https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/bef3460959e4fa12a9b09fb2a6fdddb1.pdf 455d5622475b3e3531028c583e079126 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING - APPROVED June 25, 2003 The meeting was called to order by Jim Nazemetz, Chair at 8:12 p.m. Present: Jim Nazemetz, Chairman Sean McCarthy Elvira Aloia Paul Wichmann Carter Sachman Absent: Barbara Fina Also Present: Angie Kahn (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Robert Stiloski ((Director, Department of Fire & Life Safety) Announcements: The Chair stated that Wilian Carpio (160 Cortlandt Street) had not received the mailings back yet. He stated that the item would be carried over to the next meeting. The Chair stated that the next meeting of the ARB would be on July 23, 2003. Sean McCarthy stated that Laurentino Rodriguez (172 Valley Street) has requested an adjournment and will not be on tonight’s agenda. Agenda: 1) Omnipoint 28 Beekman Avenue 2) Rockefeller 132 Bedford Road 3) Van Hengel 2 Evergreen Way 4) Stewart 213 Highland Avenue 5) Welch 260 Kelbourne Avenue 6) Zieja 129 Merlin Avenue 7) Weltig 14 Merlin Avenue 8) Malandrino 104 Gordon Avenue 9) Kennedy Hemlock Drive-vacant lot 10)Kennedy Pokahoe Drive-vacant lot 11)Minutes for April and May 2003 Antenna Installation Renovation & addition Fence with rose arbor Fence Installation Fence & retaining wall 2nd floor dormer addition 2-story addition Continued New construction-cont New construction-cont 1) Omnipoint David Carpenter is the attorney representing Omnipoint. He summarized the application �to date. He summarized the Waterfront Advisory Committee approval. He also stated that a revised package was sent out. He reviewed the changes for the Board. He stated that the equipment is to be moved to the back of the building and the antennas are to be moved to the back of the chimney. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. Sean McCarthy asked about the number of antennas. David Carpenter responded a total of 6 (six) antennas would be installed. Sean McCarthy asked of the antennas would be standard panel antennas. David Carpenter responded yes. Sean McCarthy asked if the applicant investigated stealth technology. David Carpenter responded no. Sean McCarthy asked if Omnipoint had stealth technologies installed in other municipalities. David Carpenter responded that he did not know. Elvira Aloia asked the applicant to look into using stealth technology. David Carpenter responded that since Verizon was not forced to use stealth for their application, it would be unfair to force Omnipoint to use stealth technologies for this application. Paul Wichmann stated that he has a problem with the number of antennas on the roof. He spoke about a previous Nextel application that included stealth technology. He proposed that Omnipoint use stealth technologies to keep the architectural appearance of Village Hall intact. Elvira Aloia agreed. Paul Wichmann stated that all cellular providers should be forced to convert to stealth technologies by a certain date. David Carpenter responded that Village Hall was selected since it already has antennas on the roof for Police, Fire, etc. The Chair asked about the life span of the technology. David Carpenter responded that he did not know. Paul Wichmann stated that he was concerned with the visual impact to Village Hall. David Carpenter referred to the simulation photos. Sean McCarthy made a motion to open the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Sachman). APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 2 �Madeline Sullivan (31 Hemlock Drive) spoke. She stated that she agreed with Paul Wichmann. Robert Solarie (38 Beekman Ave) spoke. He stated that he has no problems with the antennas but he is concerned with the equipment. He stated that he could see the existing equipment from his residence. He asked if Omnipoint could provide some fencing on his property to screen the equipment. Since there were no further public comments, The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing. Sean McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Sachman). The Chair stated that the applicant should return next month with information on stealth technology to mitigate the visual impact to Village Hall. The Chair made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Sachman). 2) Rockefeller – Peter Vessey is the project architect and is representing this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. Peter Vessey spoke about the Zoning Board approval. He showed several views of the existing property via photos (6 total). He spoke about the proposed addition and the removal of the shed and the garage relocation. He stated that the driveway would be expanded slightly. He spoke about some of the interior changes and stated that the existing terrace porch would be removed. Sean McCarthy asked about the materials that would be used. Peter Vessey responded that the paving stone and retaining walls would be bluestone/flagstone. He stated that the entire house would have wood siding. He showed a sample of the siding, trim shutter and color schemes. Sean McCarthy asked if the shutters would be real wood. Peter Vessey responded yes. Sean McCarthy asked about the roof. Peter Vessey responded that they are proposing to use a membrane but the membrane could be painted. Sean McCarthy asked if wood windows would be used. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 3 �Peter Vessey responded yes. Sean McCarthy asked about the wood brackets above the door. Peter Vessey responded that they would be retained. Peter Vessey asked if there were any historic archives as to the original 1890 house. Bob Stiloski responded that the applicant should check with the Village Historical Society. The Chair asked about the garage door. Peter Vessey responded that a plain flush panel door is proposed. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. Paul Wichmann made a motion to open the public hearing. Sean McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) Chuck Lancaster (54 Fremont Drive) spoke. He questioned the removal of the terrace. Peter Vessey responded that the terrace eliminated lots of natural light. He stated that the terrace is awkward. He spoke about the new terrace on the adjacent side. Since there was no further public comments, Paul Wichmann made a motion to close the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) updated drawings 2) painted wood cornice 3) 6” typical clapboard 4) wood windows 5) wood shutters 6) more info on the garage door 7) garage roof to be shingle (timberline quality) Sean McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 3) Van Hengel – The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. Martin Van Hengel spoke about the proposed rose arbor. The Chair asked about the material to be used. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 4 �Martin Van Hengel responded cedar painted white. Sean McCarthy asked about the height of the fence. Martin Van Hengel responded 6-foot. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. Paul Wichmann made a motion to open the public hearing. Carter Sachman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) There was an open discussion on the height restriction and the authority of the ARB. It was determined that a Zoning Variance is required. The Zoning Code required a 5-foot fence. The Chair asked the applicant if he would reduce the fence to 5-foot. Martin Van Hengel responded no. There was an open discussion on whether or not to grant a conditional approval or not. It was decided that a conditional approval would not be granted. Since there were no public comments, Sean McCarthy made a motion to close the public hearing. Carter Sachman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Stewart – The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. Deborah Stewart briefly spoke about the proposed work. The Chair asked about the height of the fence. Deborah Stewart responded 4-foot with the gate. Elvira Aloia asked if the chain link fence is existing. Deborah Stewart responded that some of the fence is existing and some does not exist. She spoke about the location of the new fence and the existing fence. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. Carter Sachman made a motion to open the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 5 �Since there were no public comments, The Chair made a motion to close the public hearing. Sean McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Sean McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 5) Welch – Sean McCarthy recused himself from this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application. He gave an overview of the proposed project. He spoke about the new fence and stone retaining wall. The Chair asked about the height of the retaining wall. Sean McCarthy responded that the wall height varies but it is a maximum height of 4feet. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. Elvira Aloia made a motion to open the public hearing. Carter Sachman seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). Dave Cartenudo (275 Millard Ave) spoke. He recommended approval of the application. Since there were no further public comments, Paul Wichmann made a motion to close the public hearing. Carter Sachman seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). Carter Sachman made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). 6) Zieja – Sean McCarthy recused himself from this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 6 �Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application. He gave an overview of the proposed project. He showed pictures of the existing house. He explained the proposed addition. He stated that efforts were made to match the existing finishes of the house. He spoke about the front, side and rear elevations. He also stated that the house is well below the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR). Carter Sachman asked if the dormer is in the front and in the rear of the house. Sean McCarthy responded that the dormer would continue from the back to the front. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. Paul Wichmann made a motion to open the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). Since there were no public comments, the Chair made a motion to close the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). Paul Wichmann made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). 7) Weltig – Sean McCarthy recused himself from this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Bob Stiloski responded yes. Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application. He gave an overview of the proposed project. He showed pictures of the existing house. He explained the proposed removal of the screened porch and the addition of a second floor on top. He stated that the existing architectural features of the existing house would be matched. He also stated that the screened porch would be re-built on the lower level. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. The Chair made a motion to open the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). Since there were no public comments, Paul Wichmann made a motion to close the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 7 �Paul Wichmann made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (McCarthy abstained). 8) Malandrino – This is a continuation from previous meetings. Mike McGarvey is the project engineer and is representing this application. The Chair stated that the board had received a new site plan showing a new one-car garage with greenery. Mike McGarvey stated that at the last meeting, the Board stated that the size of the garage was too large compared to the house. He stated that the garage now looks like part of the house. He stated that the previous drawings proposed a two-car garage. He stated that the lot coverage has been reduced by 4 ½%. He also stated that arborvitaes were added to screen the property from Rice Avenue. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There was none. Paul Wichmann made a motion to open the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Rosalyn Ferrara stated that the addition is needed in order for the owner to live in her home based on her current physical needs. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair made a motion to close the public hearing. Paul Wichmann seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Paul Wichmann made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the additional drawing of the garage. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 9) + 10) Kennedy /Hemlock Drive + Pokahoe Drive – Emilio Escalades is the project engineer and is representing this application along with attorney Richard Blancato. Emilio Escalades spoke about the Hemlock Drive application first. He stated that the stone entrances were elevated. He also stated that a majority of the visible materials would be stucco. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 8 �The Chair asked the applicant to address the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s comments. Richard Blancato responded that he has not received a copy of the comments. The Chair provided a copy to the applicant. The Chair reviewed the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s comments. He stated that the Board is interested in how the applicant intends to address the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s comments. He also stated that the Planning Board is concerned with the wetlands near the site. Angie Kahn spoke about the June Planning Board meeting and their concerns about the wetlands. Emilio Escalades responded that the applicant has begun researching the possibility of wetlands in the area. The Chair made a motion to table this matter until the wetlands issue is resolved. Elvira Aloia seconded. There was an open discussion on whether or not there are wetlands on the site or not. The Chair asked how the applicant intends to mitigate the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s concerns. Richard Blancato reviewed some of the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s concerns. Emilio Escalades stated that there are no wetlands on the site. He spoke about the changes to the plans since the last meeting. He stated that the second floor above the garage has been eliminated. He illustrated the location of each house within the neighborhood via a map. He stated that the trees on the site would remain. He also spoke about the location of the house on the lot and the proposed setbacks. Carter Sachman asked about the setbacks for the Fremont House. Emilio Escalades responded that he did not know. Emilio Escalades spoke about the reduced mass of the house. Carter Sachman asked about the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR). Emilio Escalades responded that he did not know the actual number but it was reduced by about 10%. Sean McCarthy asked if the roof would be copper. Emilio Escalades responded yes. He also stated that timberline shingles would be used. Sean McCarthy asked if wood windows would be used. Emilio Escalades responded no. He stated that the owner is concerned with maintenance. Sean McCarthy asked if wood fascia and tri would be used. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 9 �Emilio Escalades responded yes. He stated that they would all be painted white. Paul Wichmann asked about the style of the house. Emilio Escalades responded that the style is unique. Paul Wichmann stated that the chimney appearance could be enhanced with a stone veneer on the vertical elements of the chimney. Emilio Escalades agreed. Sean McCarthy asked if the applicant thought to make the house more narrower. Emilio Escalades responded yes. He stated that the house would be longer and more intrusive to the neighborhood. Sean McCarthy asked if the proposed placement is most consistent with other neighboring houses. Emilio Escalades responded yes. Emilio Escalades briefly explained the changes to the house on Pokahoe Drive. He stated that the garage was removed and placed under the house. He stated that the house was reduced in size by about 30%. He stated that stone veneer was added to the lower level. Sean McCarthy made a motion to open the public hearing. Elvira Aloia seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Arthur McKinley (18 Kingsland Ave) spoke. He stated that he is the President of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association (SHMA). He stated that he objects to receiving the plans untimely. He stated that the current plans were never reviewed by the SHMA. He read a prepared statement aloud for the record. He also referred to a letter from Doug Maass. He stated that the SHMA should have been more involved in the process. Chuck Lancaster (54 Fremont Drive) spoke. He spoke about the recent SHMA meeting. He presented over 130 signatures opposing this development. Madeline Sullivan (31 Hemlock Drive) spoke. She stated that she is opposed to the development. Joseph Capone (27 Hemlock Drive) spoke. He asked about the square footage of the house on Hemlock Drive. Emilio Escalades responded 5500 square feet. Joseph Capone asked about the footprint coverage. Emilio Escalades responded less than 20%. Joseph Capone stated that his house is 2100 square feet on ½ -acre lot. He stated that he is concerned with the size of the house. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 10 �Jim Santo (29 Hemlock Drive) spoke. He stated that his house has 3-times the road frontage than the proposed house on Hemlock Drive. He also stated that a larger house would have a smaller yard. Matthew Brennan (53 Fremont Drive) spoke. He spoke about the wetlands issues. He spoke about the lack of a FAR ratio and the lack of mitigating the WAC report. He spoke about the average size house in Sleepy Hollow Manor are 2500-3000 square feet while the applicant is proposing about 5500 square feet. Parker Bagley (7 Pokahoe Drive) spoke. He stated that the Hemlock Drive house would be in his front yard about 10-feet from his driveway. He stated that the original top two floors were torn off and dropped into the wetlands on the vacant lots. He referred to his previously submitted letter. He stated that the wetlands and Waterfront Advisory Committee findings should be addressed. He stated that he was still paying taxes on this property until last year (see attached). Francois Gilde (15 Kingsland Drive) spoke. He stated that the houses are larger than any other house in the manors. Emilio Escalades responded that the size is below what is allowed under the Village Code. Francois Gilde stated that it is not a fair comparison to the house across the street. Suzanne Fisher (2 Birch Close) spoke. She questioned the survey of the property. Emilio Escalades