https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/244ed4f746d9663aef11626c9a1c001a.pdf 3ee99a8c138b3c3674161a6d5ec8f34a PDF Text Text REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22nd, 2003 A regular meeting of the Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board was held on October 22nd, 2003 in the Village Hall, 28 Beekraan Avenue ,_£l££oy Hollow, N.Y. „r emetz, Chairman kmani/ <t >n r^C/r^ iloski, Inspector hn, Saccardi & Schiff. ailed the meeting to order at 8:10 P.M. Chairman Nazemetz stated that due to the holidays there would be no December meeting but the November meeting would be held on ..Monday, November 24th,2003. MINUSES- Chairman Nazemetz stated that the minutes of the meetings have not been approved for the months of July, August and September. Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Mr. Wichmnn -chat the minutes of the meeting held un July 23rd, 2003 be approved as presented. Carried. Discussion followed reyarding the August Minutes regarding the Kennedy Application. Mr. Sackman moved, seconded by Ms. Fina that the minutes be approved as submitted. Carried. Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. Vvichmann to apprpve the September 24th,minutes as submitted. Carried. 1. OBLOMKKY, 16 NEW BROADV7AY-FENCE APPROVAL. Mrs. Oblonsky presenteu Affidavit of Proof of mailings to Mr. Stiloski. Mrs. Oblonsky stated her property was on the corner of Bedford Road and New Broadway and lacked privacy and they would like to erect a fence to contain their dog and their young children, and to-(have some privacy. Mrs. Oblonsky staced that the proposed fencing would be a four foot high fence at the rear of the property for approximately twenty six feet and six feet high on the north side of the property, from the front to the rear of the property. six Mr Sti lor.Vi J.UOL iixyii ldiict. c,tp(-pi1 th^>+- t h n Pnrip did not- A 11 n w a ; �-2Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Mr. Sackman to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There Deing no public comments, Mr. McCarthy moved/-, seconded by Mr. Wichmann to close the meeting fur public comments. Carried. Discussion followed with Board members agreeing they would like to see some samples of the fencing and some pictures of the prope/.ty and detailed plans of the proposed fencing. Mrs. Oblonsky stated she did not have a camera and stctteu her husband was out of town and would like to hctve the Board approve tr fenee so thay could have it installed as soon as her husband returned. Mr. Nazeiuetz moved, seconded by Ms. Fina to table the matter until the Novembemeeting and the applicant provide pictures and further information. Carried. 2. W E B E R - 2 1 5 FARRINGTON AVENUE-FENCE APPROVAL. Dr. weber presented Affidavit of Proof of mailings to Mr. Stiloski. Dr. Weber presented Survey of property and red lined fence that was to be installed. He stated fencing would be five foot high with a gate to match the fencing. Mrs. Weber presented samples of proposed fencing for the Board to review. Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Ms. Fina to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There being no public comments, Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. After discussion, Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Ms. Fina to approval the application as submitted. Carried. 3. MEDINA & MAMO, 95 BEEKMAN AVENUE-SIGN PERMIT. Mr. Mamo presented Affidavit of Proof of Mailings to Mr. Stiloski. Mr. Mamo stated that the sign would be black and gold leaf stencil and was basically the same as the previous sign, just the names of the Attorneys have been changed. He also stated that he has received quite a few complements on the sign. ielt there should not be a telephone number listed on the sign. Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. �-3There being no public comments, Mr. Wichmann moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. Mr. Sackman felt the sign was very nice but stated 'he felt the telephone number should be removed. Discussion followed regarding the removal of the telephone number with members agreeing that one telephone number should be removed. Mr. Mamo agreed to remove the telephone number from the right hand side of the window. Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. Sackman to approve the sign as submitted with the telephone number on the left side be allowed to remain and the telephone number on the right side would be removed as requested and agreed to. Carried. Discussion followed regarding the installation of telephone numbers on various sign applications with Board members agreeing that normally they should not be allowed unless a hardship exists. 1. 0BL0NSKY-16 NEW -BROADWAY-FENCE APPROVAL. Mrs. Oblonsky returned with pictures for the Board to review. Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Mr. Wichmann to reopen the matter for discussion. Carried. Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Mr. Wichmann to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There being no public comments, Mr. McCarthy moved , seconded by Mr. Sackman to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Ms. Fina to approve the application for a four foot high picket fence, white in color, to be installed at the rear and north side of property located at 16 New Broadway, which will conform to all Codes. Carried. 