https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/018f984f933e484a0659322b0dc0d7c9.pdf 9d2210f298175c464fdd1dabd6d24f8b PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING March 7, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Absent: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman George Lence Terence McGlynn Karin Adir «*c»>»*0 _ « g 7(flft W* UH^Ci^* Donald Stever Doug Maass Also Present Dave Smith (Saccardi & SchirT/Village Planner) Shailesh Naik (Charles A Manganaro/Village Engineer) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of January 2001 Meeting b) Fremont Pond Dredging c) Kendal-on-Hudson a) Minutes of January 2001 Meeting The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted Ralph Gunderman seconded It was unanimous b) Fremont Pond Dredging Dave Smith spoke about the EAF for this application. He detailed the proposed dredging process and what will be done with the dredged material He also spoke about the applicable LWRP policies. Dave Smith stated that the NY Department of State has approved the item in their LWRP review. He also stated that the material removed is considered clean by the Department of Environmental Conservation. �The Chair asked if this process would result in a more habitable lake for fish and wildlife Dave Smith responded yes The Chair asked about the settling tank Dave Smith responded that the tank would be installed under the road and would be accessed probably once a year Karin Adir asked how long would the dredging process take. Dave Smith responded 10 weeks. Chuck Lancaster spoke about the dredging He stated that the most noticeable sedimentation is from the Southeast corner near Peabody field He stated that this needs to be mitigated to prevent future dredging. He also stated that there is a nest of swans at the Southeast end. The dredging should be coordinated with the nests hatching The Chair asked if the Committee had any other comments. There was none The Board voted unanimously that the dredging was consistent with the LWRP. Kendal-on-Hudson The Chair stated that Dan Pennelia and Shailesh Naik are the Village Engineers assigned to the Planning Board. They will answer any engineering questions that the Committee has concerning the proposed development. Dan Pennelia spoke about the sewer impacts. He used a map to illustrate the current sewer path within Sleepy Hollow Manor. He also stated that the Mount Pleasant Executive Center is contracted to pump 200 GPM into the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewer system. Although the center is vacant now, the model used included the sewage capacity as if the center was occupied. Terrance McGlynn asked if the model included the proposed Kendal usage. Dan Pennelia responded no Terrance McGlynn asked if the system could handle the Kendal volume. Dan Pennelia responded that they would pump the sewage at night so not to interfere with the residents. The Chair asked if Phelps hospital pumps their sewage. Dan Pennelia responded no. It is a gravity feed. Chuck Lancaster spoke about the EIS. He stated that there is no mention of the Sleepy Hollow pumping station and the impact that Kendal will have on it. He also spoke about the Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 7,2001 2 �sewer and storm drain systems He stated that the EIS in very inaccurate regarding both. The Chair asked Dan Pennella about the water pressure and the proposed Northern Loop. Dan Pennella responded that the Northern Loop is still under negotiations. The Chair stated that the uncertainty of the Northern Loop is a major concern. Dan Pennella responded that the water usage for Phelps Hospital has increased in the last few years He also stated that the increased water usage must result in increased sewage usage. The Chair stated that Doug Maass could not be at the meeting tonight but he is in favor of the project but he is not comfortable with the size of the proposed development. Ralph Gunderman stated that he could not find this project consistent with the LWRP for several reasons. Karin Adir stated that the project is important to the community but the potential water and sewer problems area concern. George Lence stated that a number of Policies were impacted by this development. He cited policies 5 A, 7D, 18D, 23 and 25. He stated that he is not comfortable with the proposed development. The Chair stated that he did find some consistency in the LWRP in policies 19 and 21. The Chair also stated that the Kendal presentation did not address the impacts of the mass and scale of the project. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to provide a recommendation that the project is not consistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous. Other TOPICS: None Adjourn at 9:24 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 7,2001 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Kendal on Hudson The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at several meetings in 2000, at its March 7, 2001 meeting and its June 13, 2001 meeting, the proposal (the "Proposal") submitted by Kendal on Hudson (the "Applicant") for the development of a continuing care retirement community ("CCRC") on the grounds of the Phelps Memorial Hospital Center ("Phelps") in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village"). At the June 13 meeting of the Committee, Mr. Andy Tung, of Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP and other representatives of Applicant presented modifications that had been made to the Project since the time of the March 7 meeting of the Committee, and answered questions from the Committee. The modifications to the Proposal were in response to earlier comments by the Committee and by members of the public. The Project The development project (the "Project" or "Kendal"), as presented to the Committee in its modified form, consists of 225 independent living apartments, 24 assisted living apartments and 42 skilled nursing rooms contained within 435,00O± square feet of structures. The proposed CCRC units comprise four buildings. Three of the buildings would contain independent living units (generally referred to in the Applicant's submission documents as ILU East, ILU West and ILU South). The fourth building, the Commons Building, would house community facilities, a health center, assisted living units and skilled nursing facilities, as well as some additional independent living units. The Project would be sited on the western side of the Phelps campus, north of the Sleepy Hollow Manor section of the Village and south of the Rockwood Hall section of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve. The proposed site is located in the Village's H (hospital use) zoning district. The Project contemplates that the H district zoning would be amended to make the CCRC facilities a permitted use within the district and to otherwise accommodate the Project. Access to the site would be provided from NY Route 117 and Rockwood Road (using an easement over lands that were owned by the Laurance S. Rockefeller Fund prior to dedication of the Rockwood Hall property to the State of New York as part of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve) and through a portion of the Phelps property. Signs for the CCRC would direct traffic to the Route 117/Rockwood Road access and it is expected that these signs would minimize access via the main Phelps entrance from Route 9. Parking for 390 vehicles would be provided in structures located beneath the proposed buildings and beneath a Phelps on-grade parking deck. The Project has been modified a number of times since its initial submission to the Committee. These modifications have included a reduction in the number of assisted living units from forty to twenty-four, lowering the height of a portion of the Commons Building from an �originally-proposed seven stories to five stories, provision for additional vegetative plantings and landscape buffer enhancements, and improvements to the sewer and water systems that serve the Phelps Hospital property and the Village. The architecture for the Project has also been modified since the time of the initial submission in order to make the buildings appear less institutional and to achieve greater harmony with the architectural style of The James House, an historic mansion owned by Phelps and adjacent to the Project site. Specifically, the proposed architecture is intended to reflect the Italianate style of The James House, and the building facades would incorporate a mixture of different building materials, varying window treatments and ornamental roof elements to break up the apparent massing of the proposed buildings. The modifications to the Project were based on comments raised as part of the public hearing process on the Project's Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS"), and in response to concerns raised by members of the Committee during prior meetings at which the Project had been reviewed. A comprehensive landscape program is proposed by the Applicant, which would include the preservation of a three hundred-foot buffer between the proposed CCRC and the Sleepy Hollow Manor neighborhood to the south. This buffer, which presently contains a number of dead or unhealthy trees, would be enhanced by additional reforestation plantings and would be maintained by Kendal. Further, the Applicant proposes a series of landscaped berms within the easement on the north side of the site, adjacent to Rockwood Hall. Landscaping is also proposed between The James House and the proposed ILU East and Commons Building, which is intended to soften the views of the proposed CCRC facility from The James House. Existing views of the Hudson River from The James House are, at present, largely screened by existing vegetation. The proposed plan would remove much of this vegetation, opening up views of the Hudson River and the western shoreline from The James House. The Applicant proposes to connect to existing Village water and sewer service. