https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/03483d5d23fe6228e9ed92f409766ff0.pdf 6bba46002fe8c4df5c12b9c4f3dc640b PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 4,2003 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 8:04 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Terence McGlynn Ralph Gunderman Doug Maass Absent: Donald Stever Karin Adir George Lence Also Present: Angie Kahn (Saccardi & Schifi/Village Planner) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Minutes of January 2003 meeting Omnipoint Communications Dan Beaton/309 North Washington Street Peter Zegarelli/Ridge Street Kennedy/Pokahoe Drive + Hemlock Drive - vacant lots Parking for Committee members 1) Minutes of January 2003 meeting The minutes from the January 2003 meeting were not reviewed. The Chair asked if the minutes could be re-distributed to the Board members. 2) Omnipoint Noelle Kinsch is representing Omnipoint. She summarized the Planning Board application to date. The Chair stated that he would like to know the specific changes from the original application. Noelle Kinsch summarized the proposed changes. She stated that the equipment cabinets have been moved to the rear. She stated that there are also changes in cabling and antennas. �The Chair asked if the antennas were higher. Noelle Kinsch responded no. She reviewed the previous proposal using computer simulations. The Chair stated that the only impact is from Route 9. Ralph Gunderman asked why the antennas needed to be above the chimney. Noelle Kinsch responded that there is a height requirement based on the terrain of Sleepy Hollow. The Chair asked if there was any effective way to screen the antennas. Noelle Kinsch responded no. Ralph Gunderman stated that it could increase the size of the structure. Noelle Kinsch spoke about the benefits of co-located sites. The Chair noted the receipt of the Draft Generic EIS from the Planning Board. Raplh Gunderman stated that Village Hall is already a communication site. He stated that he would not find this application inconsistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass asked about the antennas on the eastside. Noelle Kinsch stated that there are no antennas on the eastside. Terance McGlynn stated that the benefits outweigh the impact. Doug Maass agreed that it was consistent with the LWRP. It was determined that the application was consistent by a vote of 3-1 (Chair). 3) Dan Beaton Jeffrey Shumedja is representing this application along with Dan Beaton. Jeffrey Shumedja stated that this application is for a 2-lot sub-division. He stated that both lots are conforming to the Village Zoning Code. He also stated that the new lot would have 11 parking spaces. There was an open discussion on parking spaces and the proposed easements. The Chair asked if the lot was visible from Route 9. Jeffrey Shumedja responded that it will be visible in the wintertime. The Chair asked why are 11 spaces proposed for a 2-family residence. Dan Beaton responded that parking would be provided for the 5-family residence next door. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4,2003 �The Chair stated that policy l(k) applies to this application. It was determined that this application was consistent with the LWRP by a 4-0 vote. 4) Peter Zegarelli/Ridge Street Lawrence Borges is the project architect and is representing this application. He stated that this property is part of the Douglas Hill sub-division and was already approved by the Architectural Review Board. He summarized the proposed project. The Chair stated that new homes are now under Waterfront Advisory Committee jurisdiction. There was an open discussion on which policies apply to this application. It was agreed that policy 5(b) does apply and that policies 23, 23(a), 23(b), 25, and 25(a) do not apply. The Chair asked what surrounds this property. Lawrence Borges spoke about the house and the surrounding land and elevations. He also spoke about the appearance of the house. The Chair asked if water, sewer, etc are available. Lawrence Borges responded that electric would be installed underground, water would be provided from Ridge Street and that sewer is available in the area. Doug Maass asked about the zoning. Lawrence Borges responded that it is in an R-3 district. It was determined that the application is consistent with the LWRP by a 4-0 vote. 5) Kennedv/Pokahoe Drive + Kennedy/Hemlock Drive - vacant lots Dennis Rubich is the project architect and is representing this application. He spoke about the proposed construction of (2) one-family houses. There was an open discussion on the location of each house on the sub-division. There was an open discussion on the wetlands on the site. Angie Kahn stated that the Planning Board has requested information of the wetlands in the area. The Chair asked for a copy of the report. Angie Kahn agreed. There was an open discussion on the public's view from the property and from the site. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4,2003 3 �Doug Maass asked about the Village's opinion on two curb cuts. Angie Kahn responded that she would find out. The Chair stated that policy 5(b) was not relevant but policies 23 and 25 (a) were relevant to this application. The Chair asked how the applicant would mitigate the views from the Fremont House. Richard Blancato spoke about the location of the house on the lots. He spoke about the Architectural Review Board application to date. The Chair stated that the burden is on the applicant to comply with the LWRP. He asked the applicant how they would mitigate the view from the Fremont House since it is a historic landmark. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant would not be touching the historic landmark. Ralph Gunderman read policy 23 on historic resources. Richard Blancato stated that the proposed houses are in scale with the neighborhood. Doug Maass stated that the houses in the neighborhood are not as large as the houses proposed in this application. There was an open discussion on the size of the neighboring houses and lots. The Chair allowed public comments. Leonard Andrews (11 Pokahoe Drive) spoke. He read a letter to the Board opposing the application. Art McKinley (18 Kingsland Ave) spoke. He is the President of the Sleepy Hollow Manor Association. He spoke about the concerns with the proposed development. He stated that no house in Sleepy Hollow Manor has a 3-car garage. He asked about the McMansion's Law and the size of the proposed developments. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair closed the public comment period. Richard Blancato stated that the application complies with the McMansion's Law. He stated that the sub-division was legal and the building lots are legal. He stated that the only issues are the architectural features of the houses. Doug Maass spoke about the impact to trees. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant would go before the Tree Commission also. Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4,2003 4 �Doug Maass referred to policy 25(b). He stated that the application was inconsistent with trees and several issues of policy 25(b). He stated that he would like to see both houses and the Fremont house on one plan. He also stated that the plans were not sealed by the architect/engineer. He also referred to the Coastal Assessment Form regarding storm water and wetlands. Richard Blancato responded that he disagreed with the Coastal Assessment Form comments. The Committee reviewed each policy separately. The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is inconsistent with policy 23 of the LWRP (4-0). The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is inconsistent with policy 23 (a) oftheLWRP(4-0). The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is inconsistent with policy 25 of the LWRP (4-0). The Committee unanimously agreed that the application is inconsistent with policy 25 (a) of the LWRP (4-0). It was also agreed that the vote would apply to both applications. 6) Parking for Committee members The Chair read a letter from George Tanner regarding available parking for Board members for meetings. He stated that a request should be sent to his attention at Village Hall if interested. Doug Maass made a motion to adjourn. Ralph Gunderman seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:54 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony DeiVecchio Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, June 4,2003 5 �RECEIVED * Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 JUN 1 7 MM VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Installation of Wireless Communication Facilities at 28 Beekman Avenue (Village Hall) The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed, at its meeting on June 4, 2003, a proposal by Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (the "Applicant") for the installation of wireless communication facilities (the "Facilities") 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 Noelle M. Kinsch, Esq. of the law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, LLP, counsel for the Applicant. Ms. Kinsch responded to the Committee's questions. Four members of the Committee, comprising a quorum, were present at the meeting. The Committee, by a vote of three to one, found the proposal consistent with the LWRP. The Proposal The Facility would consist of a number of antenna panels that would be affixed above the roofline at the top of Village Hall. Related equipment would be placed behind Village Hall and would not be visible to the public. Consistency Findings The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policy 25B of the LWRP as being applicable to the proposal. 