https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7a441f25b5fb1aba5490300324687d76.pdf 66abf1af2d5826823e0c5fdb416edcd7 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 5,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Ralph Gunderman Terence McGlynn Doug Maass George Lence Absent: Donald Stever Karin Adir Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of May 2002 meetings b) Michael Doorley - 247 Palmer Avenue a) Minutes of May 2002 meeting The minutes for the May 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 3, change "Don Stever stated that he would be removing equipment from the property, which would improve the view shed." To read: "Don Stever stated that the applicant would be removing equipment from the property, which would improve the view shed." On page 3, change "Don Stever made a motion to re-elect Richard Weiss as Chairman. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (5-0)." To read: "Don Stever made a motion to re-elect Richard Weiss as Chairman. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). �Terrance McGlynn made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Michael Doorlev The Chair stated that the Committee would allow the re-presentation of this application. He stated that the Committee would normally not allow an applicant to come before the Committee without a different application. Geraldine Tortorella is the attorney representing this application. She gave an overview of the application with regards to the Waterfront Advisory Committee's previous decision and the current Planning Board application. She stated that she reviewed the LWRP and the applicable policies that the Committee based their recent decision on (Policies 23, 25 and 25 (b)). She spoke about Michael Doorley's report on the history of Phillipse Manor. She stated that based on his research, this house is not one of the original houses in the Phillipse Manor development. She stated that the original house lot was 130 feet x 150 feet. She stated that in 1940, the owner had starting to purchase some of the lots surrounding the property. She stated that the house currently sits on a lot that is 2x larger than any other original Phillipse Manor house. She stated that 53% of the houses in Phillipse Manor have lots similar to the proposed sub-division. Vincent Farrandino is a planning consultant that is representing the applicant. He spoke about his report that discussed the view-shed analysis and the photo simulation of the views that the proposed sub-division would create. He discussed the recent Waterfront Advisory Committee decision with regards to policies 23, 25 and 25(b). He stated that policy 23 does not apply to this application. He stated that policies 25 and 25(b) apply but do not cause adverse impacts to Phillipse Manor. He spoke about the definition of the term "gateway". The Chair stated that the term "gateway" was used only as a metaphor. Vincent Farrandino stated that: 1) Homes built on the proposed sub-division would be the same size as the surrounding homes. 2) There would be no adverse impacts on views from surrounding homes. The Chair responded that the Committee's previous findings did not speak about view sheds but only scenic sub-units. He stated that the Committee agreed that views to and from the Hudson River would not be impacted. He stated that the historical research performed by Michael Doorley was well done. He stated that the Committee was evaluating Phillipse Manor in its current configuration. George Lence asked if there were any similar sub-divisions proposed since the LWRP was adopted in 1997. Michael Doorley responded yes. He stated that on Hunter Ave in 1998-1999. He stated that it was smaller than the proposed lots in this application. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 2 �Geraldine Tortorella stated that this specific site was no mentioned in the LWRP. The Chair agreed. Geraldine Tortorella stated that the proposed lots would not impact any scenic Phillipse Manor resources. She also stated that the applicant would submit to some architectural controls to the limit the types of houses permitted on the lots. Ralph Gunderman spoke about Policies 23 and 25 (b). He stated that the homes on Merlin Avenue and Monroe Avenue were out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that this house on this site with the existing landscaping would be destroyed by the proposed development. He spoke about Figure 6 and Figure 9 (rendering of future development from the submitted report). He stated that the renderings are not accurate with regards to the garage (Fig 6) and the property scale (Fig 9). He stated that he is opposed to the sub-division. The Chair stated that he still finds Policy 23 applicable. Terrance McGlynn stated that in previous discussions, it was stated that the lots might be sold to adjacent landowners to further expand their properties. He stated that the current proposal has renderings of houses. Geraldine Tortorella responded that they are presenting the worst-case scenario. There was an open discussion on selling the property to adjacent landowners. Geraldine Tortorella spoke about identified scenic resources according to the LWRP. She stated that none of the listed scenic resources relate to this site. She stated that this site is not a scenic resource according to the LWRP. She stated that measures could be placed to ensure the landscaping characteristics would be maintained. She stated that after the sub-division, the Doorley's would still have the largest lot among the four proposed lots. Doug Maass stated that Figures 11 and 12 are the same. There was an open discussion on the house renderings. There was an open discussion on the proposed lot sub-divisions. Doug Maass asked about Figure 10. He stated that the proposed curb cut and driveway were omitted. Vincent Farrandino responded that the pictures tried to provide a conceptual view. He stated that they are not perfect renderings. George Lence stated that Policy 25 refers to "protect, restore and enhance". He asked which one the applicant was proposing that the application would achieve. