https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/6689703bcae308a461b0d08e2bfae603.pdf d5e98f1463a44a0b7d0dba3eda17273f PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 6, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:00 p.m Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Doug Maass George Lence Karin Adir Absent: Terence McGlynn Donald Stever 1 * / ' / * < * A3-JZ-B— OM^-c^La^- Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of October and December 2001 Meeting b) Knopper property - 2 Highland Lane *«4 •O* ' too? <** * * a) Minutes of October 2001 Meeting The minutes for the October 2001 meeting will be addressed at the next meeting since not enough members would be able to vote. The minutes for the December 2001 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Knopper property The Chair stated that this is an application that would raise the roofline of the property located at 2 Highland Lane. Daniel Pozin is the attorney representing this application. He introduced Lee Kennedy who is the project architect. The Chair stated that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) referred the matter. The Chair stated initially that the application was not applicable to the LWRP but it is before the Committee due to the neighbor's complaints. �Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant met with the ARB in February 2002. Lee Kennedy responded no. He stated that the ARB is awaiting the decision of the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Lee Kennedy gave an overview of the proposed project. He gave a description of the existing house layout in detail via photos. He stated that the roofline increase has been kept to a minimum. He stated that he was aware of the sensitivity concerning the roofline and this was taken into account during the design stages. He showed the increased roofline rendering with the Pierson's property. He also showed the Knopper's property on the scaled map of the Village. Karin Adir asked about the total increase roof height. Lee Kennedy responded 20-27 feet. Ralph Gunderman stated that all views are from private property. He stated that views from private property are not covered under the LWRP. Lee Kennedy stated that he spoke to the Department of Fire and Life Safety concerning all building code issues as well as the Highland Lane easement. He stated that Highland Lane is not mentioned in the LWRP. He also stated that the Village does not own Highland Lane. Ralph Gunderman stated that it is publicly used. There was an open discussion on the ownership of the Right-of-Way. The Committee allowed public comments. The Chair referred to letters from Mr. & Mrs. Robinson and Michael Bogin (attached). Michael Bogin spoke. He is an attorney representing several neighbors. He spoke about the Right-of-Way on Highland Ave. He stated that it is public. He stated that on page 280 of the LWRP, it refers to a view shed that is within 100-feet of the Knopper's property. He showed a photo of the existing view. He stated that the visual impact is significant. He stated that this project is not consistent with Policy 25 and will disrupt a public view shed. The Chair asked Michael Bogin to cite exact policies to support his claims. Michael Bogin responded Policy 25(b). He read the policy aloud. Michael Bogin stated that this policy is applicable for 2 reasons: 1) It significantly impairs the scenic view shed as listed in the 5th bullpoint. He referred to map #6. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6, 2002 2 �2) He stated that the house is out of scale with the neighboring homes under Policy 25(b). He also stated that it is an impairment of the Philipse Manor train station, which is a scenic sub-unit. The Chair asked the applicant about the current status of the application before the ARB. Lee Kennedy responded that the ARB referred the application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. He stated that at the January 2002 meeting, there was a motion to approve and no second. He stated that there was a motion to deny and no second. He stated that they adjourned the application unanimously until they receive the recommendations from the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Ralph Gunderman asked if the ARB gave any guidance towards the approval. Lee Kennedy responded no. Dan Pozin requested to speak in order to address the LWRP issues raised by Michael Bogin. The Chair allowed him to speak. Dan Pozin stated that the specific view sheds are identified and Highland Lane is not one of them. He asked for clarification concerning the Philipse Manor train station. The Chair explained the scenic sub-unit issue to Dan Pozin. Pat Pierson spoke. She stated the ARB directed the applicant to lower the roof height, talk to the neighbors and change the style. She stated that nobody has spoken to them concerning the proposed changes. She stated that the neighbors have been refused any information on this project. She also stated that this project can be achieved by using alternative methods. The Chair stated that he appreciated her response but the Committee is bound to the LWRP. Bob Joyce spoke. He stated that he has lived in his house for 50 years. He stated that the increased roofline would place windows in an attic that nobody would ever use. He showed views of his property via photos. Michael Bogin referred to a previous Waterfront Advisory Committee decision on Palmer Ave. He stated that no alternatives have been proposed but alternatives are available. The Chair responded that the Committee made the reference to alternatives after the