4. DR. KHAN, 12 MERLIN AVENUE-SIGN PERMIT. Dr. Khan presented Affidavit of Proof of Mailings to Mr. Stiloski. Dr. Khan presented pictures of sign to be installed and stated there has been a sign at that address for over twenty years. He purchased the property from Mrs. Krielsheimer whose husband was a dentist and recently passed awaw. Dr. Khan would like to install a sign anproximate.lv twenty by ten inches, red lettering Mr. Sackman moved, seconded by Mr. Wichmann to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. �-4There being no public comments, Mr. Wichmann moved, seconded by Ms. Fina to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. Discussion followed and Mr. Sackman moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to approve the application as submitted. Carried. 5. ORIENTACTION HISPANA, 115 CORTLANDT STREET-SIGN PERMIT. Mr. Bars tow owner of the property at 115 Cortlandt Street, stated he was appearing before the Board as the applicant was out of the Country on business. Mr. Barstow stated he is prepared to show a sign revised by the sign company and asked that the Board comment on the sign. He stated the applicant has appeared before the Board at least four times and stated that the previous signs were not acceptable to the Board. Mr. Stiloski presented pictures for the Board to review. Mr. Nazemetz stated that the application was a continuation from a prior month where additional information was requested from the applicant. Ms. Fina stated she felt that the gold on black sign was tasteful and the previous signs were unacceptable. Discussion followed with members asking if Mr. Barstow could make a decision for the applicant. Mr. Barstow stated he could not. Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Mr. Wichmann to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There being no public comments, Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. Sackman to close the meeting for public comments. Carried. Due to the fact that Mr. Barstow could not make a decision for the applicant, Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to table the matter until the November meeting when the applicant would be able to appear before the Board. Carried. Chairman Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy that the Board recess for five minutes. Carried. 9:25 P.M. 6. PQCANTICO HOMES, LOT #5. NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION. Mr. Nemeth presented Affidavit of Proof of Mailings to Mr. Stiloski. Mr. Kelly outlined the proposed construction of a three _ _ J - .«....- dwelling, s.tating it v/ould have black shutters, two-car garage, white windows, siding would be gray and presented samples of construction materials to be used. �-5Mr. Sackman moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to open the meeting for public comments. Carried. There being no public comments, Mr. Nazemetz moved, seconded by Mr. McCarthy to close the meeting for public comments. Darried. Discussion followed regarding the placement of the residence on the lot and the placement of the patio. Mr. Kelly stated that the rear of the house would be visible to County House Road and the front of the house would face the cul-de-sac. He stated that the patio would be at the rear of the house. Mr. Sackman stated he would like to see an elevation of the house as to the topography of the lot, and would also like to see a Site Plan showing where all of the houses would be located. He stated that the wall was constructed but would like to see the location of the house in relation to the wall. He stated that the Site Plan for Lot8 seems to be different and it is difficult to visualize. A Site Plan would show where the actual house would be. Applicant confirmed the construction of front entry wall was in fact constructed on Lot 8 and was not a part of the original application for lot 8. Mr. Wichmann stated he would like to see this portion of the development according to scale as it would held the Board in making a decision. Ms;; Fina stated that the front and rear elevations are not as attractive as the front elevations. It was also stated that the Board had not approved the entry way. Mr. Nazemetz stated that the applicant should submit a topographical Site Plan for the Board to see where all the houses will be built in relationship to the roads and walls. Ms. Fina stated she felt the chimney would be much nicer if it was stone and would like to see a re-evaluation of the height of the roof. Mr. McCarthy stated he felt the house shouldn't be stone on one side and different material on the other. fir, Nazemetz felt that the house was too massive for the size of the lot and asked for a photograph of a similiar house the company had built in Purchase. Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Mr. Sackman to table the matter until the November meeting in order for the applicant to present further information for the Board to review. Carried. (CQRRECTED-rmynrifflFP r y t h , 2003 MEETING.) �-67. FREMONT HOUSE-REMANDED BACK TO THE BOARD BY VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR. Mr. Nazemetz stated that the Administrator had remanded back to the Board the application and asked for further information and study, regarding the approval of the Board for the construction of two houses on the former *>• Fremont property. Mr. Nazemetz presented a copy of correspondance addressed to the Administrator regarding die ARB consistence findings and outlining the Board's position on the matter. (COP/ IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) . Copies were made available to the public. Ms. Angie Kahn, Saccardi & Schiff Planners for the Village stated that she had read the findings before the meeting and they appear to be thorough and comprehensive. Ms. Fina asked Ms. Kahn to summarize the