https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7ab7e8068633390165f7e66273c67274.pdf 81b9e7373b5b8eda7c91f4c1e4f58435 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING-APPROVED November 30, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Don Stever, Chairman at 8:11 p.m. Present: Don Stever, Chairman David Pysh Ana Maria McGinnis Absent: Carter Sackman Paul Wichmann Also Present: Sean McCarthy (Village Architect/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Agenda: 1) Emma 2) Carissimo 3) Planned Community Living 4) Mendaz 5) Sleepy Hollow Design 6) Marino’s Italian Bistro 7) DiBase 8) Kenyon 9) Doyle 10) Elliott 11) Mateus/Tappan Car Wash 12) Weltig 13) Kennedy 14) Cortese Construction 15) Approval of Minutes 62 Depeyster Street 256 Farrington Avenue 1 Evergreen Way 20 Francis Street 35 Beekman Avenue 56-60 Clinton Street 202 N. Washington Ave 259 Hunter Ave Siding - continued Addition/alteration-cont. Alterations-cont. New fence Sign-continued Sign New siding New garage 16 New Broadway 60 Hemlock Drive New awning Retaining wall 205 Valley Street 14 Merlin Ave Pokahoe Drive Terrace Close New sign New addition New Single Fam. Residence New Single Fam. Residence October meeting Announcements: The Chair stated that although the Board has a quorum, the Board must be unanimous for it to take action since only 3 members are present. The Chair stated that Cortese Construction is off of the agenda since the applicant was unaware that the neighbors were required to be noticed. He stated that the item would be put off until the next meeting. 1) EmmaThis is a continuation from previous meetings. Kathy and David Emma are the owners and are representing this application. �David Emma presented the Board with photos of the existing house to show the deteriorated condition of the dwelling exterior. The submitted photos also showed other houses in the neighborhood that have a vinyl exterior. The Chair reviewed the application to date. Ana Maria McGinnis asked if other alternatives were explored. David Emma responded that they received estimates of about $12,000 to install a new brick face exterior. He stated that re-pointing was even more costly. Sean McCarthy spoke about the existing exterior. He stated that if the exterior were to be re-pointed, many of the bricks would have to be replaced anyway. David Pysh stated that there are many reasons to install vinyl siding but the deteriorated brick also serve as a structural component. Sean McCarthy responded that the joints are going to have to be properly secured to the building exterior. David Pysh stated that some re-pointing would need to be done in order to stabilize the installation of the new vinyl siding. He asked the applicant if they priced other options. Kathy Emma responded that the cost to install a brick face product on the house would $60,000. She stated that to re-point the exterior was more costly. David Pysh responded that the brick face and vinyl options are only superficial solutions. He stated that if someone wanted to restore the exterior to the original brick, it could not be done. The Chair stated that although the brick exterior is deteriorated, the applicant makes a good argument to install vinyl siding. David Pysh asked if there was any evidence to support the estimates. Kathy Emma responded that she did not bring the estimates. The Chair stated that Paul Wichmann and Carter Sackman both did not agree with the presented estimates to re-point the brick exterior. David Emma stated that he gave a $4000 non-refundable deposit on the vinyl siding before he knew that ARB approval was required. There was an open discussion on the financial hardship presented to the Board. Ana Maria McGinnis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. David Pysh seconded. It was unanimous (3-0). APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 2 �2) Carissimo This is a continuation from the previous meeting. Sandro Carissimo is the applicant and is representing this application. Sandro Carissimo submitted cut sheets of the proposed front door. He reviewed the front elevation drawing on the recently approved plans. There was an open discussion on the different door features that could be used. The Board unanimously approved the application as submitted with the condition that the front door would either be a solid door or have a rectangular/square glass. The garage door was unanimously approves as submitted. 3) Planned Community Living This is a continuation from the previous meeting. Dennis Suraci submitted several photos to the Board as was requested at the last meeting. He reviewed the changes to the plans based on the Board’s feedback at the last meeting. Ana Maria McGinnis asked if the area would be re-landscaped. Dennis Suraci responded yes. There was an open discussion on the proposed colors for the exterior. Ana Maria McGinnis stated that the Hunter Green would not be appropriate on this house. She stated that more subtle colors should be selected. David Pysh stated that there are many different types of exteriors on the building. He stated that the number of materials should be reduced. Dennis Suraci responded that he was trying to stay away from using more vinyl siding on the exterior. The Board unanimously approved the application as submitted with the following conditions: 1) Bring the brick over to the front of the porch is recommended. 2) Use a bay window and not a bow window in the front. 3) Use a lighter green from the proposed Hunter Green. 4) Mendaz Fredi Mendaz is the owner and is representing this application. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 3 �The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Sean McCarthy stated that the existing fence is a chain link fence. He stated that the applicant wants to replace the chain link fence with a new 3-foot high wood picket fence. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Board unanimously approved the application (3-0) with the condition that the existing posts for the chain link fence be removed as well. 5) Sleepy Hollow Designs This is a continuation from the last meeting. Robert Barstow is one of the applicants and is representing this application. Robert Barstow submitted a revised sign to the Board. He stated that the sign is a metal sign with wood posts. Ana Maria McGinnis asked about the colors. Robert Barstow responded that the proposed colors are on the submitted rendering of the sign. The Chair stated that the Village has separate standard for signs. He stated that the considerations include the incompatibility of colors. Ana Maria McGinnis stated that the sign is improved from the last meeting. She stated that the sign is still too busy. Sean McCarthy stated that the each panel is only 12” high. Ana Maria McGinnis stated that the panels contain a lot of information. The Board unanimously agreed to approve the sign and the door as submitted (3-0). 6) Marino’s Italian Bistro There was nobody present to represent this application. This was adjourned to the next meeting. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 4 �7) DiBase Armand DiBase is the owner and is representing this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Armand DiBase spoke about the existing exterior. He stated that the exterior of the building is currently brick veneer and cedar siding. He stated that years ago, the cedar siding portion of the exterior was painted but over the years, the paint keeps peeling away. He stated that the project was 50% completed when the building inspector stopped the job. He stated that he did not know that ARB approval was needed. The Chair asked if the brick face on the first floor will remain. Armand DiBase responded yes. Ana Maria McGinnis asked about the garage doors. Armand DiBase responded that the garage doors will be painted. David Pysh stated that a convention spec should be followed regarding wrapping the entire house. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Board unanimously approved the application as submitted (3-0). 8) Kenyon Brad Kenyon is the owner and is representing this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Brad Kenyon spoke about the existing and proposed garage. He submitted photos of the existing garage for the Board. The Chair opened the public hearing. Hugh Jones (253 Hunter Avenue) stated that the height of the garage is an issue. He stated that he is not opposed to the width, length or square footage of the proposed garage. He stated that the proposed garage would block his views of the Hudson River from his home. He showed a copy of the recent Zoning Board public notice for replacing an existing 2-car garage. He showed a picture of the existing garage. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 5 �Ana Maria McGinnis asked about the height of the structure. Brad Kenyon responded that the existing garage is 12’-9” and the proposed garage is 15’ tall. The Chair stated that the applicant can build the garage to 15-feet tall as of right. Hugh Jones stated that the proposed garage is over 17-feet tall. He showed examples of other garages in the area. Ana Maria McGinnis asked about the location of the blocked view. Hugh Jones responded that his existing view line of the Hudson River would be blocked Sean McCarthy stated that the applicant has an existing non-conforming lot. He stated that the maximum height of an accessory structure is measures to the mid-point of the gable. He stated that the proposed garage conforms to the zoning code. David Pysh asked about reducing the height of the garage. Brad Kenyon stated that the architect indicated that reducing the height of the garage would take away from the architectural character of the house and the neighborhood. The Chair discussed the Board’s standards. He stated that the zoning code has been met and the Board’s jurisdiction is limited. He stated that if views of the Hudson River were blocked from a public street, then a Waterfront Advisory Committee would need to review the application. Sean McCarthy stated that the Board could review whether the proposed garage is in keeping with the neighborhood. David Pysh asked if the proposed garage roofline was proposed in order to match the roofline of the main structure. Brad Kenyon responded that the architect was concerned that the garage would seem dissimilar from the main structure if the roofline was lowered. Sean McCarthy asked about the height of the garage walls. Brad Kenyon responded that he did not know. He questioned the appearance of the garage if the walls were reduced. The Chair responded that the Board has not been provided with any elevations. He asked if the applicant were able to reduce the height of the garage by 18-inches, would the applicant be opposed. Brad Kenyon asked the Board for a decision since he would not be able to attend the Board’s meeting in January, February and March. David Pysh offered to approve the application with the condition to reduce the height of the ridge is at 15-feet which would be an 18-inch reduction. He stated that the reduction would APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 6 �not take away from the garage. Sean McCarthy added that the overhang should be limited by the Board. He also stated that the overhangs could be extended to compensate. Hugh Jones asked about the protection of his river views. The Chair stated that the protection of river views does not include private views. Marion Kenyon stated that recently some trees were removed in the rear yard that created Hugh Jones’ river views. She stated that the garage is not taking something away that always existed. The Board unanimously approved the application as submitted with the following condition that the bottom eve of the garage roof is at the same height of a standard garage door opening. 9) Doyle Larry Doyle is the owner and is representing this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Larry Doyle spoke about the proposed awning in the rear of the property. He stated that the awning would let visitors that they could enter the property in the rear. Larry Doyle spoke about the lettering. He stated that the proposed lettering on the awning was modeled after his lettering. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Chair expressed concerns with the addition of an awning in the rear. Larry Doyle stated that he is trying to draw attention for people to use the rear entrance of the building. David Pysh recommended that the rear entrance would look better by adding a permanent structure with the logo in the pediment or install a sign on the side of the door. This item was adjourned so that the applicant could submit architectural drawings to the Board. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 7 �10) Elliott James Elliott is the applicant and is representing this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. James Elliott spoke about the proposed retaining wall and the materials to be used. He spoke about the height of the retaining wall. Ana Maria McGinnis asked if the property is being leveled. James Elliott responded that some fill will be used but the property will still be sloped. Ana Maria McGinnis asked if the wall could be built on the property line. Sean McCarthy responded that the wall could be built up to the property line. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Board unanimously approved the application as submitted (3-0). 11) Mateus/Tappan Car Wash – Miguel Mateus is the owner and is representing this application. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Miguel Mateus spoke about the existing sign and the need to replace it. He spoke about the proposed sign. Ana Maria McGinnis stated that the sign seems too cartoonish. The Chair stated that the sign is out-of-character with the neighborhood. He stated that the sign contractor should attend the meeting to hear the Board’s input. Sean McCarthy will relay the Board’s concerns to the sigh contractor. Miguel Mateus asked if the colors are acceptable. The Board agreed that the colors are fine but the graphics need to be changed. This was adjourned to the next meeting. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 8 �12) Weltig Keith Atkin is the project architect and is representing this application on behalf of the owners. The Chair asked if the mailings were received. Sean McCarthy responded yes. Keith Atkin spoke about the proposed addition. He stated that the addition is mainly proposed in the rear of the property. He stated that only a small portion of the addition is visible from the street. He stated that all of the exterior finishes would match the existing finishes. He spoke about the Zoning Board of Appeals approval. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. The Board unanimously approved the application as submitted (3-0). 13) Kennedy This is a continuation of previous meetings. Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application along with architect, Emilio Escalades. Richard Blancato summarized the application to date. He stated that the current house is at 4500 square feet. He spoke about the proposed driveway. The Chair asked what the applicant is asking of the Board at tonight’s meeting. Richard Blancato asked the Board for a conditional or un-official approval for a court appearance tomorrow. Emilio Escalades spoke about the proposed changes to the garage. He stated that the grades are not changing. He also stated that the roof was lowered on the neighbors (Len Andrews) side. David Pysh asked about the colors of the concrete pavers. Richard Blancato responded that the neighbor wanted to minimize the appearance of the driveway. There was an open discussion on the Board’s jurisdiction on the driveway material. It was decided that the Board does typically review stone walls, pavers, etc. The Chair summarized the application history for the Board. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 9 �The Chair noted that John Dauer had submitted his objections of this application. John Dauer (8 Pokahoe Drive) stated that this application is still before the Planning Board. He also stated that Mr. Andrews has not signed any paperwork ending his litigation. He also spoke about the proposed materials used. He stated that the proposed shingles are out-of-character with the neighborhood. He also stated that Pokahoe Drive will be part of the Hudson River trail way. He stated that the trail way should be considered in the approval of this house. Richard Blancato responded that that shingles proposed are the same shingles that were previously presented to the Board. Sean McCarthy asked about the material proposed for the garage doors. Emilio Escalades responded mahogany. Richard Blancato spoke about the wetlands on the site and the Planning Board application. David Pysh asked about the windows proposed above the garage. Emilio Escalades responded that he would take the comments into consideration. The Chair asked how much of the garage would be viewed from the street. Sean McCarthy responded all of it. Sean McCarthy asked if perfection shingles are proposed. Emilio Escalades responded yes. Ana Maria McGinnis expressed concerns with the proposed grass pavers. Emilio Escalades responded that alternatives would be explored. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 14) Cortese Construction – Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application along with project architect, Dennis Rubic and owner, Andrew Cortese. The Chair stated that this item was originally removed from the agenda but the applicant asked to present the application to the Board to get some feedback from the Board. Dennis Rubic spoke about the proposed changes to the site plan. He spoke about the removal of the third garage bay. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 2005 10 �Richard Blancato spoke about the Waterfront Advisory Committee’s request to push the house further back onto the site. He stated that the current location of the proposed house is at the maximum setback. Ana Maria McGinnis stated that she was concerned with the amount of stone. She stated that more brick should be used instead of stone. David Pysh stated that the design is pretty well considered. He stated that the overall plan is nicely done. 15) Minutes The minutes from the October meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting. Adjourned at 11:06 p.m. Respectfully Submitted APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, November 30, 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_2005-11-30 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