decision was made. Lorie Fox spoke. She stated that she moved to Philipse Manor because of the neighborhood. She stated that the views on Highland Lane are better than the views from her property. She said that there is a lot of construction in the neighborhood and none of the renovations come close to the height of this proposal. She stated that the size and Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 3 �scope of this house is out of character with neighboring houses. Lastly, she stated that the cathedral ceiling is strictly decorative. John Baran spoke. He stated that he walks past this area everyday. He stated that the view is used daily by the public. James Pierson spoke. He stated that once the view is lost, it is lost forever. He thanked the Committee for their attention that they are giving to this application. Warren Groger spoke. He stated that is lives in Webber Park but jogs through the area everyday. He stated that this might set a precedent for other applications. Dave Warren spoke. He stated that the reason that he purchased his house is because of the views. He stated that the views are personal and that they mean a lot to him. Since there were no further comments, the Chair closed the public comment period. Lee Kennedy spoke about the roofline with regards to zoning. He spoke about the panoramic view. He stated that the impact to the entire view is small. He stated that the view is primarily impacted from the neighbor's first floor view. The Chair stated that the Committee is only concerned with street views. Lee Kennedy stated that the new roofline will be the same height as the Knopper's existing TV antenna. There was an open discussion on the sight line impact in relation to the antenna. There was an open discussion on the ownership of the street (Highland Lane). Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant is willing to concede that the street is a public roadway. Daniel Pozin responded no. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn until ownership of the street is confirmed. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Daniel Pozin agreed that the ownership needs to be determined. The Chair stated that if the street is public, the Committee would visit and re-convene. If the street is private, the only topic still in questions is the scenic sub-unit (Philipse Manor train station). The Chair stated that the next meeting would be held on April 10, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 4 �George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 9:42 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, * Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 6,2002 �S I V E , P A G E T & R I E S E L , P.C STEVESBAHSHOV 4 - 6 0P A H K A V E N U E MICHAEL S. BOOIN ERIC BREOMAK WOUAM B. OlmBCRO ARTHTTH J. JtfOBSON NEW PAtnt D . C A S O W T T Z * Y O S K , N E W YORK 10022-1906 COTTSSK. MARX A. CHERTOK ; ^ E V ^ ^ X A K " T E X E P H O N E : (212)421-2150 SUZANNE JOYCE FACSIMILE: ( 2 1 2 ) 4 2 1 - 2 0 3 3 DAVID PAOET B,HJUH nrnnr-avrrm^s W K I T B PLAINS. N.Y,O«OI TELEPHONE <9t« « a » N 4 4 ELIZABETH A. READ DANIEL RDSEL STEVEN C.HCSSO HILARY SEMEL KATESINDINO DAVID SIVE DAVXD S. YTXDELSON ALLISON WALSH W E B S1TB: WWW *PfUw COm E - M A H ; «prtaw»iprtaw com March 4, 2002 ' ALSO ADMITTED IN N J By Fax (203) 552-2869 And Overnight Mail Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Re: Application of Knopper/Propertv at 2 Highland Lane Dear Mr. Weiss Members of the Committee: This firm represents Mr. And Mrs. James Piereson, Robert Joyce, John Baran and Loren Fox, whose properties lie alongside a public right of way in the same view corridor as the above-referenced project. This public right of way is an extension of Highland Lane and a passage way for daily commuters to and from the Philipse Manor Train Station. Therightof way provides a panoramic view of the Hudson River and distant hills—a view which will be seriously disrupted by the above project as now proposed. We understand that, as the entity primarily responsible for implementing the policies, purposes and projects contained within the village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"), the Waterfront Advisory Committee (the "Committee") has been asked to make a recommendation to the Town Architectural Review Board ("ARB") on whether the above project is consistent with the LWRP. We respectfully submit that the LWRP Policies, which were adopted for the explicit purpose of protecting the scenic resources of the Town, including the Hudson River viewshed, require the Committee to make a negative recommendation in this instance. The Current Proposal The above project is located on Highland Lane between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue on a prominent location directly overlooking the Hudson River. The �SIVE, PAGET & R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page 2 application seeks a building permit to construct a second story addition with a 26'-27' high twin peaked "cathedral" roofline. This is actually the second submission for this project, the ARB having essentially rejected the first. At that time the ARB instructed the applicants to speak with their neighbors, lower the roof line (which the architect said was possible) and alter the style. Instead, without any discussion with their neighbors, the applicants have now proposed an even higher roof line and the addition of 2 windows in the garage. Aside from showing bad faith, this revised application demonstrates that the project is wholly inconsistent with the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and, accordingly, warrants that the Committee recommend to the ARB that the project be redesigned or rejected. The project is in the Village's "coastal area", and thus, the Village Waterfront Consistency Review Law (WCRL") prohibits the ARB from authorizing a building permit for this project unless it determines that the project is consistent with the LWRP. Before doing so, however, the ARB must first refer a complete a Coastal Assessment Form ("CAF") to the Committee for a LWRP consistency recommendation. 