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its conclusion as to consistency of the Project with the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), considered Policies 5, 5A, 7D, 7E, 17,17A, 18, 18A, 18B, 18C, 19, 19D, 21D, 23, 23B, 25, 25A, 25B, 32A, 33 and 37 of the LWRP as being specifically applicable to the Project. After careful review of the applicable LWRP policies, the Committee found that the Project, as a whole, is consistent with the purposes and polices of the LWRP. Policy 5 - ENCOURAGE THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS WHERE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ESSENTIAL TO SUCH DEVELOPMENT ARE ADEQUATE. Both municipal water and sewer utilities are available to service the Project. The Village has recently acquired water rights that should improve the water supply system in the northern portion of the Village, which includes the Phelps site and the Sleepy Hollow Manor residential neighborhood. Connection of the proposed CCRC facility to this "northern loop" of the Village 2 �water supply system will enable the northern loop to back-feed Sleepy Hollow Manor, and is expected to increase pressure to this portion of the Village, which has long been plagued by low water pressure. Similarly, the Applicant proposes to connect to an existing sewer main serving Phelps which, in turn, connects to sewer mains running through Sleepy Hollow Manor to a pump station located on Riverside Drive. The Committee, at several of its meetings considering the Project, had expressed concerns that the Project could adversely impact the Village's sewer system and aggravate existing capacity problems in Sleepy Hollow Manor. However, the County of Westchester has committed to making improvements to portions of the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewage lines as part of a county-wide program relating to sewer inflow and infiltration, and the Applicant has committed to provide three hundred thousand dollars to the Village to fund improvements to other relevant parts of the Sleepy Hollow Manor sewer lines and manholes and upgrades to the existing Riverside Drive sewage pump station. The Village Engineer has reported to the Committee that these sewer system improvements will allow the Village sewers to accommodate the additional sewage flow from the CCRC without adverse impact and the Committee concluded that these improvements would sufficiently mitigate any potential adverse effects from the Project. Based on these considerations, the Committee concluded unanimously that the Project would be consistent with Policy 5. However, the Committee expressly made its finding with respect to Policy 5 conditional. Accordingly, the Committee recommends to the Village's Board of Trustees that any approval by the Village of the Project and any related zoning changes be expressly made conditional upon (a) completion of the sewage line improvements that are to be undertaken by the County of Westchester and the Village, (b) the provision by the Applicant of the sum of three hundred thousand dollars to finance additional sewage line and manhole improvements and pump station upgrades, and (c) the completion of all such sewage line, manhole and pump station upgrades and improvements, before the CCRC may be occupied. Policy 5A - DISCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF USES WHICH, BY REASON OF THEIR DEMAND FOR NEW COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES OR THEIR IMPOSITION OF BURDENS ON EXISTING SERVICES AND FACILITIES, WOULD REQUIRE DISPROPORTIONATE PUBLIC COST IN COMPARISON TO PUBLIC BENEFITS. The Committee concluded that the proposed Project would impose little burden on existing Village services and facilities. The proposed CCRC will provide its own private ambulance service, have twenty-four hour security, maintain its own grounds and roads and provide for its own private collection of trash and recyclable materials. The facilities are not likely to add any school age children to the community and, thus, should not burden the local school district. Although the Village's fire department will serve the CCRC, the building heights of the Kendal buildings, as presently proposed, are well within the capacity of the Village's existing fire equipment, the buildings will be constructed with sprinklers, as required by a mandatory sprinkler law in the Village, and the type of use contemplated by the Project does not carry an enhanced risk of fire. Village police will be responsible for law enforcement, but the CCRC type of use is believed to be 3 �inherently a low-crime use, and vehicular ingress and egress will be, principally, from the Town of Mt. Pleasant rather than from Village streets. Parking availability at the Village's Philipse Manor train station is already over-burdened, but Kendal will provide shuttle buses to allow access to Metro-North train service without the need for additional train station parking. Development fees, recreation fees and an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), which will be allocated to the Village, the Town of Mt. Pleasant and the School District of the Tarrytowns, will be payable by Kendal. And, based on experience at other, similar, facilities, Kendal residents are thought likely to involve themselves in the provision of services to the community. Accordingly, the Committee found, unanimously, that the Project would not overwhelm or significantly burden existing services and facilities and would provide economic and social benefits to the Village, making the Project consistent with