https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d06242da53ca6af0eaaf0bc8a840676b.pdf 89ca9920a2161cf5cb64db31f77a4706 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 4, 2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn RECEIVED SEP 1 1 ?0M VILLAGE CLERK Doug Maass Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of July 2002 meetings b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the July 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 2, change: "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." To read: "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. The Chair stated that any development of this parcel would have to come before the Waterfront Advisory Committee for approval." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Adir not present). b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Vincent Savino is the attorney representing this application along with Vincent Amendola (Engineer). �I D IS IB E 11 V 1 T 2002 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 PI ill OING DEPARTMENT] CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Preliminary Piatt Application- Douglass Hill Subdivision The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") considered, at its meeting on July 10, 2002, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the subdivision of a parcel in the Village of Sleepy Hollow known as "Douglass Hill" (the "Property"). The applicant for the Proposal is the David Rockefeller Fund ("Applicant"). Representing the Applicant at the meeting were Mr. Andrew V. Tung of the firm of Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP, who presented the Proposal, and Mr. John S. Marwell. of the law firm of Shamberg Marwell Hocherman Davis & Hollis, P.C., counsel to the Applicant. Messrs. Tung and Marwell responded to questions from the Committee. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed subdivision of the Property would not be inconsistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof. The Proposal The Property consists of approximately 56.9 acres of unimproved land that is presently open meadow and woodlands. It is zoned R-l. The Applicant wishes to subdivide the Property into two lots, one approximately 33.3 acres and the other approximately 22.2 acres. In addition, the Applicant proposes to transfer to Dr. Peter and Mrs. Carol Zegerelli 1.4 acres of the Property, which would be merged with two building lots now owned by Dr. and Mrs. Zegerelli to create a single building lot, and to acquire from David Rockefeller, the owner of the adjacent property to the north of the Property, approximately one acre in order to bring a driveway now serving the Property entirely within the Property's boundaries. The proposal does not cite any development plans for the Property, although Mr. Tung acknowledged that the two resulting parcels could be sold to developers for eventual residential development. Consistency Findings Although the proposal does not include any specific development plans, it is the policy of the Committee to consider any application for a property subdivision based on the most intensive lawful use that could be made of the land, without further review, in the event that the requested subdivision were approved. The Committee noted that the Property is located in the Sleepy Hollow scenic subunit, protected by Policy 25B and noted that there were other policies applicable to the area east of the Old Croton Aqueduct, where the Property is sited. The Committee noted that the proposed subdivision, by itself, would not have any adverse effect under any policies of the LWRP. The Committee further observed that any commercial development of the Property in the future would require further Planning Board approvals and would, therefore, necessarily have to be presented to the Committee for review of the consistency of that development with the LWRP. The Committee concluded that the only development �action that could take place as a result of the granting of the current application (subdivision of the Property into two lots) would be the construction of one single-family residence on each such lot. The Committee unanimously found that, even if such action were taken, it would not have a materially adverse effect on the Village's Sleepy Hollow scenic subunit (Policy 25B) and that nothing in the proposal or in any action that could be directly taken after implementation of the proposal appeared to be inconsistent with the LWRP. (The Committee observed that, although, no plans have been formulated or sites selected for residential construction, and thus it could not be determined whether any such residences might be visible from the Hudson River, the two homes, even if visible from the River, would not materially impair views from the River (Policy 25A - Protect or enhance views of the Hudson River, the Hudson River Valley, and the Opposite Shore from the immediateriverfrontas viewed from publicly owned properties). The Committee also took note of the facts that Mr. Tung, in his presentation, stated that views from Kykuit would be protected by restrictions that would limit the use of parts of the Property visible from Kykuit. He also stated that it was intended that the trails crossing the Property, which the Applicant currently permits to be used by pedestrians during daylight hours, would remain accessible to the public. As presented, the proposal contemplates that access for the two lots created by the subdivision would be to and from Webber Avenue. However, the Property also abuts a portion of Gorey Brook Road that is in disrepair and, if access to and from Gorey Brook Road for the Property were sought, improvement and maintenance of the roadway could impose a significant burden on the Village and could create a consistency issue under Policies 5 [Encourage the location of Development in areas where public services and facilities essential to such development are adequate] and 5B [Discourage the development of uses which, by reason of their demand for new community services and facilities or their imposition of burdens on existing services and facilities, would require disproportionate public cost in comparison to public benefits]. The Committee, therefore, recommended to the Planning Board that, in its consideration of the subdivision application, it fully explore with Applicant any possibility that Gorey Brook Road access might be sought for any part of the Property. Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee # Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 2 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 4,2002 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:03 p.m. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman Karin Adir George Lence Absent: Terence McGlynn RECEIVED SEP 1 * ?0M VILLAGE CLERK Doug Maass Also Present: Anthory DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) Minutes of July 2002 meetings b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless a) Minutes of June 2002 meeting The minutes for the July 2002 meeting were reviewed. The following corrections were noted: On page 2, change: "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." To read: "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. The Chair stated that any development of this parcel would have to come before the Waterfront Advisory Committee for approval." Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Don Stever seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Adir not present). b) NY SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Vincent Savino is the attorney representing this application along with Vincent Amendola (Engineer). �Vincent Savino summarized thefindingsfromthe December 5, 2001 Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting. He stated that the applicant is seeking a similar recommendation for the application at 28 Beekman Avenue. Ralph Gunderman asked if the applicant was seeking to install antennas at both location or at either location. Vincent Savino responded that the applicant is seeking approval at either location. He stated that the applicant was referred back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee as per the Planning Board. Ralph Gunderman asked if the application at 95 Beekman would be withdrawn if the application at 28 Beekman Avenue were approved. Vincent Savino responded yes. Ralph Gunderman asked if the coverage was similar. Vincent Savino responded that the coverage would be close but not identical to the proposed coverage at 95 Beekman Avenue. Karin Adir stated that coverage would be needed at the GM site. Vincent Savino responded that this was made clear to the Planning Board. The Chair asked the applicant how this application corresponds to the LWRP. Vincent Savino responded that the antennas would blend in with the existing antennas on 28 Beekman Ave. Ralph Gunderman asked if there were any industrial standards on the proximity to residences concerning the radiation emitted by these antennas. Vincent Savino responded that a Health & Safety report was prepared to show that the antenna proposal would be well below the FCC standards. He stated that this applies to both locations. There was an open discussion on the ways that radiation will be emitted on both proposals. The Chair stated that the previous decision was based on the fact that there was no visible impact. He stated that the current proposal is very visible. George Lence referred to an article from the Wall Street Journal concerning a new technology that could reduce the visual impact on Village Hall. Vincent Amendola responded that he was not aware of this new technology. George Lence stated that he was concerned about having Verizon install an old technology on top of Village Hall. The Chair asked about the height of the antennas. Vincent Amendola responded that they would be 15-feet above the roofline. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 4,2002 2 �The Chair stated that he has a problem with the aesthetics associated with this proposal. Ralph Gunderman spoke about the impact versus the benefits. The Chair asked about the terms of the lease. Vincent Savino responded that the applicant is in negotiations with the Village. The Chair referred to Policies 18 (b), 23 and 25 (b). He summarized the relevance of the LWRP to this application. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to find that this application is consistent with Policy 18 (b) and inconsistent with Policy 25 (b). He also stated that Policy 23 does not apply. He stated that his motion is based on the fact that the applicant is not improving the architecture of Village Hall. George Lence seconded. Don Stever stated that it is not visible from the Route 9 - Beekman Avenue intersection. The Chair agreed with Ralph Gunderman. There was an open discussion on Policy 25 (b) and the overall recommendation to the Planning Board. Ralph Gunderman's motion to find the application consistent with Policy 18 (b) was approved unanimously (5-0). Ralph Gunderman's motion to find the application inconsistent with Policy 25 (b) was approved (4-1) (Stever). It was agreed (unanimously) that Policy 23 does not apply to this application. Don Stever made a motion to find the application consistent with the LWRP based on the positive consideration from Policy 18(b) outweighing the negative impacts from Policy 25 (b). It was approved (3-2) (Gunderman, Chairman Weiss). George Lence made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourn at 8:37 PM to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DelVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, September 4,2002 3 �Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 RECEIVE crp o L onp •» VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Installation of Wireless Communication Facility at 28 Beekman Avenue (Village Hall) The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on September 4, 2002, a proposal by New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the "Applicant") for the installation of a public utility wireless communication facility (the "Facility") atop Village Hall, at 28 Beekman Avenue in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. (The 28 Beekman Avenue site is hereinafter referred to as "Village Hall" and the Village of Sleepy Hollow is hereinafter referred to as the "Village"). The proposal was presented by Vincent Savino, Esq. of the law firm of Snyder & Snyder, LLP, counsel for the Applicant, with the participation of Mr. Vincent Amendola, an engineer from the H2M Group. Mr. Savino and Mr. Amendola responded to the Committee's questions. The Committee found the proposal consistent in part, and inconsistent in part, with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP) and concluded, by a vote of three to two, that the proposed installation would, on balance, be consistent with the LWRP. The Proposal The Facility would consist of a panel of antennas that would be affixed to the chimneys above the roofline at the top of Village Hall. Related equipment would not be visible to the public. The proposal is an alternative to a proposal that was made by Applicant in 2001 and was reviewed by the Committee at its meeting on December 5,2001. That earlier proposal contemplated affixing the Facility to decorative cornices on the Van Tassel Apartment Building at 95 Beekman Avenue. The Committee made a determination, at its December 5 meeting, that the proposal for the 95 Beekman Avenue site would be consistent the LWRP. The Village's Planning Board subsequently requested that Applicant consider the use of Village Hall as an alternative site for the Facility. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies 18B and 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. The Committee determined that Policy 23, one of the policies on which the Committee's December 5 findings were based, was not applicable to the Village Hall site because Village Hall did not have historic and architectural significance to the Village of Sleepy Hollow, as the Van Tassel Apartment Building does. Policy 18B - TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE, PROPOSED ACTIONS MUST GIVE FULL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPACTS OF SUCH �ACTIONS ON COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL RESOURCES OF THE VILLAGE AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE SUCH RESOURCES SUPPORT. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The nine identified scenic landscape subunits include the Upper and Lower Village, and the twenty-three identified viewsheds of local importance include Beekman Avenue at the intersection with U.S. Route 9.) The Committee, in considering the consistency of the proposal with Policy 18B concluded that the social interests of the Village could be protected by the economic benefit to the Village that would be derived from the project. The installation of the Facility at the Village Hall site would produce rental income for the Village. The Explanation of Policies applicable to this Policy directs that economic interests of the Village should be weighed in considering proposed actions that would affect certain specified areas of concern, such as natural resources and recreation. Although the proposed action does not directly affect any of the areas of concern referred to the Explanation of Policies section, the Committee concluded that the intent of Policy 18B permitted the Committee to take into account the potential economic benefit to the Village that would be derived from installation of the Facility at the Village Hall site. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously found that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 18B. The Committee was, however, unable to conclude that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 25B. Although the Committee recognized that Village Hall does not have any particular historical or architectural significance, the Committee observed that it is an attractive building. Moreover, it is located at a highly visible location near the intersection of Route 9 and Beekman Avenue. The Committee noted that the Beekman Avenue corridor would provide the principal access to the General Motors site, where major development is contemplated for the future and that any adverse visual impact on the area is of concern. Since the antenna array that would comprise the visible portion of the Facility could not be flush mounted (as was proposed for the Van Tassel Apartment Building site), the antennas would rise approximately fifteen feet above the Village Hall chimney, making them very apparent from portions of Route 9 and Beekman Avenue. Although the Village's own antennas for police and fire department communications are visible at their location above the Village Hall roofline. they are less noticeable than the Facility's antennas would be. The visual impact from the Facility was considered significant and undesirable. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of four to one, that the proposal would not be consistent with Policy 25B. After its findings of partial consistency and partial inconsistency of the project with the policies of the LWRP, the Committee considered whether, after weighing the elements of the Project's consistency and inconsistency, the project, on balance, was or was not consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. The Committee took into account the need of the Applicant for enhanced wireless communications coverage and the obligation of the Village, under federal law, to permit antenna placement at suitable locations. The economic benefit to the Village from rental payments by Applicant to the Village was weighed against the severity of the diminution of the aesthetic qualities of Village Hall and Beekman Avenue. It was the finding of the �Committee, by a vote of three to two that, on balance, the proposed placement of the antennas above Village Hall would be consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP. Richard D. Weiss, Chairman � 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_2002-09-04.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