59A-5.B,C. "Consistent" as defined in the Sleepy Hollow Code ("Code") means "[t]hat the action will fully comply with the LWPR policy standards and conditions and, whenever practicable, will advance one or more of them." Code § 59A-3. This project does neither. The Proposed Project Is Inconsistent With LWRP Policy 25 LWRP Policy 25 requires the "protection, restoration or enhancement of natural and man-made resources which are not identified as being of statewide significance, but which contribute to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area." LWRP ni-49. The LWRP further requires that, "[w]hen considering a proposed action which would affect a scenic resource not of Statewide significance, agencies shall ensure that the action will be undertaken so as to protect, restore or enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. Activities which could impair or further degrade scenic quality are;.... the addition of structures which because of siting or scale will reduce identified views or which because of scale, form, or materials will diminish the scenic quality of an identified scenic resource." LWRP III-51 (emphasis added). Because of its "siting" and "scale", the proposed project will impair and degrade a unique public view of the Hudson River in the Village, and contradict the stated goals of this Policy. The proposed project is within a scenic viewshed listed in the LWRP as "Panoramic Views of the Hudson River and beyond from the following streets:...Kelbume Avenue, Highland Avenue, and Palmer Avenue." Policy 25-B mandates protection of these viewsheds. The LWRP further provides that: [fjrom the above streets...parts or all of the Hudson River and the opposite shore can be seen. The only obstructions �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page3 and discordant features within the views are the utility lines and poles situated along the railroad tracks. Except for certain park lands there are no other locations within the village where such a substantial stretch of land along the Hudson River from which such views can be seen. Thus, the above streets... are very important visual access sites for the public to view [sic] be able to view the Hudson River. Future development actions should be undertaken in a manner that recognizes the importance of this viewshed and provides for its enhancement and protection. LWRP 11-80. The right of way runs between the Piereson, Joyce, Baran and Fox properties between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue, and is apparently an extension of the mapped public right of way known as Highland Lane (which also runs between these streets and serves as a public access road). From the right of way, one sees a panorama of the Hudson to the North and South to the Tappan Zee Bridge.1 The twin peaks of the proposed project would destroy this uninterrupted view, and dissect the river line and mountains into several small sections. But because it is within the viewshed and scenic corridors identified in the LWRP, this view is entitled to the protections of LWRP 25-B.2 In addition, the height, bulk, materials and design of the proposal are inconsistent with the characteristics of the scenic quality of the neighborhood of Philipse Manor, identified under LWRP Policy 25 as being a scenic subunit in which "lawns, shrubs and garden trees combin(e)... with mature street trees to form a vegetative canopy that screens development from the adjacent U.S. Route 9 and the Hudson River. LWRP II71. Aside from obstructing the view of the Hudson River from the public access right of way, the proposed project, because of its height, scale and materials, would be plainly visible from both Highland Avenue and Millard Avenue as well as from Riverside Drive and the Historic Landmark Property of the Philipse Manor train station. In other words, it would stick out like sore thumb. With the adjacent homes facing squarely on the river, at most 23 feet height, the height of the proposed addition is out of scale with these other Indeed, the view from the right of way is barely 100 feet the view at the end of Highland Avenue depicted in the LWRP. " The Committee has recently invoked LWRP Policies 23, 25 and 25B to find proposed private developments inconsistent with the LWRP. (See, e.g., Consistency Findings in Re: Application for a Subdivision at 24" Palmer Avenue, within a protected viewshed, and within Philipse Manor, also eligible for the general protections of Policy 23). �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4, 2002 Page 4 houses, and clearly would not enhance, but rather detract, from the scenic qualities that the LWRP mandates be preserved. Taken together, these significant visual impacts demonstrate that this project is inconsistent with the LWRP. Moreover, they warrant a through review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). In fact, we are frankly perplexed as to how this project has progressed this far without even so much as an environmental assessment form ("EAF") being prepared to date. Mitigation Of Visual Impacts The LWRP requires