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 3 �Geraldine Tortorella responded that she was referring to "protect". She stated that this sub-division would protect and preserve the Phillipse Manor sub-units. She also stated that the applicant would come up with a landscaping plan. Ralph Gunderman responded that he does not feel that the applicant could come up with a landscaping plan that would maintain the level of landscaping that currently exists. Geraldine Tortorella asked if the Palmer Avenue sub-division was the primary reason that the Committee was not in favor of this application. She stated that if the applicant did not propose the Palmer sub-division, would the Committee approve the application. The Chair responded that the Committee does not respond to hypothetical scenarios. The Chair allowed the public to speak. Pat Pierson (Millard Ave) spoke. She stated hat she opposes the sub-division. She stated that the LWRP was not in place when the original Phillipse Manor was divided. Michael Doorley responded that he could not substantiate the carving of large estates into smaller lots. He stated that there could be one instance or two. The Chair asked if there were any other comments. There were none. Geraldine Tortorella stated that this is private property. She also stated that no variances would be required. Vincent Farrandino stated that the applicant would submit a proposal to place conditions to protect the landscaping and preserve the scenic resources. The Chair responded that the Committee would review the proposal once it is submitted. He stated that the Committee would not comment on abstract proposals. Ralph Gunderman stated that he cannot see any plan that would mitigate the damage that would be caused by the sub-division and potential construction. Vincent Farrandino responded that based on the lot size, the applicant could build a 6000sf house (McMansion) on the lot. He stated that the Village would have no recourse because it would conform to the Village Zoning Code. The Chair asked the Committee for comments. Doug Maass responded that the three lots are in conformance with the Village Zoning Code. He stated that he feels it is consistent with the LWRP. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find the application inconsistent with regards to Policies 23 and 25. George Lence seconded. It was found inconsistent by a 4-1 vote (Maass). Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 4 �Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. George Lence seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 9:05 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 5,2002 �RECEIVED Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 JUL - ? 700? VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Subdivision - 247 Palmer Avenue The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") considered, at its meeting on June 5, 2002, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the subdivision of the property located at 247 Palmer Avenue (the "Property"). The Proposal had been previously reviewed by the Committee at its meeting on October 3, 2001 and found to be inconsistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Re vital ization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. Following the Committee's October 3, 2001 meeting, the owners of the Property, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Doorley ("Applicants") presented a Viewshed Analysis and additional materials purporting to demonstrate that the findings of the Committee were erroneous, and requested a reversal of the prior findings. As pointed out to the Applicants at the June 5 meeting, the Committee, in the past, has reconsidered its findings only in cases where an applicant has modified a proposal in order to meet objections raised by the Committee. Where, as in the instant case, a proposal remains unchanged and the grounds for reconsideration are simply the applicant's conviction that the Committee erred in its findings, the applicant's procedural remedy is to seek to convince the entity authorized to act on the application (in this case, the Village's Planning Board) to reject the Committee's advisory findings and to make contrary findings of its own. Nevertheless, despite the lack of any obligation to rehear a proposal previously considered, the Committee, recognizing the substantial time and money invested by the Applicants in developing their Viewshed Analysis and additional materials, and believing that the Planning Board might wish to have the advice of the Committee in light of these materials, agreed to allow the Applicants to present their argument that the Committee's earlier findings were in error. Applicants were present at the meeting and were represented by Geraldine Tortorella, Esq. from the law firm of Shamberg Marwell Hocherman Davis & Hollis, P.C. and Mr. Vince Ferrandino from Ferrandino & Associates Inc., Planning and Development Consultants. At the end of the meeting, the Committee concluded that some details of its prior findings had been in error, but concluded that those findings that the Applicants' Proposal was inconsistent with the LWRP remained valid. The Proposal The Property consists of approximately 1.5 acres, abutting Palmer Avenue to the south and Highland Avenue to the north. There is a two and one-half story stone residence and a separate stone garage situated on the Property. The proposed subdivision would create two lots �abutting Highland Avenue, as well as one lot on the Palmer Avenue side of the Property, to the east of the remaining portion of the Property on which the residence and garage are located. Each of the proposed lots would have a frontage of seventy-five feet and would be approximately one hundred fifty feet deep, and would be conforming lots under zoning requirements of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Arguments of the Applicants and Responsive Findings The materials presented by the Applicants and the presentations made by Applicants' counsel and their planning and development consultant contend that the Proposal is not inconsistent with the LWRP for various reasons. The reasons articulated include, among others, assertions that Policy 23, one of the bases of the Committee's October findings, is not applicable to the Proposal, that the proposed subdivision (assuming future construction on the proposed new lots) would not impede views to or from the Hudson River, that the Property is not one of the original Philipse Manor development homes as assumed in the October findings, that the LWRP does not have provisions applicable to a "gateway" (a description applied to the site in the October findings) and that, in any event, the Proposal would not impair views of or from the bridge over the Metro North tracks at the end of Palmer Avenue (which Applicant presumes to be the "gateway" referred to in the Committee's findings). It was further argued that the Proposal is not inconsistent with Policies 25 and 25B, because the elements that are believed by Applicants to have led the drafters of the LWRP to include Philipse Manor as one the Village's scenic subunits would not be impaired by the subdivision. Applicants also noted that more than fifty percent of the residences in Philipse Manor are on lots with seventy-five foot frontage. The Committee discussed and responded