findings for the benefit of the Board and the Audience. At this point, Mr. Leonard Andrews, an audience member, stated he had not seen the findings and felt they should be given an. opportunity to respond. Ms. Kahn stated there are no public hearings necessary for resolutions and the project was already approved. Mr. Nazemetz questioned Ms. Kahn regarding the application being before the Planning Board's October meeting. Ms. Kahn stated that a representative of the applicant came before the Board and the Board requested the applicant delineate wetlands and wetland buffers and that the Board is expecting information at their next meeting. Mr. Nazemetz then stated that the Board could make their findings and resolution conditional upon the Planning Board's decision on wetlands. While the Board was debating their decision, Ms. Kahn stated that the Board could table the resolution \intil next month so that the Board could consult with legal Counsel. At that time the applicant's Attorney objected, then Ms. Kahn stated she was merely giving the Board the option, since no legal Counsel was present at this meeting. Ms. Fina stated she felt information was not accurate and moved, to rescind the motion the Board previously adopted approving theconstruction of the two houses and that they have time to review and discuss the information. There being no seconded to the motion it did not carry. Mr. -Nazemetz stated that the ARB was the determining agency and not the Waterfront Advisory Board. Mr. Sackman felt that some of the information given by the applicant was inaccuratte. size lot and felt that the Board would be sorry if the houses are too large and over-bearing. �-7Mr. I-eonard Andrews, 11 Pokahoe Drive, asked the Chair if there would be time for public comments on the findings of consistency with the Waterfront Revitalrz'ation Program. He stated he just received the"findings five minutes before and would like to comment on the report in writing. He stated that incorrect statements and findings not based on the public meeting the ARB had held. He also said it would be in the interest of both the ARB and the Developer to permit public comments to avoid the decision being subject to an ART. 78 Proceeding. Mr. Andrews also asked if his letters dated October 15th, and October 19th had been reviewed by the ARB and were part of the public record. The Chair stated they had been read by him and other members indicated they also had seen the letters. Thereupon, Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Mr. Sackman to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, an application for the construction of two single-family houses on two separate lots ("the Proposed Action") that were subdivided from a lot that holds a locally historic structure known as "the Fremont House" was submitted to the Village of Sleepy Hollow on April 8, 2003, by James Kennedy Construciton Company, Inc. and WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before the Architectural Review Board (the ARB") at their regularly scheduled meeting of May 28, 2003, at which time the application was referred to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee ("the WAC") in order to determine the application's consistency with the golas and objectives contained within the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP): and WHEREAS, the WAC considered the application at their regularly scheduled meeting of June 4, 2003, and unanimously concluded that the Proposed Action would be inconsistent with LWRP Policies 23, 23 B, 25 and 25A: and WHEREAS, the Applicant again appeared before the ARB at their regularly scheduled meeting of June 25, 2003, at which time whose wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard, and the Applicant's representatives providing addiitional information on the Proposed Action, including the elimination of the second floor above the garage for one house, a reduction in overall mass, the placement of the'garage under one house, and various revisions to the materials; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before the ARB at their regularly scheduled meeting of July 23, 2003, and presented additional information on the Proposed Action, including a reduction in roof height for one house, a reduction in overall mass and square footage for both houses, and various revisions to the windows and materials; and WHEREAS, the ARB has reviewed and considered all information presented to them by the WAC and the Planning Board; and to them by the Applicant up to and including all materials presented at the August 27, 2003, meeting: and �-8VIHEREAS, the ARB reached a general consensus that the Proposed Action, as modified by the Applicant in response to the initial consistency review, meets the criteria for approval from the Architecture Review Board as per Chaper 6 of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Code; and ' WHEREAS, the ARB unanimously approved the Proposed Action at its regularly scheduled meeting of August 27, 2003; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT REVOLSED that the ARB confirms their prior approval of the proposed project: and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARB herein makes their findings (attached) regarding the Proposed Action as now modified. Mr. Nazemetz polled the Board as follows: Mr. Wichmann Mr. McCarthy Mr. Nazemetz Yes Yes Yes Mr. Sackman Ms. Fina Yes No Mr. Nazemetz declared the motion carried. Mr. Andrews then stated that the ARB will regret this decision because it will open Sleepy Hollow Manor to over-development. Every one-third acre .lot