that "within the identified viewsheds and scenic corridors" projects (such as this one) must be designed and constructed "in a manner that will not obstruct the view and identified important elements of that view to the maximum extent practicable." The LWRP thus mandates mitigation of visual and scenic impacts by: • siting structures and other development....back from shorelines or in other inconspicuous locations to maintain the attractive quality of the shoreline and to retain views to and from the shore; • clustering or orienting structures to retain views; • using appropriate scales, forms, and materials to ensure that buildings and other structures are compatible with and add interest to the landscape; and • using "natural materials and colors.. .to the maximum extent practicable in construction such that structures are not discordant with the landscape." LWRP 111-52 - UI-53. In this instance, the identified scenic and visual impacts could be easily mitigated, and consistency readily achieved. If the twin "peaks" of the project roof were slightly lowered to a point below the river line, the uninterrupted view from the right of way would still be available to the public (though it would remain impaired on certain private properties including the Pierson's, Joyce's, Baran's and Fox's). The project would then also be in scale with other neighboring homes when viewed from the Philipse Manor train station. Conclusion In sum, the proposed project does not conform to the policy mandates or design and siting guidelines of the LWRP, and will cause significant visual impacts that mandate �S I V E , P A G E T 8C R I E S E L , P.C. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman March 4,2002 Page 5 a full environmental impact statement under SEQRA. However, by slightly lowering the roof, and thereby reducing the scale of the addition, it is entirely practicable for the project to be modified to comply with the LWRP and SEQRA. Because the project is inconsistent with the requirements of the LWRP, the Committee should not recommend its approval as currently proposed. Sincerely, Mark A. Chertok Michael S. Bogin c: Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor Architectural Review Board Edward Lammer, Esq. P:\4364\Wciss.doc �63/06/2002 12:34 (tfjuz FAX 9146311440302 Nicholas arLcLSheUey ftobinjoyi/ 258 KjtUjurrvB'AveiUAM' SUtpyHoUow, Nvu York 10591 March 4,2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Bcckman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Members of the Waterfront Advisory Committee: We appreciate your careful consideration of the protection of our invaluable view shed of the Hudson River. We have walked along the sidewalks and roads of Philipse Manor since we moved here in 1972. Highland Lane between Millard Avenue and Highland Avenue, just a block from our house, has some of the most beautiful and expansive views of the Tappan Zee and the sunset beyond the hills of Nyack. It is a quiet little lane where a baby carriage, a dog walker or an evening stroller are a more likely sight than a car. The views from public paths and roads are critical areas of concern for Village government under our local Waterfront Revitalization Plan. Every Board in the Village has a duty to protect these views. With respect to the proposed addition to the house in the middle of Highland Lane, we would recommend that the roofline be kept to a modest height, no taller than the house immediately to the north. It should certainly not obstruct the horizon linefromthe top of the Highland Lane hill. A decision that allowed a new roof to intrude on the sunset view from this scenic spot would be a disgrace. Thank you for your careful look at this matter. Sincerely vours, ' Nicholas and Shelley Robinson �March 4, 2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: We live (with our two daughters) on New Broadway Avenue in the Webber Park section of Sleepy Hollow. We frequently walk through various areas of the Village, including Philipse Manor, where we can enjoy some spectacular views of the Hudson River. We are therefore concerned about the proposed addition to the house at 2 Highland Lane in the Manor, which is currently under review by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. In ourfrequentvisits to the area to see friends, we often walk through the public access road that connects Highland Avenue with Highland Lane in order to enjoy the spectacular views of the River that are available from the top of the hill on that public right of way. From that vantage point, one has a wonderful view of the river over the current roof line of this particular structure. The current proposal would elevate this roof line so that it blocks views of the river from this right of way. We believe that, in order to protect this view, the Waterfront Committee should require a modification of this proposal. As we understand it, the purpose of the Waterfront Advisory Committee is to make certain that new construction is undertaken in ways that minimize obstructions of scenic views of the Hudson River. If this is so, then we feel that the Committee should reject this proposal. Sincerely Warren W. Groeger Anna Abelaf 58 New Broadway Sleepy Hollow, NY -JO \> �March 4,2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Members of the Waterfront Advisory Committee: We are writing to urge you to either reject or advise revision to the proposed addition at 2 Highland Lane. Highland Lane is a beautiful, quiet lane set right at the River's edge in Philipse Manor. We live about 200 feet from the Lane. Every morning Tom uses the Right of