Policy 5A. Policy 7D - THE HUDSON RIVER IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND WITHIN 1000 FEET OF THE VILLAGE'S SHORELINE SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED AND, WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT. The Committee gave consideration to the applicability of Policy 7D to the Project and concluded that the proposed CCRC development would not impact the Hudson River or its shoreline, or its viability as a locally significant habitat. The western edge of the Project site is separated from the Hudson River by the Metro-North railroad tracks. However, the Committee recognized that development of the property does have the potential to produce contaminated storm water runoff that could adversely impact the River. The Applicant has developed, and would have to implement, a storm water management plan that, under New York State law, must be adequate to minimize any such impacts. Accordingly, the Committee found that if Policy 7D is, in fact, applicable to the Project, the Project is consistent with that policy. Policy 7E - THE LANDS IN STATE OWNERSHIP ASSOCIATED WITH THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE AND OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT TRAIL SHALL BE PROTECTED, PRESERVED, AND WHERE PRACTICAL, RESTORED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ITS VIABILITY AS A LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT. The Project would have an impact on the lands of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve because a portion of the access road from Route 117 would traverse a corner of the Park Preserve's Rockwood Hall property. The Applicant has proposed to restore the areas to be disturbed with landscaping comparable to that already existing. The existing fence between Rockwood Hall and the Phelps property would be removed, allowing free access by wildlife between the Rockwood Hall site and the remaining wooded areas of the Project site. All of the members of the Committee, therefore, found that the Project would be consistent with Policy 7E. Policy 17 - NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND EROSION SHALL BE USED WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 4 �Policy 17A - PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPES AND HILLSIDES THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE THROUGH THE USE OF NONSTRUCTURAL MEASURES, WHEN PRACTICAL, TO PREVENT EROSION, ESPECIALLY THROUGH RETENTION, OR PLANTING OF VEGETATIVE COVERS. The Committee found, unanimously, that the Project is consistent with Policies 17 and 17A. Although parts of the Project's construction site would include steep slope areas, the FEIS notes that the Project incorporates stringent soil erosion and sediment control measures and its erosion and sediment control plan includes a variety of mechanism to attain these goals, including sediment traps, silt fence barriers and straw bale barriers. The Applicant has proposed vegetative cover in the form of a comprehensive landscaping and restoration program for the balance of the property. Policy 18 - TO SAFEGUARD THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE STATE AND OF ITS CITIZENS, PROPOSED MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE COASTAL AREA MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THOSE INTERESTS, AND TO THE SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT VALUABLE COASTAL RESOURCE AREAS. Policy 18A - PROTECT THE VITAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE IN THE EVALUATION OF ANY PROPOSAL FOR NEW ROADS, ROAD WIDENING OR INFRASTRUCTURE. Policy 18B - TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE SUCH RESOURCES SUPPORT. Policy 18C - TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH ACTIONS ON VALUABLE AND SENSITIVE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE. The Committee could find, with respect to the Project, no adverse impact on the economic, social and environmental interests of the state and its citizens with respect to valuable coastal resources, no failure to protect economic, social, cultural and environmental interests of the Village as to road construction relating to the Project, no failure to provide adequate consideration of impact on the Village's community and cultural resources and no failure to consider and protect environmental interests and natural resources of the Village. An environmental analysis prepared as part of the Project's environmental impact statement indicated that there are no sensitive natural resources found at the site and, as noted in the discussion of Policy 7E, an existing fence between Rockwood Hall and the Project property would be removed and would permit free movement by wildlife across the boundary. The Committee found that, while there would be some environmental impacts related to the proposed action, including the loss of 5 �existing trees, there will be substantial re-planting of vegetation (including in the wooded buffer between the site and Sleepy Hollow Manor) and there will also be positive benefits by providing much-needed housing for senior citizens (consistent with New York State policy) and positive fiscal contributions