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 25B noted that an array of antennas had previously been approved and had been installed by Verizon Wireless at the top of Village Hall. The Committee considered that, while the proliferation of antennas could, at some point, create an excessive imposition upon the protected viewshed, but concluded that the addition of the proposed Omnipoint antennas to the rooftop site would not present a significant additional burden for the viewshed. The Committee also took note of the fact that the Facilities as originally proposed had been modified to place the support equipment �/ * cabinet out of sight, behind Village Hall. Ms. Kinsch further advised the Committee that another wireless facility previously-approved for the Village Hall site, that of Nextel Communications, was not being implemented, so that Applicant's Facilities would be the second, not the third, antenna array at the Village Hall location. The Committee, in reaching its findings, took into account the public need for reliable wireless communications service and the economic benefit to the Village that would be derived from the project in the form of rental income. Accordingly, the Committee found, by a vote of three to one, that the proposal would be consistent with Policy 25B. �06 17 2003 13:07 FAX 203 552 2869 CR0MPT0M COFP LAW DEPT 2)002 RECEIVED JUN 1 7 2003 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 26 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York. 10801 VILLAGE CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Residential Construction ~ Hemlock Drive and Pokahoe Drive The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee*') considered, at its meeting on June 4,2003, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the construction of two single family residences, one on Hemlock Drive and one on Pokahoe Drive, in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Sites"). The applicant for the Proposal is James Kennedy Construction Co. Inc. ("Applicant"). Mr. Dennis Rubich, architect for the proposed project, and Richard Blancato, Esq., counsel for the Applicant, presented the Proposal and responded to questions from the Committee. Four members of the Committee, comprising a quorum, were present at the meeting. The Committee unanimously concluded that the proposed construction would be inconsistent with the goals of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP") and with the policies thereof applicable to the Proposal. Although the two Sites were submitted to the Committee as separate applications, Mr. Blancato consented to the consideration of the two Sites at the same time. The Committee's findings were applicable to both Sites. The Proposal The Sites consist of one lot of 15,928 square feet with frontage on Hemlock Drive and one lot of 16,985 square feet with frontage on. Pokahoe Drive. Both lots are zoned R-2A. The Applicant wishes to construct a single-family residence consisting of 3,145 square feet on the Hemlock Drive Sice and a single-family residence consisting of 3,388 square feet on the Pokahoe Drive Site. Both Sites are adjacent to Pokahoe (also known as Fremont House), the home of Civil War General John Charles Fremont, which has been identified in the LWRP as a resource "of significance in the history, archaeology or culture of the Village." Consistency Findings Since the Proposal consists of the construction of single family residences, the Committee's review is, under the Consistency Review Law (as amended) implementing the LWRP, limited to actions that "will or may have an effect on the policy standards and conditions set forth in LWRP Policies 5B, 23,23A, 23B, 25 or 25A " The Committee found that all of these polices would be applicable to the Proposal other than Policies 5B and 23A. POLICY 23 - PROTECT, ENHANCE AND RESTORE STRUCTURE, DISTRICTS, AREAS OR SITES THAT ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE IN THE HISTORY, ARCHITECTURE OR CULTURE OF THE STATE, ITS COMMUNITIES OR THE NATION. �OR 17 2005 13:07 FAX 203 552 2869 CROMPTOM COFP LAW DEPT POLICY 23B - PRESERVE AND ENHANCE THE STRUCTURES, AREAS, OR SITES WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE STATE AND/OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. The LWRP takes the view that "[ajmong the most valuable of the State's man-made resources are those structures or areas which are of historic, archaeological, or cultural significance, and mandates protection including "concern not just with specific sites, but with areas of significance, and with the area around specific sites (Explanation of Policies). The applicable policies demand "[a]ll practicable means to protect structures, districts, areas or sites that are of significance in the history, architecture, archaeology or culture of the Village, the State, or the Nation" as well as prevention of "significant adverse changes to such significant structures, districts, areas or sites" (Id.). Fremont House is identified in the LWRP Section II Inventory and Analysis (page 11-58) as being listed on the Westchester County Inventory of Historic Places and on the State and National Registers of Historic places and, an previously noted, is among the ''resources*' specifically listed on the LWRP's roster of "structures of significance in the history, architecture of culture of the Village.