Way from Highland Ave down to the train station. He says that the view from the top of Highland Lane Hill is breathtaking and is the highlight of his day. It would be a travesty to take this expansive view of the Hudson away from the public. As proposed, the height and scale of the house would obstruct the river line and the distant mountains. It would be a shame to lose such a scenic treasure. The views from public roads are supposed to be protected by the Waterfront Board. We are so lucky to live alongside such a road with such a magnificent view of the Hudson. Please do all you can to protect this view. Once someone blocks this view it is gone to all of us now, and for all years to come. Thanks for all your time and all the work you do for our village. Sincerely, �March 4, 2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Waterfront Advisory Committee Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: I live at 217 Highland Avenue in Philipse Manor, some 150 feet from the house at 2 Highland Lane, whose new owners have submitted a building proposal now under review by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. I urge the Committee to reject this proposal, and to ask for changes in the style and height of the project. My wife and I (along with our children)frequentlywalk along the public access road that connects Highland Avenue to Highland Lane in order to enjoy the spectacular views of the Hudson River that are available from the top of the hill along that road. I also commute to work in New York City, and walk to the train station every day through that public corridor. The view of the river from that spot on Highland Lane Hill is a public treasure not only for us, but also for the Village and the entire area. This proposed construction at 2 Highland Lane is objectionable because it will impair the scenic views of the River from this public vantage point, and also because the style of the new construction (with its high triangular peaks) is not in keeping with other designs in this particular area. The Committee should request a revision in the design so that the new building minimizes any obstruction of river views, and is more consistent with other homes in the immediate vicinity. Sincerely, AMm^m^— David Warren 217 Highland Ave. Sleepy Hollow, NY �Jane Dubin 255 Highland Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 March 6,2002 Mr. Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 RE: Knopper Property at 2 Highland Lane, Sleepy Hollow Dear Mr. Weiss and members of the Committee: I live adjacent to the southern end of the Knopper property in Philipse Manor, with similar river views. Like my neighbors, I cherish the beauty of the Hudson River and believe in the mission of the Committee to preserve the scenic resources of our Village. Like my neighbors, I had hoped that the new owners of this property would consider the spirit, style and beauty of the neighborhood when presenting plans for building. In particular, I had encouraged discussion of portions of the plans that would impact the views from public (and private) access points in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, discussions have been held in public forums, such as the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and now the Waterfront Advisory Committee. I would like to suggest that the parties discuss the modifications already proposed by the ARB at its last meeting as a solution to preserving the view, namely lowering the roof line a modest amount. This modification was put forward by the Knopper's architect as possible without jeopardizing the integrity of the project. I welcome new neighbors to our block and encourage discussion among the parties as a way of reaching a compromise acceptable to all. I hope that the Committee and Knoppers will recognize that while improvements to this house are needed and welcomed, the almost unparalleled beauty of the River and River views are not replaceable. Jane/Dubin �^Td? *-6 Richard D. Weiss Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Dear Mr. Weiss: I am writing to support the request of Mr. and Mrs. James Piereson, Robert Joyce, John Baran and Loren Fox that he proposed addition at 2 Highland Lane be either rejected or revised . I live directly to the north of the proposed addition at 270 Millard Ave. I am concerned that due to the proposed addition's siting and scale, the addition will impair a beautiful view of the Hudson available to all who walk our lovely lane and the right of way above. Moreover, because of its scale, and materials and design, it will detract from the line of houses, of which mine is a part. The scale of the proposed addition will serve to diminish the existing houses alongside it. Moreover, the design of the house is completely out of keeping with the feel and the esthetics of the existing homes. The design is a very modern, and asymmetric and is not in keeping with the existing homes. Based on design, scale, siting and height I urge the committee to recommend rejection or revision of the plans. The neighbors have tried to meet with the applicants and indeed the applicants were directed to meet with us but to date the applicants have decided not to meet. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request. Sincerely, Barbara Fink 270 Millard Ave. - ^ � 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 Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 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_WATER_2002-03-06.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 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