including those with existing houses, can now be developed with a 6,000 square foot house and larger lots can have evern larger houses. There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. McCarthy moved, seconded by Ms. Fina that the same be duly adjourned. Carried. Respectfully submitted, Irene Amato Acting Clerk . » �Village of Sleepy Hollow Dwight H. Douglas Administrator (914)366-5105 Philip K. Zegarelli Mavor (914)366-5107 Angela Everett Village Clerk (914)366-5106 Mario DiFclice Deputy Mayor (914)366-5107 TRUSTEES Kay Brown Grala James J. Hart Richard J. Spota Donald W. Stever Richard Zieja (914)366-5107 To: New )Jork 1874 J More than a Cegend Abraham Zambrano Treasurer (914)366-5102 Robert Ponzini Village Attorney Dwight Douglas, Administrator From: James J. Nazemetz, Chairman; Architectural Review Board Date: October 22, 2003 Re: ARB consistency findings As required by Village Code 59A-H-2, and requested by the Village of Sleepy Hollow, the Architectural Review Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (ARB) hereby submits this report in the matter of James Kennedy Builders and its applications for two houses in Sleepy Hollow Manor. This report details the findings of the ARB for determining consistency in response to the Village's Waterfront Advisory Committee's (WAC) findings of non-consistency. While the Village feels the ARB should refer this matter back to the WAC, (village letter to ARB chair dated October 2, 2003), the ARB, feeling their process over three months resulted in findings of consistency and, as an approving agency, with no local law requiring a referral back to an advisory board (WAC), believes no referral is required. The consistency determination is entirely up to the approving agency, in this case the ARB (Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. memo of October I, 2003.) The ARB was never advised by the Village or its planning consultants (Saccardi & Schiff, Inc.) that Type II actions needed to be referred to the WAC. Based on the belief that a law was on the books, the applications were referred to that advisory board. It wasn't until after the August 27, 2003 ARB meeting that the ARB chair tried to find the amended law in the Village Code (chapter 59A) and couldn't. The chair then pointed out to the Village the local law for waterfront referral that was amended on April 7, 2003 (and passed by the board of trustees on that date) to include Type II actions (one and two family homes) was never sent to the Secretary of The State of New York for approval (and, as of today's date, hasn't been). Hence, the Kennedy applications should not have been referred to the WAC at all. The ARB fails to see how an application can be made to comply with a non-law. 28 Beekman Avenue • Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Telephone (914) 366-5100 »Fax (914) 631-5880 www.sleepyhollowny.org �REVIEW PROCESS The Architectural Review Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow commenced its review of the two residences proposed by builder James Kennedy on May 28, 2003. At that meeting, the matter, after the usual process of hearing the application, public comments, and board discussion, was tabled for a review by the Waterfront Advisory Board at their June 4th meeting (the ARB believing the Village had a law requiring that referral). The applicant was then rescheduled to appear before the ARB on June 25, 2003. At the June 25th meeting, the applicant presented plans and elevations of the proposed houses. After a long public comment session, the ARB asked the applicant to address specific issues, such as wetlands, massing of architectural elements, finishes, site layouts for visitation, and a response to solutions of the WAC's findings at their June 4th meeting. The matter was then adjourned to the next ARB meeting on July 23, 2003. For the July 23rd meeting, the applicant presented new plans and elevations showing the houses reduced in size from the June submission (as per the ARB's request). The ARB offered suggestions for other materials. After the usual board procedures, the matter was adjourned to the August 27, 2003 meeting. The August 27th meeting of the ARB opened cordially as usual. After other applications were heard and disposed of, Kennedy Builders again presented revised plans and elevations for the two houses. After a lengthy presentation and public comment session, the ARB voted unanimously to approve the two houses, noting the reduction in size and mass. They noted also that the delineation of features by way of materials would not degrade the adjacent areas but would rather enhance those areas and view sheds. THE WAC'S FINDINGS The Waterfront Advisory Board, at their June 4th meeting, noted that this application had an impact on policies 5B, 23, 23A, 23B, 25 and 25A of the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). Policies 5B and 23A were found not applicable; the remaining policies were found to be relevant to the Kennedy applications. Policies 23 and 23B These policies deal with protecting, enhancing, and restoring structures, districts, areas or sites that are significant in the history, architecture, or culture of the state, its communities or the nation, as well as preserving and enhancing structures, areas or sites within the Village of Sleepy Hollow that are eligible for listing on state and/or national historic registers. Among the factors cited by the WAC for inconsistency to these two policies are the impacts the new houses would have on the recently renovated Fremont house. The WAC also questioned side yard setbacks as well as not receiving specific design materials for their review. 