https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/678b85d9413427107503da18339a46bc.pdf e7da7bf4a664c9ca6ef1ef14864c8628 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING - APPROVED July 21, 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 George Tanner Absent: Ed Napoleon 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) Miller Doorley James Kennedy Construction KWD Realty Site Plan Compliance Minutes of April, May and June 2005 Other Executive Session 24 Lakeview Drive Palmer Avenue Pokahoe Drive 309-313 North Broadway Announcements – George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that the Mill Point Partners application has requested that the item be adjourned to the next meeting. 1) Miller This is a continuation of the public hearing. The Chair stated that the applicant has requested that the application be adjourned to the next meeting. �George Tanner made a motion to re-open the public hearing. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Since there were no public comments, George Tanner made a motion to close and continue the public hearing. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). George Tanner made a motion to inform the applicant that the requested information must be submitted to the Board at the next meeting or the application would be stricken from the agenda. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 2) Doorley Geraldine Tortarello is an attorney representing this application along with Landscape Architect, John Slaker, and owner, Michael Doorley. George Tanner made a motion to open the public hearing. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Geraldine Tortarello spoke about the applicable LWRP policy analysis that was performed under this application to address the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s prior recommendations. She contended that the Committee’s findings are in error. She spoke about her clients belief that the application is consistent with the LWRP. She also analyzed how the current proposed site layout is the same layout that was presented to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. She stated that the present site plan has not changed from the previous Waterfront Advisory Committee recommendations. Lastly, she stated that the Committee would probably not have a different recommendation. The Chair opened the public hearing. The Chair stated that the adjacent property owners have not submitted any comments to the Village regarding the application. The Chair asked if the parcels would require further site plan approval for each individual lot. Geraldine Tortarello responded yes. She stated that the information provided is only used as a guide to illustrate what might be built on the lot. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. David Perlmutter stated that the property is the most important site in Phillipse Manor. He stated that the viewshed would be negatively altered. He stated that he is opposed to the house on Palmer Avenue. He stated that just because the specific site is not specifically referenced in the LWRP does not mean it should be ignored. Geraldine Tortarello responded that the Doorley property would not affect the viewshed. She stated that this property is not specifically identified in the LWRP. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 2 �David Perlmutter asked why the Board should overrule the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s decision. Geraldine Tortarello responded that the Committee made a mistake in their analysis of the property. There was an open discussion on whether or not to send the applicant back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair stated that the record before the Board indicates a proposal to carve out three equally spaced lots out of the parcel. He stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s recommendations should not be lightly overturned. The Chair asked the Board to ask the applicant for whatever additional information the members would require. George Tanner asked what actions the Board would have to do to overturn the advice of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Nicholas Ward-Willis stated that the Village has specific standards for the approving agency to make its own determination and it could overturn the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s findings. Geraldine Tortarello added that the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s discussion did not include landscaping, etc. She stated that the Committee was hung up around the impacts of additional houses surrounding the existing home. She stated that all of the current developments in the Village need to be taken into consideration. David Perlmutter stated that eliminating the viewsheds through the property violates the LWRP. Geraldine Tortarello responded that the property is not specifically listed in the LWRP. George Tanner read Policy 25 regarding identified resources that are of statewide significance. The Chair analyzed the views of each lot to determine the visual impacts to the viewshed. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that if the house on Palmer Avenue were removed, it would improve the plan. He stated that the houses are too close together. Nicholas Ward Willis stated that the Village Code, Section 59a-5, does not contain any specific guidelines to overturn the advice of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Geraldine Tortarello referred to a memo from the Village Planning consultant regarding an independent determination on the sub-division. The Chair reviewed the facts before the Board. The Chair stated that the record is complete. Jordan Bernstein (lives adjacent to the applicant) stated that the purpose of placing the APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 3 �houses on the proposed plan are to layout the building parameters. He stated that he is concerned about the location of the proposed driveway. He stated that some of the concerns could be mitigated by enforcing certain building alterations. He noted that the driveways could be relocated or shared between the two properties. He stated that the proposed houses are rather large. The Chair stated that the size of the houses on the plan use the maximum floor-area-ratio (FAR). He stated that the development of the houses would need an additional site plan review. Geraldine Tortarello reviewed the location of the existing and proposed driveways. She stated that the plan presented a less than maximum FAR. Since there were no further public comments, George Tanner made a motion to close the public hearing. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that some of the Board members have expressed concerns about the viewsheds from lot #2. The Chair stated that the Board needs to address Policy 25 and 25(b) of the LWRP. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that if the applicant would go back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee with the revised plan, they should receive a new recommendation. The Chair stated that since the Waterfront Advisory Committee has already made their recommendations on the proposed plan, it would not be productive to send the applicant back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. George Tanner stated that there is no flexibility in the proposal. He stated that he does not agree with the Palmer Avenue site. Gary Malunis stated that lot #2 should not be considered. He stated that he would be in favor of a 2-lot development instead of a 3-lot subdivision. Ed McCarthy stated that he thinks the proposed plan is acceptable. David Perlmutter stated that he has a problem with the development of lot #2. He stated that he also has a problem with going against the advice of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He stated that once the sub-division is complete, the individual site plans could drastically change. The Chair stated that counsel has recommended entering into executive session. George Tanner made a motion to go into executive session to seek legal advise from counsel. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Board entered into executive session at 8:45pm. David Perlmutter made a motion to resume the meeting. George Tanner seconded. It APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 4 �was unanimous (6-0). The meeting resumed at 8:50pm. No action was taken. The Chair stated that the Board unanimously agreed that the Board would not make a decision this evening and requested counsel to provide a legal opinion to the Board. He stated that the Board would carry this matter over to the next meeting. 3) James Kennedy Construction – Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application along with the project engineer, Emilio Escaladas. Gary Malunis made a motion to re-open the public hearing. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that the amended EAF is not dated. It was agreed that the EAF was submitted to the Village on July 8, 2005. The Chair noted a memo from Leonard Andrews, a memo from the Village Planner and Village Engineer. Richard Blancato stated that the application has been amended. He stated that all construction activities have been removed from the buffer area. He stated that the only activity that is proposed in the buffer area would be to remove a few dead trees. The Chair stated that at the last meeting, the Board asked for clarification of specific wetlands conditions. He stated that the record needs to be complete based on past legal actions on this application. Steven Coleman responded that the original report was filed to the Village back in 2003. He reviewed his credentials for the Board. There was an open discussion on the Village’s Wetlands Ordinance. The Chair referred to counsel on what the Village Wetlands Ordinance requires from an applicant in terms of a record. Nicholas Ward-Willis read the Village’s Wetlands Ordinance aloud. Steven Coleman reviewed the three parameters for wetlands delineation. He stated that the report includes the three parameters. He read the applicable report sections from his November 2003 report that included the description of the wetlands on the site. Richard Blancato stated that once the wetlands were flagged, the surveyor placed the wetlands on the property survey. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 5 �The Chair stated that the methodology used to make the necessary findings is not in the report. Steven Coleman responded that the methodologies he used are in the Federal manual. The Chair stated that a document detailing how the findings were discovered is required. He stated that the methodologies are a very important part of the record. Steven Coleman offered to submit the report under an affidavit and submit his credentials to support his findings. The Chair asked if the Village consultants had any comments. There was none. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. George Tanner stated that the reports should be submitted under an affidavit. The Chair stated that the report should be submitted under an affidavit. He also stated that the report should reflect the type of vegetation present or not present in the wetlands. Sean McCarthy asked the applicant to explain: 1) How the contractor proposes to construct a structure so close to the buffer fence line without disturbing the buffer area. 2) The dry wells are located too close to the property boundaries and proposed structures. Relocate to minimum dimensions. 3) Submit a construction plan indicating how the applicant will store materials and excess fill material on the site. Indicate where construction vehicles will park on te site. Gary Malunis inquired that when excluding the buffer area, what is the square footage of the following: 1) Total square footage of the new site 2) Size of the house 3) Driveway 4) Remaining green area excluding the buffer Richard Blancato responded that nothing has changed on the house. The Chair asked what are the Village requirements of dry wells. Sean McCarthy responded that the dry wells must be 10-feet from the property lines. The Chair stated that the drywell would have to be adjusted to reflect the boundaries. Emilio Escaladas responded that the location of the drywell would be altered. Richard Blancato stated that a chain link fence would be erected to prevent anyone from APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 6 �entering the wetlands buffer area. The Chair stated that at the next meeting, a complete record of the proceedings should be prepared by the Village Planner. He stated that once the delineation record is complete, the applicant has requested that the Board make a determination that the application for a Wetlands permit be found to be out of the Planning Board’s jurisdiction. The Chair asked if the public had any comments. John Dauer (8 Pokahoe Drive) submitted