mullen Construction) spoke about the proposed construction. He stated that he recommended a larger structure but the cemetery is committed on building a smaller structure. Davis Perlmutter asked if the applicant has re-visited the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Len Andrews responded that the Waterfront Advisory Committee is concerned with the viewshed. He stated that he does not see the need to re-visit the Waterfront Advisory Committee since this is the only location where the mausoleum can be built. Ed McCarthy asked if the cemetery would build a larger structure now. Len Andrews responded that an extension might be built in the future but currently the proposed structure fits into the cemetery’s plans. The Chair asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The Chair stated that the cemetery is nationally recognized. He stated that the cemetery is important to the historical nature of the Village. He also stated that the applicant has made extra efforts in terms of the scale and fabric of the building and its impacts to the community. The Chair also noted that it has received the comments from the Waterfront Advisory Committee on this application. Ed McCarthy made a motion to close the public hearing. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) Napoleon abstained. Nick Ward-Willis stated that the Planning Board needs to generate its own findings stating why it did not follow the advice of the Waterfront Advisory Committee to support 3 APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, February 16, 2006 �the Board’s decision. He noted that the Waterfront Advisory Committee only provides a recommendation to the Board as to an application’s consistency with the Local Waterfront Advisory Plan (LWRP). He stated that the Planning Board’s decision should have sufficient basis in the record to support a review that the Board has considered the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s recommendation and the Board has determined reasons why the Committee’s recommendations should not be followed. The Chair noted that the Waterfront Advisory Committee reviewed Policy 25A which included the viewshed from Route 9. He stated that the views from this location would not be affected. He stated that the cemetery has previously expanded to the North. He noted that the residents had no objection to the cemetery’s previous expansion. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve this application. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) Napoleon abstained. The Chair requested staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the Board’s next meeting. 4) Village Comprehensive Plan Preparation The Chair stated that the land uses on the back side of the Village need to be stabilized to properly integrate with the waterfront development. Dave Smith stated that most communities have a master plan. He stated that a comprehensive plan would be a compliment to the previously prepared linkage study. He stated that the LWRP is a good document that addresses the waterfront. The Chair stated that the plan should be drafted. Ed Napoleon made a motion to have the Village Planner prepare a recommendation to be sent to the Board of Trustees regarding drafting a comprehensive plan. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Mill Point Partners – This is a continuation from previous meetings. David Perlmutter made a motion to re-open the public hearing. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Dan Beaton is representing this application. He summarized the response to the Village Engineer’s comments on the plans. He stated that a response was submitted and that APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, February 16, 2006 4 �there are no major engineering issues. Dan Beaton stated that the project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. He stated that the Board gave some good feedback on the project. He spoke about the revised architectural features. The Chair acknowledged a letter from Henry Steiner. The letter states that the project is too big for the gateway-point into the Village. Dan Beaton responded that if Mr. Steiner had a chance to see the plans, he would not view the project as too big for the area. He stated that the Zoning Board and Waterfront Advisory Committee did not have any objections to the project. He also stated that the project is in keeping with the architectural features of other buildings in the area. Ed Napoleon added that St. Paul’s Church was much larger than the proposed project. Kathleen Doorley (247 Palmer Ave) stated that it appears to encroach on the street. Dan Beaton responded that the footprint of the structure is not changing. Kathleen Doorley asked about the setback from the structure to the street. Sean McCarthy responded that the octagon is 6-inches from the property line. Dan Beaton stated that the turret is proposed in keeping with the architectural features of other properties in the area. The Board unanimously agreed that it was in favor of the application but will wait for the Architectural Review Board’s final decision before making an official decision on the project. 6) KWD Realty LLC The Chair asked about the status of the repair of the sidewalk and the storm drain. Sean McCarthy responded that the Village is preparing an engineering report that will assess how to repair the sidewalk and storm water pipe. The Chair stated that safe access to the property needs to be resolved before this application is allowed to proceed to public hearing. He recommended that the applicant meet with the Village on how the sidewalk will be repaired. Karl Dibble asked if the public hearing could be scheduled. The Board agreed that the record needs to be complete before going to the public hearing. This was adjourned to the next meeting. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, February 16, 2006 5 �No action was taken. 7) Doorley Geraldine Tortanello is representing this application along with owner, Kathleen Doorley. Geraldine Tortanello spoke about a recently discovered sub-division map that shows that a second building lot on Palmer Avenue was previously created. She stated that the missing sub-division map was not known during the presentation of the original application. The Chair apologized to the applicant on behalf of the Village for the lack of adequate records. Geraldine Tortanello stated that the applicant is requesting a lot line change to conform the properties according to their original site plan application. She also requested that a public hearing be scheduled for the next meeting. The Chair asked about the access to the existing house. Geraldine Tortanello responded that the driveway access would be moved over. Nick Ward-Willis stated that a revised sub-division map should be submitted indicating the previously approved lots on Palmer Avenue and the recently approved lots on Highland Avenue. He stated that the pending litigation has been adjourned to accommodate the public hearing. Ed Napoleon made a motion to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 8) Robin Bernacchia Kevin Ambrosio is the landscape architect representing this application on behalf of the owners. Kevin Ambrosio summarized the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s findings. Gary Malunis made a motion to schedule the public hearing for the next meeting. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, February 16, 2006 6 �9) George Samaras Jon Turnquist is representing this application along with attorney, Richard Blancato and owner, George Samaras. Jon Turnquist stated that the plan has been revised to reflect parking and lot coverage. He stated that the required parking is 27.5 spaces and 28 parking spaces are being proposed. He also stated that the revised plan is within the Village Zoning requirements for lot coverage. The Village Planner’s comments were provided to the applicant. The comments included parking lot size, traffic flows and parking space sizes. David Perlmutter asked if the required variances are known. Richard Blancato responded that variances are needed for lot size, front yard setback and rear yard setback. The Chair asked if the applicant had been before the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Richard Blancato responded no. The Board unanimously agreed to refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Richard Blancato asked if the Village Engineer would be providing comments. Mike Stein responded that preliminary comments have also been provided. He stated that more detailed comments will be provided through the Building Department. 10) Site Plan compliance a) Monopole – Sean McCarthy stated that he met with Snyder and Snyder. He stated that the monopole owner has agreed to lower the monopole into compliance. He also stated that the owners are also proposing to change the color of the monopole. The Chair stated that the original viewshed analysis noted that there would be nothing visible from Kykuit. He stated that the report was misleading and another balloon test might need to be performed. Sean McCarthy asked if the previously approved height might still be too high. The Chair responded yes. He stated that the use is also illegal with the Village’s GEIS for communication facilities. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, February 16, 2006 7 �b)Kendal-on-Hudson – Sean McCarthy stated that he received a letter from the resident association at Kendal. He stated that discussions have been on-going with the Mayor to open up the pathway. The Chair stated that the pathway was part of the approved site plan. David Perlmutter made a motion to have Kendal-on-Hudson reps appear before the Board to explain the pathway. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 11) Planning Board procedures The Chair asked about the Board’s policy on adjourning agenda items. He stated that the Board uses Robert’s Rules of Order. He stated that Robert’s Rules of Order have provisions for adjournments. He stated that the Board needs to decide if the rules need to be clarified for adjournments. David Perlmutter stated that the ability to adjourn a meeting should depend if the application is opposed by the public. The Chair asked the Village attorney if other municipalities have adopted similar policies. Nick Ward-Willis responded that some municipalities allow one adjournment. He stated that he could research this matter for the next meeting. The Chair stated that Planning Board procedure (f) (4) on public hearings will be reviewed for the next meeting. He stated that an additional section should be added involving adjournments. No action was taken. 12) Minutes for December 2005 and January 2006 The minutes from the December 2005 meeting were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes from the January 2006 meeting were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, February 16, 2006 8 �The Chair made a motion to adjourn. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:20 pm to the next meeting. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, February 16, 2006 9 � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 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_PLAN_2006-02-16 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2006 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2006 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