2 �The ARB, over the course of three months (June, July, and August), made it clear to the applicant that the Fremont house should not be "intruded on"; rather, the two proposed houses, situated adjacent to that house, should complement it. While the Fremont house is listed on the County Site of Historic Places, it is doubtful the house could be listed on any state or national register because of the extensive renovation, not restoration, of that structure. In the course of the ARB's three month review of the Kennedy proposal (with three months of changes to what the WAC had originally seen at their June 4th meeting) and with materials and finishes being finalized, the ARB felt the proposal had been refined to an extent so as to compliment the surrounding area. At the August meeting, the ARB, after reviewing new elevations of the proposal amid an elevation of the Fremont house, felt the scale, details, and finishes were complimentary to the Fremont house. The ARB again noted the proposed houses met all of the village's current zoning requirements as to lot coverage, building setbacks from property lines, building height, and floor area ratio (FAR) and thus, no zoning variances were needed. Policies 25 and 25A These policies address protecting, restoring, or enhancing natural and man-made resources which, while not of statewide significance, contribute to the overall quality of the coastal area and also the protection or enhancement of views of the Hudson River, the Hudson River Valley, and the opposite shore from the immediateriverfrontas viewed from public owned properties. The WAC felt the Kennedy proposal would do nothing to preserve the Fremont house historic site and is incompatible with a landscape that includes views of the Hudson River and a historic mansion in an unobstructed setting. The WAC specifically noted that river views could be improved by the pruning of overgrown shrubbery. The WAC brings up again the issue of size and scale as part of its inconsistency findings. The ARB, in its study of the proposal's site in regard to views of the Fremont house and the Hudson River, noted the problem of the overgrown shrubbery. The only view now of the Fremont house in its entirety is from the driveway of the Fremont house, with the existing landscape blocking views from the Hemlock and Pokahoe view sheds. The ARB felt the extensive landscaping included with the architecture and the removal of all the overgrown shrubbery and trees would "open up" the building sites and therefore, increase views to the Hudson River and the Fremont house from those view sheds. With the reduced size (or mass) of the houses, the new landscape, in the ARB's opinion, would enhance all view sheds and "frame" the Fremont house, thereby accenting the renovation of that house. The Fremont house would still be the jewel of the area and, with much needed new landscaping a fine focal point of the view sheds. ARB COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS The Architectural Review Board has strict criteria for the acceptance or rejection of applications. The ARB may approve, approve with conditions or disapprove an application. The ARB may not disapprove an application unless the ARB finds that the project: I. Would be detrimental to the DESIRABILITY, PROPERTY VALUES, or DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area by reason of: 3 �A. EXCESSIVE SIMILARITY to existing buildings facing the SAME STREET within 250 FEET of proposed site: B. EXCESSIVE DISSIMILARITY to existing buildings facing the SAME STREET within 250 FEET of proposed site: and/or C. VISUAL OFFENSIVENESS or POOR QUALITY OF DESIGN II. PERSONAL PREFERENCE must not enter into a Board Member's Determination III. If the Board denies an application, it must STATE SPECIFIC GROUNDS for finding SIMILARITY; DISSIMILARITY; VISUAL OFFENSIVENESS or POOR QUALITY OF DESIGN ANY DENIAL HAS TWO COMPONETS I. The proposed Development is too SIMILAR; DISSIMILAR; VISUALLY OFFENSIVE or POOR QUALITY OF DESIGN; AND II. THE SIMILARITY; DISSIMILARITY; VISUAL OFFENSIVENESS or POOR QUALITY OF DESIGN NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THE DESIRABILITY or the PROPERTY VALUES or the DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area. In approving the Kennedy application, the ARB did not find specific grounds for disapproval and, the ARB did not arrive at its decision "willy-nilly". The review process started in May and concluded in August. There were approximately eight hours of debate and constant revision and refinement by the applicant to address concerns requested by the ARB. The Board factored in many issues, among them: wetland compliance (found by the Planning Board on July 17, 2003 to have no jurisdiction concerning wetland issues with this application), and zoning (again, no zoning issues or variances needed for this application.) The ARB could not and does not factor in legalities involving contract vendee and property subdivision issues that were raised by neighbors and the local homeowners association. Those issues were resolved by the property owner, Trent Realty, for the contract vendee issue and the village and county itself for the subdivision issue (the property being subdivided in 1974 , with the approval of the Village Board of Trustees, the local homeowners association known then as Sleepy Hollow Manor Taxpayers Inc., and Westchester County). Any attempt by the Village to investigate the legality of that subdivision after 30 years smacks of political motivation to appease the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association (as the homeowner association is now known) and which is opposed to the development of the two legal building lots (Kennedy's applications). The ARB felt the end product would be a fine addition to the neighborhood and would not have an adverse impact on property values and the concerns voiced by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The WAC, in its findings of June 4, 2003, noted inconsistencies in every aspect of the policies it deemed affected by this project. Since at least two members of that board reside in Sleepy Hollow Manor, and one of those members, Doug Maass submitted a letter at the June ARB meeting condemning the project, the ARB feels the WAC was not objective in its evaluation. 