https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/2be04fe306ee95538c52d8cf51afeaf1.pdf ca77d5e2bac4475f200a646279957ae9 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING-APPROVED October 26, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Don Stever, Chairman at 8:07 p.m. Present: Don Stever, Chairman Ana Maria McGinnis Carter Sackman Paul Wichmann Barbara Fina Absent: Elvira Aloia Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Approval of Minutes 2) Emma 3) Carissimo 4) Aloia 5) Miller 6) Planned Community Living 7) Sleepy Hollow Design 8) Garcia 9) Marino’s Italian Bistro 10) Other 62 Depeyster Street 256 Farrington Avenue 11 Evergreen Way 24 Lakeview Avenue 1 Evergreen Way 35 Beekman Avenue 10 Gory Brook Road 56-60 Clinton Street September meeting Siding Addition, new front porch and rear deck New walkway, steps, window Spa Alterations Sign Retaining Wall Sign Announcements: None. 1) Minutes from September 2005 meetingThe minutes for the September 2005 meetings were reviewed. Ana Maria McGinnis made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Barbara Fina seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Emma This is a continuation from previous meetings. Kathy Emma is the owner and is representing this application along with her husband and the contractor Tom Musack from Garden State Brickface and Stucco. �Kathy Emma submitted letters from her neighbors in support of her application. The Chair stated that alternatives were requested. Kathy Emma responded that the proposed siding is the only alternative that will fit into their budget. She stated that many other houses in the area have vinyl siding. Sean McCarthy confirmed that many other houses in the area have vinyl siding. He stated that the mortar joints are in poor shape and many of the bricks have already been patched. He stated that it does not appear that the joints can be repointed. Carter Sackman asked if there is currently any water penetration into the house. Kathy Emma responded no. Tom Musack stated that the mortar joints are very bad in some areas. He stated that his company has performed many siding projects. He wanted to know why the Board was opposed to this application. Carter Sackman disagreed with the contractor’s statement. He stated that different municipalities have different rules. Paul Wichmann asked if the company has done stucco parchment projects. Tom Musack responded yes. Paul Wichmann asked if his company had done any brick repair work. Tom Musack responded yes but only on commercial buildings. Sean McCarthy asked if the siding would be Dutch lap with shutters. Kathy Emma responded yes. Carter Sackman stated that he thought that the application did not represent other homes in the area. The Chair referred to the minutes regarding what the Board requested at the last meeting. He stated that the applicant has not provided sufficient additional information to the Board. Tom Musack stated that his company can perform stuccowork but the owner’s budget cannot afford the stucco. The Chair responded that the Board does not consider economic hardship as part of the approval process. Carter Sackman asked about the age of the house. Kathy Emma responded 1846. The Chair opened the public hearing. Chuck Lancaster (54 Fremont Road) stated that the age of the house something worth noting. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 2 �Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. Carter Sackman stated that based on the information presented, he is not in favor of the application. Paul Wichmann stated that vinyl siding reduced the property value of the house. Carter Sackman stated that the price differential should not be that great. Tom Musack responded that he is not a mason contractor, he is a plasterer. Barbara Fina responded that the information needs to be presented to the Board as stated in the last meeting. Tom Musack asked the Board what additional informational is required. Paul Wichmann responded that a drawing could be presented to the Board to show the level of detail that is proposed. The Chair stated that there are alternatives that the applicant can explore. He stated that the applicant could preserve the brick that is visible from the street and install vinyl in the parts of the house that are not visible from the street. The Chair stated that alternatives should be presented. Tom Musack asked the Board for alternatives. Carter Sackman responded that the front facade should try and be preserved. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 3) Carissimo Sandro Carissimo is the owner and is representing this application along with contractor George Reilly. The Chair stated that the applicant has obtained the required zoning variances. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Since this application was submitted to the Board a few months ago, Sandro Carissimo summarized the application for the Board. He submitted photos of the existing structure. He spoke about the proposed application. He described the proposed addition and new front porch. He spoke about the proposed handrails. Ana Maria McGinnis asked if the applicant would drop the windows in the front. Sandro Carissimo responded that those windows are existing. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 3 �The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. Barbara Fina asked if the applicant had any information on the adjacent houses. Sandro Carissimo submitted a photo to the Board of the adjacent houses. He stated that a 4-foot walkway would remain between the proposed addition and the property line. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Barbara Fina asked for details on the front door. Sandro Carissimo responded it would be a raised panel wood door. Carter Sackman asked if the proposed windows were double hung. Sandro Carissimo responded that he would check. Barbara Fina asked for details on the garage door. Sandro Carissimo responded it would be a raised panel door with windows. The Chair stated that too many details are still needed. He stated that the Board could approve the basic application subject to receiving and approving a submittal on the front door and the garage door. Also, the applicant will add a watermark underneath the new bay window. Barbara Fina seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 4) Elvira Aloia – Ana Maria McGinnis is representing this application on behalf of the owner. She recused herself from this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Ana Maria McGinnis stated that the front landing would be changed. She stated that the existing bay window is proposed to remain. She stated that a much larger landing area would be created as a result. The Chair stated that there is no information on the bay window in relation to the house. Ana Maria McGinnis submitted a picture of the house for the Board. She stated that the landing would be made of brick and bluestone. She stated that the width of the landing would remain the same. Barbara Fina asked if the sides are brick and the top would be bluestone. Ana Maria McGinnis responded the sides and risers would be brick and the top would be bluestone. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 4 �Sean McCarthy asked if the roof was new. Ana Maria McGinnis responded that the roof is existing and will not be altered. Carter Sackman asked if the owner is proposing New York Bluestone. Ana Maria McGinnis responded that New York Bluestone is proposed. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. There was an open discussion on the proposed bay window. Carter Sackman made a motion to approve the application as submitted. The approval stipulates that the proposed window must be the same size as the existing. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) Ana Maria McGinnis abstained. 5) Miller – This is a continuation from previous meetings. Marcus Luck is representing this application on behalf of the applicant. He described the proposed project and associated retaining walls and fence. He discussed the proposed landscaping plan. Sean McCarthy asked about the location of the proposed fence. Marcus Luck indicated the location of the proposed fence on the drawings. Paul Wichmann asked about the visibility from the street. Sean McCarthy responded that the proposed work is visible from the lake. Marcus Luck spoke about the proposed landscaping plan. Sean McCarthy asked if the fence would be stained. Marcus Luck responded yes. Paul Wichmann asked if there were any details on the proposed waterfall. Marcus Luck responded no. Carter Sackman asked about the elevation around the base of the spa. Marcus Luck responded 89-feet. Carter Sackman asked about the height of the waterfall. Marcus Luck responded that it is really a water-wall that is 6-feet high. It is a backdrop of the spa. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 5 �Carter Sackman asked about the material to be used behind the water-wall. Marcus Luck responded a rough bluestone. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. There was an open discussion on the location of the spa equipment. Barbara Fina asked how the equipment would be concealed. Marcus Luck responded that the same fencing could be used to conceal the equipment. Paul Wichmann stated that the area below the spa is all grass. Marcus Luck responded that the landscaping in the area is pretty dense. Carter Sackman asked if the spa would be in grade with the basement. Sean McCarthy responded that the spa would be below the basement. Carter Sackman stated that he had a concern with the proposed pad. He stated that the pad should be consistent with the retaining wall. Barbara Fina stated that the planter should be continued so that the fence is not so bare. She stated that the extreme elevation should be softened with a more year-round planting. Chuck Lancaster (54 Fremont Road) stated that there is an easement along the lake. Sean McCarthy responded that the proposed work is not in the easement. Chuck Lancaster was concerned with the view from the lake. He stated that no other house in the area have fences facing the lake. He stated that plantings are used. Marcus Luck responded that the fence is needed for safety and security. He stated that plantings are proposed. Carter Sackman made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: Install adequate screening around the equipment pad and the extend the retaining wall that surrounds the spa area in addition to the fence that surrounds the spa area to encompass the equipment pad as well as the plantings. Ana Maria McGinnis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 6) Planned Community Living Timothy Fogerty is representing this application along with project architect Dennis Suraci. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 6 �Timothy Fogerty stated that the existing house needs to be brought up to American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. Dennis Suraci presented the proposed floor plan. He spoke about the interior handicapped lift. He also spoke about the proposed changes to the garage to accommodate the handicapped vehicles. He spoke about the added wrought iron railings and proposed dormer addition. He presented a rendering to further illustrate the proposed changes. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. The Chair opened the public hearing. He spoke about the Board’s jurisdictional limitations. Chuck Lancaster (54 Fremont Road) stated that when the home was presented to the Village about 15 years ago, the owners stated that the parking was adequate. He stated that the number of bedrooms is increasing. He asked about the number of residents of the property. He stated that cars are never parked in the garage but cars are parked in the driveway. He stated that the proposed structure is very wide. He stated that the drawings do not properly reflect the existing trees on the site. Gabe Loredo (4 Kingland Road) stated that the proposed addition is too large for the neighborhood. He stated that the additional bedrooms cannot accommodate the number of residents and workers. James West (4 Evergreen Way) asked if other ideas were presented. Dennis Suraci discussed the other options that were explored. Mark Delaurentis (3 Webb Road) asked about the number of bedrooms Dennis Suraci responded that the population is not increasing. There was an open discussion on whether these issues are relevant to the Board. Sean McCarthy responded that the applicant must comply with the zoning codes of the Village. He stated that this is not a Planning Board application. Timothy Fogerty stated that the license to operate the home is limited to 10 persons. He also stated that by increasing the number of bedroom, he cannot increase the number of residents. He stated that the entry into the garage will be relocated in order to keep the existing trees. He spoke about the handicap-accessible garage. Dave Logan (1 Fremont Road) stated that the public notice was for a one-car garage. Dennis Suraci responded that only one vehicle can fit into the garage. Dave Logan asked about the architectural design of the exterior. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 7 �Dennis Suraci responded that in keeping with the exterior of the house, the extension would have vinyl siding and brick. He spoke about the proposed windows. Chuck Lancaster asked about the proposed plantings. Dennis Suraci responded that there are plantings proposed for the site. Chuck Lancaster noted for the record that ten (10) residents are proposed to occupy the house and that this is the maximum number that the planned living unit will accommodate at this property. Gabe Lopedo (4 Kingland Road) stated that the exterior should be improved with proper materials. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. Paul Wichmann stated that the exterior should be revised to include more brick and stone instead of the proposed vinyl siding. He stated that the roofline could be modified to soften the appearance. Barbara Fina stated that the proposed changes do not seem to be in keeping with other houses in the area. Paul Wichmann asked about the proposed brick. Dennis Suraci submitted a sample of the proposed brick. There was an open discussion on the layout of the windows. Dennis Suraci responded that the windows are set to accommodate the residents and to prevent injury. Paul Wichmann asked about the width of the porch. Dennis Suraci responded that the porch is 5-foot wide. Carter Sackman stated that if the recreation room window was changed to a bow window, it might take away from the sidewalk distance around the house. He suggested that two double hung windows and a fixed unit be used instead. The applicant will return with revised plans based on the Board’s feedback. The applicant was advised that visual material would help the Board in understanding exactly what is proposed. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 7) Sleepy Hollow Design Robert Barstow is the project architect and is representing this application along with Gus APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 8 �Montero. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Robert Barstow submitted photos of the property. He also submitted a rendering of the proposed sign with the proposed color scheme. Barbara Fina asked about the thickness of the panels. Robert Barstow responded about 1-inch thick. Carter Sackman asked if there is lighting proposed for the sign. Robert Barstow responded that lighting is proposed. There was an open discussion on whether phone numbers would be allowed on the sign. Sean McCarthy responded that phone numbers are not restricted in the Village Ordinance. Sean McCarthy asked about the sign material and posts. Robert Barstow responded that the proposed sign is aluminum and the posts are pressuretreated lumber painted burgundy. Barbara Fina questioned the use of burgundy in the color scheme. Gus Montero stated that the colors were chosen by driving around the Village. Carter Sackman suggested that the applicant use two black steel posts and use a huntergreen and a beige color combination. Sean McCarthy stated that each sign must be a maximum of 3 square-feet. He stated that the signs should be raised higher from the ground. Barbara Fina stated that the lettering “Construction Services” is close to the post. She also stated that the phone number is large. Ana Maria McGinnis questioned the typeface for each sign. She stated that the fonts should be consistent. Robert Barstow agreed. Barbara Fina stated that the phone numbers should be reduced. Robert Barstow asked if the application could be conditionally approved. Carter Sackman stated that the presented colors are not correct, the fonts are not correct, and the scale of the sign should be corrected. Sean McCarthy stated that temporary signage is already present. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 9 �This was adjourned to the next meeting. 8) Garcia Deidre Carsto is the contractor representing the owners. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Deidre Carsto stated that this is a retaining wall that is replacing an existing deteriorated retaining wall. She submitted photos of other houses in the area that have retaining walls. Carter Sackman asked why this is before the Board since it appears to be a straight replacement. Sean McCarthy responded that the materials needed to be approved. Deidre Carsto stated that she had proposed constructing a garden stonewall but the costs are a factor in the applicant’s decision. Sean McCarthy stated that the two railroad ties are installed in the Village right-of-way and should be removed. Carter Sackman asked how long the existing railroad ties were in place. Deidre Carsto responded about 5-8 years. Barbara Fina asked Sean McCarthy for his opinion. Sean McCarthy responded that the railroad ties along the curb-line need to be replaced and eliminate as much of the wall in the driveway as possible as well as landscape the area. Ana Maria McGinnis asked for some perennials to be planted. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. Barbara Fina to approve with the stipulation that the railroad ties in the front of the property is removed. Ana Maria McGinnis seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 9) Marino’s Italian Bistro Sean McCarthy stated that there is a new business at this location and needs a new sign. He stated that there was an existing aluminum sign from the previous business. He stated that when the new owner opened the business, he replaced the sign. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 10 �Barbara Fina stated that the clip art icons are not appropriate on the sign. Carter Sackman asked about the colors. Sean McCarthy responded off-white. Paul Wichmann stated that the Board should go and visit the site and return to the next meeting The Board unanimously agreed. 10) Other – The Board agreed that the next meeting would be held on 30 November 2005 instead of 23 November 2005. Carter Sackman made a motion to adjourn. Paul Wichmann seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) Adjourned at 10:51 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, October 26, 2005 11 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2005 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource MINS_ARB_2005-10-26 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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