a letter to the Board. He stated that the complete record for this application is inconsistent. He stated that a much stronger report is needed from the Environmental-consulting engineer. He stated that he is not in favor of a chain-link fence. He stated that the wetlands buffer should be deeded to the Village. He stated that Steven Coleman’s reports are insufficient. He stated that the historical relevance still has not been addressed. He stated that the residents have to keep coming back every month. He stated that the application should be complete before the Board takes action. Richard Blancato responded that the fence is a construction fence not a permanent fence. Len Andrews (7 Pokahoe Drive) referred to his 4-page memo submitted to the Board. He reviewed the site plan. He stated that the future owner of the property would want to fillin and level the rear yard. He stated that LWRP needs to be addressed. Richard Blancato responded that the wetlands buffer area would not be filled-in by the developer. The Chair stated that the public hearing would be kept open to the next meeting until the remaining items are submitted. David Perlmutter made a motion to adjourn the public hearing to the next meeting. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 4) KWD Realty Karl Dibble is the owner and is representing this application. Sean McCarthy stated that he met with NYS DOT reps concerning the drainage culvert on Route 9. He stated that a Professional Engineer is developing drawings to repair the culvert. George Tanner asked who would be paying for the repairs. Sean McCarthy responded that the Village would be seeking grants to pay for the repairs. He stated that the retainage monies from the previous property owner were returned upon the sale of the property. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 7 �The Chair stated that the curb cut should be coordinated with the Mill Point Partner proposed curb cut. He stated that a traffic engineer should determine the ideal curb cuts for both properties. The Chair also stated that the Village Consultants have additional comments that need to be addressed. Karl Dibble showed a sketch on the potential traffic patterns entering and exiting the site. The Chair asked if the Village consultants had any comments. Sean McCarthy stated that he spoke with the applicant regarding the traffic flow on North Broadway. Nicholas Ward Willis stated that the site is zoned for retail use only. He stated that a commitment needs to be made by the applicant that a wholesale business will not take place on the site. Sean McCarthy also stated that the previous approved site plan needs to be altered if the previously approved uses are proposed to be changed. The Chair stated that the traffic concerns need to be addressed. He stated that the Village must conform to NYS DOT traffic flows. The Chair stated that the applicant should look to take care of the sidewalk repair right away. He stated that the traffic flow needs to be coordinated with Mill Point Partners and the Village. Karl Dibble asked if the Board had any comments. The Chair stated that the site plan should proceed forward but the application is in the preliminary stages. This item was carried over to the next meeting. 5) Site Plan Compliance The Chair stated that the Board had a recommendation from the Village Planner on how to calculate the height of a building. Sean McCarthy reviewed the Village Code requirements on how to measure a gable roof. He stated that in the Riverfront District, the height is determined not from the curb level but from the final grade. George Tanner stated that the code should be changed to be the tallest part of the APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 8 �structure. David Perlmutter responded that if that were the case, everyone would construct flat roofs. The Board by consensus agreed that the recommendations proposed to the Board of Trustees are sufficient. David Perlmutter made a motion to send the Board’s recommendations to the Board of Trustees. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). a) 362 North Broadway Sean McCarthy updated the project status. He stated that the project is almost complete. b) 16 New Broadway – Sean McCarthy stated that the work is almost complete. He stated that the landscaping would not occur until September/October. c) Kendal-on-Hudson – Sean McCarthy stated that the entire project should be closed out next month. The Chair asked if the gas main was installed. Sean McCarthy stated that an additional above ground 10,000-gallon oil tank inside the building to supplement the heating system since Con Edison has not provided the low-pressure gas line that was requested. He stated that there is an existing 10,000-gallon storage tank in the basement. It was agreed that the applicant would be informed that this additional tank might require an amended site plan. This will be carried over to the next meeting. d) County House Road Sean McCarthy stated that the last house on the development is under construction. The Chair asked about the flood control measures. Sean McCarthy responded based on recent storms, the system is working well. 6) Minutes from the April, May and June 2005 meetings APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 9 �The minutes for April 2005 were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The minutes for May 2005 were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The minutes for June 2005 will be reviewed at the next meeting. 7) Other George Tanner asked about the status of the monopole. Sean McCarthy responded that no actions have been taken yet. He stated that the necessary information is being assembled. There was an open discussion on site plan issues and compliance. He stated that the matters would be taken up with the Mayor prior to the next meeting. 8) Executive Session George Tanner made a motion to go into executive session. Gary Malunis seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Board entered into executive session at 10:00pm to discuss matters of personnel. David Perlmutter made a motion to resume the meeting. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The meeting resumed at 10:15pm. No action was taken. Adjourned at 10:15 pm to the next meeting. APPROVED - Planning Board Meeting, July 21, 2005 10 � 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_2005-07-21 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