related to fees and PILOT payments. The findings of consistency by the Committee with respect to Policies 18 and 18A were unanimous and, with respect to Policies 18C and 18D were by a vote of four to three. Policy 19 - PROTECT, MAINTAIN, AND INCREASE THE LEVELS AND TYPES OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC WATER-RELATED RECREATION RESOURCES AND FACILITIES SO THAT THESE RESOURCES AND FACILITIES MAY BE FULLY UTILIZED BY ALL THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH REASONABLY ANTICIPATED PUBLIC RECREATION NEEDS AND THE PROTECTION OF HISTORIC AND NATURAL RESOURCES. IN PROVIDING SUCH ACCESS, PRIORITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC BEACHES, BOATING FACILITIES, FISHING AREAS, AND WATERFRONT PARKS. Policy 19D - ENCOURAGE, DEVELOP, PROTECT, AND MAINTAIN APPROPRIATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO AND LINKAGES BETWEEN KINGSLAND POINT PARK, DEVRIES FIELD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR, DOUGLAS PARK, SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT, THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE LANDS, AND ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 21D - PURSUE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC ACCESS RECREATIONAL TRAIL LINKAGES FROM AND BETWEEN THE TARRYTOWN/SLEEPY HOLLOW VILLAGE BOUNDARY, THE VILLAGE'S RIVERFRONT PARK PROPERTY ON RIVER STREET, KINGSLAND POINT PARK, DEVRIES FIELD, PHILIPSBURG MANOR, DOUGLAS PARK, SLEEPY HOLLOW CEMETERY, THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT, THE ROCKEFELLER STATE PARK PRESERVE LANDS, AND ALONG THE HUDSON RIVER AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE NORTH OF THE MOUTH OF THE POCANTICO RIVER. The LWRP policies strongly encourage efforts to "increase the general public's access to the waterfront such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, picnic areas, scenic overlooks and passive recreation areas that take advantage of coastal scenery" (Explanation of Policies 21,21 A, 21B, 21C and 21D), and make the linkage of publicly owned land "with major points of natural and cultural interest and recreation along the Hudson River" a "major goal of the Village" (Explanation of Policies 19,19A, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E and 19F). The Committee recognized that access to the western portion of the Phelps campus is currently limited, due to the private ownership of the land by Phelps and the relative inaccessibility of the site. Moreover, there is no physical river access from the site because of the intervening Metro-North railroad tracks. At present, the site does provide limited visual access to the Hudson River. Because the project's internal network of roadways and walkways will be open to the public, the Project will provide enhanced public visual access to the Hudson River and western shoreline views. The Kendal plan also includes a pedestrian walking system and a 6 �Hudson River promenade and overlook that would be open to the public, both from Rockwood Hall and from Kendal's access road. The members of the Committee all agreed that these features would significantly increase public access to the Hudson River scenic views and would thus be consistent with Policies 19, 19D and 21D of the LWRP. The Kendal site plan incorporates pedestrian connections at two points to existing trails in the Rockwood Hall portion of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve to the north. The Committee members all felt that these proposed trail connections would serve to establish the kind of trail linkages contemplated by Policies 19D and 21D and would make the Project consistent with those policies for that reason, as well. Policy 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURES, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE, ARCHAEOLOGY OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES, OR THE NATION. Policy 23B - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. The LWRP takes the view that "[a]mong the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those structures or areas which are of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance", and requires that protection include "concern not just with specific sites, but with areas of significance, and with the area around specific sites" (Explanation of Policies 23, 23A, 23B and 23C). The applicable policies demand "[a]ll practicable means to protect structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the Village, the State, or the Nation" as well as prevention of "significant adverse changes to such significant structures, districts, areas or sites" (Id.). Among those "resources" listed as "structures of significance in the history, architecture of culture of the Village" is The James House. The LWRP cites factors that would constitute adverse changes to structures covered by the LWRP policies and standards that are to be applied in proposed activity adjacent to the resource. It states: "Compatibility between the proposed action and the resource means that the general appearance of the resource should be reflected in the architectural style, design material, scale, proportion, composition, mass, line, color, texture, detail, setback, landscaping