https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/5106359e65b44cb11b606ff04932b7e1.pdf 2bff4764cb384dd749f0943b8ad84027 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING - APPROVED June 16, 2005 The meeting was called to order at 8:04 pm by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman David Perlmutter Gary Malunis Ed McCarthy Nicholas Cicchetti Ed Napoleon George Tanner Absent: None. 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) Nicholas Ward-Willis (Keane & Beane/Village Special Land-Use Counsel) Proposed Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Resolution: Planning Board rules on the electronic recording of meetings Minutes for April and May 2005 Monopole/Omnipoint Miller 24 Lakeview Drive Doorley Palmer Avenue James Kennedy Construction Pokahoe Drive Mill Point Partners 300 North Broadway KWD Realty 309-313 North Broadway Robert Russell Terrace Close Site Plan Compliance Other Announcements – Ed Napoleon made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Tanner absent). 1) Electronic recording of public meetings The Chair referred to counsel. �Nick Ward Willis summarized the proposed rules for the public. The Chair offered a copy of the rules of order to the public. The Chair stated that the form must be filed with the Village so that any misused recordings can be traced. The Chair asked if there were any questions. David Perlmutter asked if electricity was to be provided by the Village or by the individuals making the recording. The Chair responded that the Village would not supply electricity for recording purposes. David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the Resolution. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Tanner absent). 2) Minutes for April and May 2005 The minutes for April and May 2005 will be reviewed at the next meeting. 3) Omnipoint/Monopole Nicholas Ward Willis recused himself from this agenda item. The Chair stated that a draft Resolution was circulated to the Board. The Chair referred to Owen Wells. He noted that the Resolution was reviewed by attorney, Ed Lammers. Owen Wells summarized the Resolution for the Board. The Chair stated that the applicant has had many opportunities to appear before the Board and correct the illegalities of the monopole. Gary Malunis made a motion to adopt the Resolution. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Tanner absent). 4) Miller This is a continuation of previous meetings. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 2 �Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant is revising his application. David Perlmutter made a motion to adjourn the public hearing to the next meeting until a revised application can be received. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Tanner absent). 5) Doorley Geraldine Tortanello is an attorney representing this application along with Landscape Architect, John Slaker, and owner, Michael Doorley. Ed Napoleon made a motion to open the public hearing. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Tanner absent). The Chair stated that supportive documentation was just received this evening and that the Village consultants have not had a change to review the documents. Geraldine Tortanello briefly discussed the proposed plan. She spoke about the subdivision and how it relates to the community. She described the proposed lot sizes. She spoke about the existing house and the houses that could be built on the lots. She stated that each house would have to appear before the Board for site plan approval. She spoke about the proposed landscaping that would provide screening between the houses. She also stated that a Cultural Resource Phase 1B study would be performed prior to developing the lots based on the results of the Cultural Resource Phase 1A study. The Chair commended counsel for the applicant for the care of her presentation. The Chair asked if the Village Architect or Village consultants have any comments. Since the documents were only received today, the Village consultants stated that ample time would be required to review. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Ed Napoleon made a motion to adjourn the public hearing to the next meeting. Ed McCarthy seconded. David Perlmutter asked if by closing the public hearing is the Board losing its ability to refer this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair responded no. David Perlmutter asked if this application is the same application that the Waterfront APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 3 �Advisory Committee previously gave a negative recommendation. Geraldine Tortanello responded yes. David Perlmutter stated that the Board would have to develop findings as to why they do not agree with the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s advice. Geraldine Tortanello responded yes. The Chair asked if the document submitted address the previous Waterfront Advisory Committee’s recommendations. Geraldine Tortanello responded yes. The motion was unanimously approved (7-0). 6) James Kennedy Construction – Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application along with the project engineer, Emilio Escalades. George Tanner made a motion to re-open the public hearing. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). The Chair noted that the Board has received numerous documents. Owen Wells informally noted all of the documents received by the Board. They included letters from the public and the applicant. The Chair noted receipt of the expanded EAF. Richard Blancato stated that the Environmental consultant (Steven Coleman) has revisited the site and re-confirmed that the site conditions have not changed. He also spoke about the proposed landscaping on the site. The Chair noted a letter from the current owner Mr. Trent indicating that James Kennedy Construction, Inc. is the contract vendee and is the applicant. Emilio Escalades spoke about the expanded EAF. The Chair stated that a report needs to be filed indicating the wetland conditions including soil types, plantings, etc. He stated that a letter from the applicant’s Environmental Engineer restating his prior position is not a sufficient report for the record. He stated that this report was previously requested by the Board and is not in the 4 APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 �expanded EAF. Emilio Escalades responded that the report was previously submitted to the Board. Owen Wells provided a copy for the Board. The Chair stated that the letter is undated and unstamped by the Village. Emilio Escalades responded that the letter was submitted as part of the original 2004 application. The Chair stated that the specific soils are not listed. He stated that a wetlands report should list how the eight-flagged boarder-lines are delineated. He stated that the concerns should be under a professional seal or under an affidavit. The Chair stated that the facts have not been submitted to the Board. The Chair stated that the wetlands are noted on the survey. He stated that he wants the verification of the data on which the survey lines were drawn. Emilio Escalades continued to summarize the expanded EAF. He spoke about the site conditions. He stated that there are no grade alterations to the The Chair asked about the rationale as to why changes are needed within the buffer zone. Emilio Escalades responded that the wetlands buffer would be invaded in order to build the house. David Perlmutter asked why the wall is proposed. Richard Blancato responded that the Environmental Engineer recommended the wall as a mitigation measure. The Chair stated that the mitigation plan is required under the NYS Wetlands law. He asked if a mitigation plan exists. Emilio Escalades responded that the plan exists in several places. He referred to the wetlands remediation section of the EAF. The Chair referred to 61-13.A.2 of the Village Code. He read the section. It described the expansion of the buffer on a 2:1 ratio. Richard Blancato responded that no landscaping is being removed from the buffer zone. The planting schedule was reviewed by the Board. Emilio Escalades spoke about the historical significance of the Fremont House. He stated that the existing house has been extensively modified and is not a historical structure. The Chair stated that as per the Coastal Zone Assets adopted by the Village is listed as a historic place. He read the applicable sections of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan for the record. The Chair stated that the historic nature of the house must be 5 APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 �addressed. Richard Blancato stated that the house is not listed in the State of Federal listing of historic places. The Chair stated that the applicant must prove that the house is not listed as a historic structure. Richard Blancato stated that the house was modified in 1980’s and since the house was altered, it is not a historic structure. The Chair stated that the applicant must correct the record. The Chair asked the Village Engineer to report on the site drainage calculation. Mike Stein responded that he submitted a letter to the Village. The Chair stated that he wants a specific detailed statement indicating specific compliance with the wetlands law. He asked that the Village consultants for the next meeting provide this written narrative. The Chair asked if the applicant has responded to the letters from the public. Emilio Escalades responded that the letters have been answered by the EAF. The Chair re-opened the public hearing Leonard Andrews (7 Pokahoe Drive) clarified the landscaping plan indicates that all of the trees in the rear will be removed. He stated that his letter to the Board is clear but he can further clarify the letter if needed. He stated that the size of the house is too large for the building lot. Richard Blancato explained the proposed tree removals. There were no further public comments. The Chair stated that under the wetlands ordinance section 61-9(c) this application is a Type II action. He asked if the Board wants to refer this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Richard Blancato responded that this application has appeared before the Waterfront Advisory Committee twice before. The Chair stated that the application is not the same. He referred to special land-use counsel. Nicholas Ward Willis stated that Type II action is exempt from SEQRA regulations. He stated that the Wetlands Consistency Review Law allows the Board to refer certain Type II actions for review under certain Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP) policies. There was an open discussion on the applicable LWRP policies, specifically LWRP policies 5B, 23, 23A, 23B, 25 and 25A. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 6 �The Board agreed that LWRP policies 23, 23A and 25 apply to this application. David Perlmutter made a motion to refer this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee for their advice. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). The Chair stated that the Board would begin to draft findings for review at the next meeting. He stated that a mitigation plan is required for approval. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to adjourn the public hearing to the next meeting. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). 7) Mill Point Partners Michael Molinelli is the project architect and is representing this application along with Dan Beaton and attorney Kyle McGovern. Michael Molinelli spoke about the original proposal and its associated revisions leading to the current proposal. He spoke about the 8-units that are proposed and the parking plan revisions. He stated that no variances are needed except for the front yard variance for a pre-existing non-conformity that is in character with the neighborhood. He spoke about the current parking configuration. He stated that a parking space has been removed from 26 to 25, which still complies with the Village Code. He stated that one-bedroom will be removed as a result but it provides a better plan. He spoke about the loading zone and elevator access from the parking lot area. The Chair asked for market studies that prove that these units are viable. Kyle McGovern responded that this information has been provided to the Board. He stated that the reason to increase from 6-units to 8-units was due to the economics of the property. He stated that a financial analysis would be provided. David Perlmutter stated that the applicant needs to prove that the increase from 6-units to 8-units is required based on financial hardship. The Chair asked if a formal application had been submitted. Sean McCarthy responded no. The Chair asked about the status of the application. Kyle McGovern responded that final drawings would be ready for the next meeting. He requested to be referred to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant is seeking feedback from the Board regarding the 7 APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 �density. The Board responded that the 6-unit development is preferred. The Chair referred to the Village consultants. Mike Stein stated that he has asked about the storm drain system. He stated that he has not received the information. Michael Molinelli responded that they met with the Village Architect a few days ago to discuss. He stated that the plans would be further developed. Dan Beaton stated that all zoning aspects are satisfied. He offered to go through the financial calculation for the Board. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Gary Malunis made a motion to declare the Planning Board as the Lead Agency. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). George Tanner made a motion to schedule the public hearing for the next meeting. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Sean McCarthy stated that the Zoning Board must act on the required variances before the Planning Board can take any actions. George Tanner made a motion to cancel the public hearing and refer the applicant to the Zoning Board. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). 8) KWD Realty Karl Dibble is the owner and is representing this application. Karl Dibble stated that plans were submitted to the Board. Sean McCarthy stated that a Resolution has been drafted concerning the joining the two properties. George Tanner asked about the monies held from the previous owner of the property. Nicholas Ward Willis responded that he would follow-up. There was an open discussion on the repair of the culvert. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 8 �Karl Dibble asked if the Board had any other comments on the proposed site plan. The Chair responded that the concept seems ok but the issue with the culvert needs to be addressed. He stated that the traffic patterns need to be addressed as well. Nick Ward Willis asked if the proposed property is wholesale or retail. Karl Dibble responded retail. Karl Dibble asked to be sent to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair responded that the culvert and traffic patterns need to be resolved so the Waterfront Advisory Committee has a complete plan to review. This was adjourned to the next meeting. No action was taken. 9) Robert Russell Paul Petretti is the engineer representing this application on behalf of the owner. Paul Petretti described the proposed site plan. He spoke about the proposed driveway. He spoke about the proposed storm water management plan and about the sewer and water connection points. Sean McCarthy stated that a preliminary review of the plans was performed and the plans appear to contain all of the necessary information. George Tanner asked if the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) has been met. Owen Wells responded that the FAR requirements have changed but the applicant meets the requirements. Sean McCarthy asked the Board to refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee and the Tree Commission. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to send the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Nick Ward Willis stated that the Board needs to identify the applicable Waterfront Advisory Committee policies. It was decided that special land-use counsel would draft a letter listing applicable LWRP polices. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 9 �This was adjourned to the next meeting. 10) Site Plan Compliance The Chair asked about the current Building Inspector. Sean McCarthy responded that he is the interim Building Inspector. a) Ichabod’s Landing Sean McCarthy spoke about the height of the structures at the Ichabod’s Landing site. He referenced the RF section of the Village Code. George Tanner asked if the structure is legal. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair asked about the height of the Ichabod’s Landing site and how it would relate to the GM site. Steve Maseack spoke about the height of the structure being built at the Ichabod’s Landing site. He stated that the structure is at 52-feet high which violates the 42foot height requirement in the RF section of the Village Code. Sean McCarthy explained the methods used to calculate the height of a structure under the Village Code. George Tanner asked for clarification on the Village Code language. There was an open discussion on the definition of height in the Village Code. George Tanner stated that this needs to be resolved. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to appear before the Board to discuss the issue. The Chair stated that the Board should draft an amendment in order to correct the procedures involving the site plan approval. b) 362 North Broadway Sean McCarthy updated the project status. The Chair asked about the underground fuel storage tanks. He spoke about the fuel storage tank replacement status. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 10 �c) Kendal-on-Hudson – The Chair asked about the first floor unit access. He stated that those units are 2-3 feet off the ground. Sean McCarthy responded that the all of the eastern entrances are at grade level. The Chair stated that computer simulations of the views of the James House in the FEIS were not accurate. d) County House Road Sean McCarthy updated the revised buffer issues. The Chair asked about the development of the adjacent site in Tarrytown. The Chair referred to the Environmental Scoping document. He stated that the document should be shared with Tarrytown. 11) Other There was an open discussion on how to cite the monopole with a violation. It was decided that the citation must come from the Building Department. Adjourned at 10:25 pm to the next meeting. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, June 16, 2005 11 � 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-2005 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_2005-06-16 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005