responded that a survey was performed. Suzanne Fisher stated that the houses are huge. She also stated that she is concerned with drainage. She stated that the storm water from the Fremont House enters her property. Jack Berkman (45 Hemlock Drive) spoke. He stated that he is opposed to the size of the houses. He is also concerned with the square footage facts presented by the applicant of other houses in the neighborhood. Ted Barstow (47 hemlock Drive) spoke. He asked about the useable square footage. John Dower (8 Pokahoe Drive) spoke. He stated that the renderings are not correct. He also stated that the trees should be properly identified. He also stated that he could not locate the house on the property. He stated that wetlands exist in the area. Alan Cohen (14 Pokahoe Drive) spoke. He stated changes to the plans could not be made without the approval of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. The Chair addressed the sub-division issue. He stated that the sub-division was approved by the Village Board of Trustees in 1971 (see attached). APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 11 �Richard Blancato stated that a sub-division map was filed after the approval. He stated that the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association amended the covenant legally and it is on file in the County Clerks office. John Sullivan (31 Hemlock Drive) spoke. He stated that he has a view of the Hudson River and that these houses would block his view. Maria Recutie (34 Hemlock Drive) spoke. She stated that the proposed houses would shadow her home due to their size. She also stated that she would have no privacy. Dan Lowe (9 Webb Road) spoke. He stated that the houses on Webb Ave do not have a view of the river but all of the owners on Webb Avenue are opposed to this development. Lisa Santos (29 Hemlock Drive) spoke. He stated that he would like to see a real site plan. He suggested that the Board walk the site. Dan Lowe (9 Webb Road) spoke again. He stated that the houses do not have to be that large to be sold. Lisa Santos (29 Hemlock Drive) spoke again. She stated that she is concerned with the aesthetic beauty of Sleepy Hollow Manor. Since there was no further public comments, Sean McCarthy made a motion to close the public hearing. Carter Sachman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair submitted a letter from Leo Andrews for the record (see attached). The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Carter Sachman stated that the site plan for neighboring houses should be submitted. He also stated that the FAR for the neighboring homes should be submitted to the Board as well. Paul Wichmann stated that the neighboring information is needed to compare for massing. Carter Sachman stated that he would like to see the front elevation from Hemlock Drive looking in towards the property showing the Fremont House. Paul Wichmann stated that the property should be walked carefully. He stated that the Board should meet at the site and discuss. Carter Sachman suggested that the house footprint be flagged on site. He also stated that the color rendering should be more realistic. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 12 �Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant should submit a complete site plan including landscaping, wetlands, etc. He stated that the applicant should submit an accurate rendering in its proposed location. Emilio Escalades responded that he would do a site model. Carter Sachman stated that the FAR for the proposed houses should be submitted to the Board. Sean McCarthy stated that a site analysis of reconfiguring homes on the site so that the ARB can see if other configurations would work. He stated that the zoning setbacks should be shown. He also stated that the applicant should address each comment from the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Richard Blancato responded that all Waterfront Advisory Committee comments would be addressed in writing. The Chair asked the applicant to come up with some architectural sketches for 2500 square foot homes. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant would not prepare these sketches. He stated that the houses would not be marketable. He spoke about the limitations of the Architectural Review Board. He stated that the applicant would look at the massing. The Board voted on the previous motion on the floor. A previous motion was made by the Chairman to table this application until the wetlands issue was resolved by the Planning Board. Elvira Aloia seconded. The motion was denied by a vote of 2-3 (McCarthy, Wichmann, Sachman voted against). The Chair stated that the site would be set-up for the Board and the public can visit the site and see the building footprint. Elvira Aloia stated that all requested information needs to be submitted before the next meeting. The Chair made a motion to adjourn this application to the next meeting. Carter Sachman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 11) Minutes The minutes for the April 2003 meeting were reviewed. The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Carter Sachman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes for the May 2003 meeting were reviewed. The following changes were noted: APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 13 �On page 2, under the Malandrino application, delete the following: “Mr. McCarthy had no problems with the application.” On page 4, under the Hunter application, it reads: “Mr. McCarthy stated that the addition would be stucco.” To read: “Mr. McCarthy stated that the garage would be stucco.” The Chair made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Carter Sachman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair made a motion to adjourn. Sean McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 11:53pm to the next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Recording Secretary APPROVED - Architectural Review Board meeting, June 25, 2003 14 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2003 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ARB_2003-06-25 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2003 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003 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