and related items of the proposed actions" (Id.). The FEIS notes that the Kendal structures, at their nearest point, are approximately 100 feet west of The James House, but concludes that there would be no anticipated significant impacts to historic resources. The Committee appreciated the architectural refinements incorporated into the Proposal in an effort to achieve architectural style, design material, color, texture and detail compatibility with The James House resource, as required by Policies 25 and 25B, and the Committee found that the appearance of the proposed structures was far more aesthetically appealing than the designs originally submitted by the Applicant to the Committee. The Committee equally appreciated the reduction in height of a portion of the Commons Building, capping the structure at five stories rather than seven. Nevertheless, the Committee was unable to conclude that the Project 7 �met other required standards of compatibility, such as "scale", "proportion" or "mass" or that its presence would otherwise be consistent with the preservation or enhancement of The James House. The Committee was also aware that portions of the Rockwood Hall property may have been designed and/or influenced by noted landscape architect Frederick Law Olmstead and that the visibility of the CCRC structures from portions of the Rockwood Hall property could also have implications under Policy 23. Although the Applicant has proposed to enhance its vegetative screening program in order to mitigate the visual impact of the Kendal buildings on visitors to Rockwood Hall and, as noted above, has reduced the maximum building height from seven stories to five stories, the impact of the Project on Rockwood Hall was not found to protect, enhance or restore this significant site. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of five to two, that the Project was inconsistent with Policies 23 and 23B. Policy 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. Policy 25A - PROTECT OR ENHANCE VIEWS OF THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY, AND THE OPPOSITE SHORE FROM THE IMMEDIATE RIVERFRONT AS VIEWED FROM PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTIES. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [THE NINE IDENTIFIED SCENIC LANDSCAPE SUBUNITS INCLUDE PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND SLEEPY HOLLOW MANOR]. The Committee noted that the Kendal buildings could have an impact on views of the Hudson River and the Tappan Zee Bridge from portions of Rockwood Hall, a publicly owned property. The Applicant has proposed to incorporate a series of landscaped berms within the easement area located north of, and adjacent to, the Project site. Illustrations provided by the Applicant as part of its Project modifications reveal that the lowered building heights and growth of plantings after a ten-year period would help to soften the building mass when viewed from Rockwood Hall. Although the visual impact of the buildings would not be eliminated, the Committee recognized that it would not be possible to fully screen any development that may occur on the western portion of the Phelps property from this vantage point, and the Committee noted that the Rockefeller State Park Preserve has not objected to the impact. While, as a general matter, preservation and protection of views of the Hudson River is a goal of the LWRP, the Committee also noted that view of the River from the Phelps site is not one of the twenty-three "viewsheds of local importance" specifically recognized by the LWRP. However, there are two scenic resources identified under Policy 25B that are potentially impacted 8 �by the Project - the Sleepy Hollow Manor and the Phelps Memorial Hospital scenic landscape subunits cited in the LWRP. The Committee concluded that the Project would not significantly adversely impact either of those subunits. The residential character and "informal" layout of the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit would not be impacted in any way by the Project and visual impact would be slight. The Project would be potentially visible within Sleepy Hollow Manor only from the northern end of Birch Close and from part of Terrace Close, and the site plan for the Project incorporates a three hundred-foot buffer in the southern portion of the Kendal site, further screening the proposed Project from the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit. The LWRP description of the Phelps Memorial Hospital subunit notes that the site has distinctly different visual characteristics. The area is described in the LWRP's Scenic Resources portion of the Inventory and Analysis Section as being "dominated by the buildings and parking areas" of the hospital and "providing an institutional landscape", while the area to the west of the James House is contrasted as a "rolling estate landscape of lawns and woodlands" with glimpses of Hudson River and the western shoreline. The proposed buildings would be situated between The James House and the Metro-North Railroad tracks to the west. Existing views from The James House present only a seasonal, filtered view