https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/a84ecc4f35e88a03f6329b0d62fa9154.pdf bff2d2e75c49bf11e7758678ee9f3ac3 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING -APPROVED February 25, 2009 The meeting was called to order by Ana Maria McGinnis, Acting Chair at 8:06pm. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Ana Maria McGinnis Pat Piereson Sandra Tripp Absent: David Pysh, Chairman Carter Sackman Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Building Department) Announcements: None Agenda: 1) Harney 4 Highland Ave New fence 2) Ricardo Rodriguez 3) Sleepy Hollow Housing Assoc 4) Grotto Holding Corp 5) Minutes 97 Cortlandt Street 100 College Ave 300 North Broadway Exterior Security Doors Exterior Alterations amended application 1) Harney 4 Highland Ave New fence - This is a continuation from the previous meeting. Tom Harney is the owner and is representing this application. Tom Harney gave a summary of the application to date. He stated that the fence will be a 3-foot tall split-rail fence that will run on the side yard of the property. He stated that the property will be landscaped with additional trees. He stated that the proposed fence is acceptable under the Village code. He stated that the fence will run along the side yard and will end 20-feet from the street. The Chair stated that the property was recently cleared of its vegetation. Tom Harney responded that the property was overgrown with diseased vegetation. The Chair made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) 30-inch tall split rail fence with 2 rails. When it meets the end (10-feet from the property line) is will turn and will taper down to 1-foot. 2) Within the corner, boxwoods, hydrangeas, etc will be installed. 3) Present a landscape plan for the space between the 2 homes. Landscaping to be installed on the applicants property. �4) The fence will be unpainted so that it can weather naturally Bill Hammer (10 Highland Ave) stated that this application has lasted for 5 months. He reviewed the Village’s ARB guidelines regarding natural features of the surrounding areas. He stated that the lot was cleared without notice. He stated that “no trespassing” signs were illegally installed and reluctantly taken down. He stated that the trees near the applicants’ home were not removed. He stated that other neighbors have proposed a landscaped solution but the applicant still wants to install a wood fence. He stated that the installation of this fence will devalue his property and the adjacent properties. He stated that the proposed fence will run over his existing fence. Leslie Hammer (10 Highland Ave) stated that the fence will be visible from her home. She stated that the landscape plan will only screen the fence from the applicants’ property. Tom Finn (49 Highland Ave ) stated that the split-rail fence is inappropriate for that area. He stated that there are no other fences on Highland Ave. He stated that the fence would impact the character of the neighborhood. He stated that the applicant wants to delineate his property line from the adjacent neighbors (The Hammers). He stated that the applicant has refused to incorporate any feedback from the Board regarding fence styles. There was an open discussion on fences in the Manor. The Chair asked if there is a split-rail fence in the Manor. Janet Gunderman (138 Millard Ave) responded that there is one house in Philipse Manor that has a split-rail fence. Kathy Deuel (474 Bellwood Ave) stated that the applicant should talk to the neighbors about the fence. She stated that no neighbors have appeared in favor of the fence. Brian Slavin (40 Bedford Road) stated that there was an incident between the two neighbors that needs to be stated. He stated that the Hammers installed their fence on the applicants’ property. He stated that there was a claim of adverse possession on the applicants’ property. He stated that the applicant has proposed to restore the landscaping on the property. Jim McGoff (12 Highland Ave) asked about the purpose of this new fence. The Chair responded that the code does not permit a denial based on the purpose or proposed use of the fence. She stated that there are many fences installed in the Manor. She stated that the Board needs to rule on the fence itself and not its purpose. She stated that the vegetation should have been better maintained. She stated that the proposed handdrawn landscape plan is not clear. She suggested that a landscape plan be prepared by a professional. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 25, 2009 2 �Norm Parton (5 Millard Ave) stated that the applicant has appeared at multiple meetings with the same style of fence. The Chair responded that the style of fence will be further discussed. Sandra Tripp made a motion to close the public hearing. Pat Piereson seconded. It was unanimous (3-0). Pat Piereson stated that the fence is dissimilar to anything in the Manor. She stated that the applicant has the right to demark his property. She stated that the issue is difficult to resolve. The Chair stated that the split-rail fence is not appropriate for the neighborhood. She stated that the Hammers existing fence should be extended further outward. Tom Harney responded that the existing fence is on his property. Sandra Tripp stated that the property boundary issue is separate from the fence style. The Chair stated that a professional landscape plan should be created and submitted to the Village. Pat Piereson stated that she is not ready to vote on the application as presented. She stated that are very few split-rail fences in the area. She asked the applicant if the property grade changes from the neighbors. Tom Harney responded yes. He stated that he would install another fence if the Board does not like the style of the split-rail. He stated that the purpose of the fence is to mark his property line. The Chair made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) Black aluminum to match the neighbor’s fence. The fence to continue from where neighbor’s fence ends. 2) A professional landscape plan Pat Piereson asked if the neighbor (Bill Hammer) finds this acceptable. Bill Hammer responded no. He stated that the fence is installed for his dog. He stated that the fence is visually offensive. He stated that a landscaping plan would soften the impact. Pat Piereson asked if there is another style of fence that is acceptable to all parties. The Chair asked the Hammers about an acceptable style. Leslie Hammer responded that the fence should be 1-foot tall because the height is offensive. The Chair asked again. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 25, 2009 3 �Bill Hammer responded that the extension of the fence makes more sense. He stated that the landscaping plan is critical. He stated that the landscaping needs to be installed when the fence is installed. The Chair reiterated the conditions of her motion. They were to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) Black aluminum to match the neighbor’s fence. The fence to continue from where neighbor’s fence ends. 2) A professional landscape plan Tom Harney stated that he would not accept the proposed fence. Sandra Tripp responded that she wants to see the landscape plan to understand the entire application. Tom Harney asked what the landscape plan has to do with the fence. The Chair responded that the landscape plan needs to be presented to the Board to understand how it will impact the neighborhood. Sandra Tripp stated that the landscape plan needs to be understood on how it will soften the visual impacts of the proposed fence. Sean McCarthy asked the Board to recommend some plantings to the applicant. The Chair responded that it is difficult to recommend. Sean McCarthy stated that any approve landscaping must be maintained in perpetuity along with the fence. Pat Piereson stated that there are 2 options. 1) The first option would be to continue the existing fence. 2) The second option would be to lower the split-rail fence to 30-inches and let it weather naturally. She stated that the 30-inch would only have 2 rails. Tom Harney responded that he would be satisfied with the solution. The Chair made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) 30-inch tall split rail fence with 2 rails. When it meets the end (10-feet from the property line) is will turn and will taper down to 1-foot. 2) Within the corner, boxwoods, hydrangeas, etc will be installed. 3) Present a landscape plan for the space between the 2 homes. Landscaping to be installed on the applicants property. 4) The fence will be unpainted so that it can weather naturally The Chair stated that the property boundary issue should be resolved so that a double fence is not created. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 25, 2009 4 �Sean McCarthy stated that the landscape plan needs to be enforced. He stated that it would be easier to approve a fence with some landscaping recommendations. The Chair revised the motion to eliminate the requirement to have a landscaping plan as part of the motion. Sandra Tripp seconded. The motion failed by a 2-1 vote (Piereson). The Chair asked about the type of plantings that are proposed. Tom Harney responded that white pines would be planted. The Chair made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) 30-inch tall split rail fence with 2 rails. When it meets the end (10-feet from the property line) is will turn and will taper down to 1-foot. 2) Within the corner, boxwoods, hydrangeas, etc will be installed. 3) A planting scheme in front of the fence of 10 trees and 10 shrubs. Shrubs should be deer resistant. 4) The fence will be unpainted so that it can weather naturally. Sandra Tripp seconded. It was unanimous (3-0). 2) Ricardo Rodriguez 97 Cortlandt Street Exterior Security Doors – There was nobody present for this application. It was adjourned to the next meeting. 3) Sleepy Hollow Housing Assoc 100 College Ave Exterior Alterations - Luis Rivera is the project architect and is representing this application along with Nandinee Phookan. Nandinee Phookan stated that the application will widen the entrance. She stated that a glass canopy is also proposed to make the entry brighter. Luis Rivera stated that the owners want to control the entryway into the building. The improvements would give a central point of entry. He stated that the perimeter lighting fixtures will be replaced with a new fixture that will match the parking lot fixtures. Sandra Tripp asked about the railing. She asked about ADA requirements. Luis Rivera responded that the handicap ramp is in the rear of the building. He stated that it is being altered to comply with ADA regulations. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 25, 2009 5 �Nandinee Phookan stated that the signage will also be changed. It will be painted aluminum. Sandra Tripp asked if there is an existing sign. Luis Rivera responded no. Mark Beida (SH Housing Associates) stated that the sign requires that the management company’s name and number be on the sign. He also stated that the sign must indicate fair housing. There was an open discussion on reducing the height of the sign. Mark Beida responded that the sign is on the grass area and not on the sidewalk. The Chair opened the public hearing Since there were no public comments, the Chair closed the public hearing. Pat Piereson made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the exception of the sign. The sign should be presented at the next meeting. Sandra Tripp seconded. It was unanimous (3-0). 4) Grotto Holding Corp 300 North Broadway amended application- David Barbuti is the project architect and is representing this application. David Barbuti gave an overview of the revisions to the approved application. He stated that the cultured stone to match the existing stone. He stated that the applicant would install brick instead. He stated that the applicant wants to make some additional exterior improvements to make the structure look better. David Barbuti presented exterior materials to the Board. It was agreed that a formal application would be submitted. 5) Minutes The minutes for the October 2008 and January 2009 meetings would be reviewed at the next meeting. Adjourned at 10:05 p.m. APPROVED - Architectural Review Board Meeting, February 25, 2009 6 � 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-2009 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_2009-02-25 Subject The topic of the resource Architectural Review Board Minutes-2009 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2009 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