4 �Because of the WAC's conclusions, one cannot help but feel the WAC desired nothing built at all. The WAC, having failed in its objectivity, also failed to offer any suggestions for compliance along with its consistency report, as is required in Chapter 59A-5E-2 of Local Law 7 (amended 10-18-2002 by L.L. No. 14-2002). The Waterfront Consistency Review Law was not enacted to hinder development, but to protect existing resources while accommodating development. While projects can be found to be inconsistent, the fact that the WAC must offer suggestions to overcome those inconsistencies and did not in this case leads to that conclusion. The ARB feels the WAC should have upheld its end of the law in the form of suggestions for compliance for consistency. The ARB, as the approving agency, considers its business in the Kennedy proposals as having been executed completely, exhaustively, and most objectively, now feels, as it did on August 27,2003 that its decisions in these applications were and are the correct decisions, and as a result, feels this matter is now concluded. This report, in addition to the attached resolution, fulfills the requirements of Chapter 59-A-H-2 of Local Law 7 of the Village Code as requested by the Village of Sleepy Hollow to the ARB Chair as per letter of October 2,2003. Respectfully submitted, RECEIVED NOV 1 8 2003 VILLAGE CLERK �* October 22, 2003 RESOLUTION FOR MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING REVISED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PROPOSED: Construction of Two Single-Family Houses on Two Subdivided Lots (One on Each Lot) APPLICANT: James Kennedy Construction Company, Inc. LOCATION: Pokahoe Drive and Hemlock Drive TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Sheet 110.11, Block 1-L, Lots 11A and 11B ZONING: R-2A Single-Family Residential/Low Density WHEREAS, an application for the construction of two single-family houses on two separate lots ("the Proposed Action") that were subdivided from a lot that holds a locally historic structure known as "the Fremont House" was submitted to the Village of Sleepy Hollow on April 8,2003, by James Kennedy Construction Company, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before the Architectural Review Board ("the ARB") at their regularly scheduled meeting of May 28,2003, at which time the application was referred to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee ("the WAC") in order to determine the application's consistency with the goals and objectives contained within the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP); and WHEREAS, the WAC considered the application at their regularly scheduled meeting of June 4, 2003, and unanimously concluded that the Proposed Action would be inconsistent with LWRP Policies 23, 23B, 25, and 25A; and WHEREAS, the Applicant again appeared before the ARB at their regularly scheduled meeting of June 25,2003, at which time those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard, and the Applicant's representatives provided additional information on the Proposed Action, including the elimination of the second floor above the garage for one house, a reduction in overall mass, the placement of the garage under one house, and various revisions to the materials; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before the ARB at their regularly scheduled meeting of July 23,2003, and presented additional information on the Proposed Action, including a reduction in roof height for one house, a reduction in overall mass and square footage for both houses, and various revisions to the windows and materials; and WHEREAS, the ARB has reviewed and considered all information presented to them by the WAC and the Planning Board; and �% WHEREAS, the ARB has reviewed and considered all materials presented to them by the Applicant up to and including all materials presented at the August 27,2003, meeting; and WHEREAS, the ARB reached a general consensus that the Proposed Action, as modified by the Applicant in response to the initial consistency review, meets the criteria for approval from the Architecture Review Board as per Chapter 6 of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Code; and WHEREAS, the ARB unanimously approved the Proposed Action at its regularly scheduled meeting of August 27,2003; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the ARB confirms their prior approval of the proposed project; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ARB herein makes their findings (attached) regarding the Proposed Action as now modified. MovedjjtffanH' Seconded: ^ f e W ^ Vote: 1-) CERTIFED DATE^M£l vr-§ F:\M\M-720 Sleepy HoUovAArchitectural Review BoardVRevised Fremont Resolution.wpd &fc •X8 � 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_2003-10-22 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