to the points raised on behalf of the Applicants. It was noted that the Committee's findings were in no way predicated upon any impact on views to or from the Hudson River and that when the Committee referred to the Property as sitting "at a sort of 'gateway' to Kingsland Point Park, the Philipse Manor Yacht Club, the Metro North Train Station and the Hudson Valley Writer's Center", the "gateway" reference was clearly used as a metaphor for the significance of the Property's location. The Committee agreed with Applicants that their materials did conclusively establish that the Property was not, in fact, one of the original Philipse Manor development properties, but noted that the Property, in its present state, had long been a part of the Philipse Manor area at the time of adoption of the LWRP. The Committee acknowledged that many lots in Philipse Manor might have frontages of only seventy-five feet, but noted that such subdivisions predated the adoption of the LWRP and that the present scarcity of large properties in the Manor gave the Property even greater significance for the quality of the Philipse Manor scenic subunit. The majority of the Committee also agreed that Policy 23 was not properly applicable to the Proposal. Nevertheless, the Committee again concluded, by a vote of four to one, that the Proposal would irrevocably damage the scenic value of the Philipse Manor scenic subunit, and was inconsistent with Policies 25 and 25B. POLICY 25 - PROTECT, RESTORE OR ENHANCE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE RESOURCES WHICH ARE NOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, BUT WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL SCENIC 2 �QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. POLICY 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS (citing Philipse Manor as one of nine scenic landscape subunits]. The Committee considered, as it had in October, the scenic assessment of the Philipse Manor subunit in the LWRP "Inventory and Analysis" section, which includes, as scenic components of Philipse Manor, the following characteristics: "The residential neighborhood is laid out in a formal grid, and appears more open than the adjacent residential development in the Sleepy Hollow Manor subunit. The houses are designed in a variety of styles and are set in landscaped settings, with lawns, shrubs and garden trees combining with mature street trees to form a vegetative canopy that screens development from the adjacent U.S. Route 9 and the Hudson River. "The Philipse Manor subunit was also identified as part of the candidate Haverstraw Bays Park SASS. The subunit features a variety of contrasting housing styles set in a distinctive landscaped setting. . . ." The Committee also noted once again that the LWRP scenic importance analysis identifies the Philipse Manor subunit as one of the "Identified Landscapes of Statewide Scenic Importance and Landscapes of Regional Scenic Importance", particularly subject to the LWRP provisions protecting overall coastal scenic quality. After thorough consideration, the Committee could not conclude that the subdivision of the Property into four lots (allowing the construction of three new residences, and potentially losing forever the distinctive present vista of the large stone house sited in its large open landscaped setting) would protect or enhance the scenic value of the Philipse Manor subunit. Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee RichardD/Weiss, Chairman 3 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 10,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:17 p.m Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Terence McGlynn Doug Maass Absent: Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Robert Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of June 2002 meetings b) Douglass Hill sub-division a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the June 2002 meeting were reviewed. Several corrections were noted: Don Stever made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). b) Douglass Hill sub-division Andy Tung is the project planner. He is representing this application along with attorney, John Marwell. Andy Tung spoke about the proposed sub-division plat proposal. He referred to a map that detailed the existing 57-acre parcel. He stated that the proposal would create two parcels of approximately equal size. He stated that 1.4 acres would be sold to Peter Zegarelli. He stated that Mr. Zegarelli already owns the two adjacent lots and the "U" shaped parcel would be merged to the existing 2 lots to allow Mr. Zegarelli to build one large house on the total combined land. Andy Tung spoke about transferring approximately 1.0 acre from David Rockefeller owned property to allow an existing driveway to fall entirely within upper lot "A". �Andy Tung spoke about adding a no-disturbance line to keep the views from Kykuit intact. Don Stever asked if there are any restrictions that could limit the height of structures that could be built. Andy Tung responded that the Village Zoning Code would restrict the height of any such structures. The Chair asked about the details of the sub-division. Andy Tung stated that each parcel would be sold to residential developers. He stated that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is concerned with the number of lots that can be created. Don Stever asked if any part of this parcel is visible from the Hudson River. Andy Tung responded that it should fall below the hills of Kykuit. John Marwell stated that the existing trail would be kept as a formal easement. He stated that it would remain open to the public. Don Stever asked if lot A would be accessed from Gory Brook Road. Andy Tung responded no. Don Stever stated that Gory Brook Road is currently an un-maintained public way. He stated that the Village would then have an obligation to improve the road. He stated this would be in violation of policies within the LWRP. Andy Tung responded that the purpose of transferring the driveway to lot "A" would resolve this potential problem. Don Stever stated that the Planning Board should be notified that a restriction might be needed on Gory Brook Road. The Chair asked if the Committee had any questions for the applicant. There were none. Don Stever stated that he finds this application consistent with the LWRP. The Chair agreed. It was unanimous (4-0) that the application was consistent with the LWRP. The Chair made a motion to adjourn. Doug Maass seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourn at 8:47 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, July 10, 2002 2 � 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_2002-07-10.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