of the Hudson River. The Project, as currently proposed, would provide a more open vista of the Hudson River. The proposed buildings and, in particular, their rooftops, would, however, be visible from The James House and, of course, the existing open lawns and woodlands would be lost. The Applicant has proposed a comprehensive landscape planting plan, including plantings between The James House and the CCRC units to soften the impact of the proposed structures, and the lowered building heights as now proposed would provide for increased visibility of the Hudson River. With respect to the views from the Hudson River, it was noted that the Project as now proposed has attempted to incorporate a distinct architectural character by incorporating an ItaJianate influenced design to make the construction more stylistically sympathetic to the architecture of The James House and less institutional in appearance. The architectural treatment includes the use of different building materials, window treatments and roof articulation. Although the Committee believed that further reducing the bulk of the proposed structures would minimize the visual impact of the project from the River, the Committee was aware that virtually any building of significant size would be visible from the River. The Committee noted that the Explanation of Policies applicable to Policies 25, 25A and 25B includes a number of standards for minimizing scenic impairment. The Committee concluded, by a vote offiveto two, that any scenic impairment from the Project had been substantially minimized and that, accordingly, the Project was consistent with those policies. Policy 32A - FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO USE STATE OF THE ART LOW FLOW WATER FIXTURES AND WATER SAVING DEVICES TO REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR WATER AND REDUCE THE FLOW TO THE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES. WHERE PRACTICABLE, THE GUIDELINES IN THE NEW YORK STATE MUNICIPAL MODEL WATER CONSERVATION PLAN SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. The Committee unanimously concluded that the Project is consistent with Policy 32A. The 9 �Applicant has committed to incorporating low-flow water fixtures and other water saving devices throughout the proposed community to promote water conservation. Policy 33 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE USED TO ENSURE THE CONTROL OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS DRAINING INTO COASTAL WATERS. The Applicant has incorporated a storm water management system that includes two separate storm water detention facilities. The Committee noted that the Applicant is required, by New York State law, to implement the best management practices as to storm water runoff, as contemplated by Policy 33. The Committee also reviewed the projected storm water impacts outlined in the Applicant's updated storm water management report, which was submitted to the Village and the Committee. The updated storm water report indicates that, due the storm water detention basins, the peak rate of runoff during a 100-year storm event will actually decrease slightly from the predevelopment levels associated with the site. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed storm water management system should adequately control storm water runoff and that the Project will be consistent with Policy 33. Policy 37 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE THE NON-POINT DISCHARGE OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS, ORGANICS AND ERODED SOILS INTO COASTAL WATERS. The Committee concluded, unanimously, that the Project is consistent with Policy 37. The Project will incorporate several design measures to mitigate potential impacts. These features include the use of dry swales, anti-vortex manholes and the two water quality detention basins referred to in the discussion of Policy 33. In addition, Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control will be utilized during the construction process. The Committee recognized that any construction, and the resulting creation of additional impervious surfaces, is likely to create some increase in non-point discharge, but felt that the proposed storm water quality system would minimize such discharge into coastal waters. Summary After its detailed consideration of the foregoing policies of the LWRP, the Committee noted that the Project was found to be consistent with most, but not all, of such policies. The Committee then considered whether, after weighing the elements of the Project's consistency and inconsistency with the policies of the LWRP and weighing the relative impacts of those elements, the Project, on balance, was or was not consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. It was the finding of the Committee, by a vote of five to two, that, on balance, the Project was consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 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 Waterfront Advisory Committee 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_WATER_2001-03-07.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee 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