*' The LWRP cites factors that would constitute adverse changes to structures covered by the LWRP policies and provides standards that are to be applied in considering proposed activity adjacent to the resource. It states; "Compatibility between the proposed action and the resource means that the general appearance of the resource should be reflected in the architectural style, design material, scale, proportion, composition, mass, line, color, texture, detail, setback, landscaping and related items of the proposed actions'* (Explanation of Policies). Among the activities cited by the Explanation of Policies as a "significant adverse change" is the following: "All proposed action within the 500 feet of the perimeter of the property boundary of the historic, architectural, cultural, or archaeological resource and all actions within an historic district than would be incompatible with the objective of preserving the quality and integrity of the resource" (Id). The Committee noted that the side yard set backs for the two proposed homes would place them only ten feet away from the property boundary for Fremont House and only a very short additional distance from Fremont House itself. The size and placement of the proposed structures would necessarily have a significant, and adverse, impact on the character of the Fremont House resource. Although the Committee recognizes that Fremont House has undergone significant structural changes since it served as General Fremont's residence, it has recently undergone a significant renovation by its new owners. While this renovation does not purport to be a faithful recreation of the portions of the original structure that were lost several decades ago, it does restore some original elements, and pays sympathetic homage to other portions, of the original stone mansion. It should also be noted that at the time the LWRP identified Fremont House as a significant Village resource, the mansion had already undergone major structural modification and appeared less like the original Fremont residence than it does following the recent renovations. The Comrmttee did not receive, and therefore did not review, details as to the proposed design, material, composition, line, color, texture, detail or landscaping of the proposed residential structures (elements cited in the above-referenced Explanation of Policies as relevant 2 �08 17 2003 13 08 FAX 203 352 2869 CR0MPT0M CORP LAW DEPT 2)004 to the analysis of compatibility of the proposed action with the protected resource), but the Committee did observe that the addition of the new structures would, because of their proposed architectural style, scale, proportion, mass and setback, introduce a jarring dissonance with the Fremont House resource. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously concluded chat the Proposal not only would do nothing to protect, enhance, restore or preserve Fremont House, but that it would significantly, permanently and adversely affect it, and that the damage to this Village resource made the Proposal inconsistent with Policies 23 and 23B. 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 QUALITY OF THE COASTAL AREA. Policy 2SA - PROTECT OR ENHANCE VIEWS OF THE HUDSON RIVER, THE HUDSON RIVER VALLEY, AND THE OPPOSITE SHORE FROM THE IMMEDIATE RIVERFRONT AS VIEWED FROM PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTIES. The Committee noted that the two proposed residences would not enhance, but would rather impair, views of the Hudson River from Hemlock Drive and Pokahoe Drive, publicly owned property. (The Committee did observe, however, that they might not be visiblefromthe Hudson River.) There is currently a desirable Hudson River view from Hemlock Drive that would be lost after installation of the residence at the Hemlock Drive Site. There is also a potential river view from Pokahoe Drive that could be improved by the pruning of overgrown shrubbery (an improvement that, the Committee pointed out, the Village has the power to mandate). The Explanation of Policies applicable to Polices 25, 25A and 25B emphasizes that the LWRP policies contemplate that "action will be taken so as to protect, restore or enhance the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. The Explanation of Policies specifies, as an activity "which could impair or further degrade scenic quality: "the addition of structures which because of their 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." This Explanation of Policies notes a number of "(s]tandards for minimizing scenic impairment and [promoting] visual access." These include: "incorporating sound, existing structures (especially historic buildings and structures) into the overall development scheme; "using appropriate scales, forms, and materials to ensure that buildings and other structures are compatible with and add interest to the landscape; 3 �una 1 3 : 0 9 FAX 2ft3 5 5 2 2889 CROMPTOM CORP LA* DEPT &005 "any new construction or activities in the Village must be undertaken so as not to obstruct view identified in Policy 256. Particular attention must be paid to view from public parks and public rights of way, "construction within the identified viewsheds and scenic corridors must be in a manner that will not obstruct the view and identified important elements of that view to the maximum extent practicable ..." The Proposal appears inconsistent with these standards in numerous respects. Although Fremont House is not part of the development area for the proposed action, it is adjacent to the construction Sites. The Proposal appeared to the Committee to have the following defects: The proposed structures, due to size, scale and location, are inhospitable to the integrity of the Fremont House historic site and incompatible with a landscape that consists of a historic mansion in an unobstructed setting, and the proposed residences clearly obstruct protectedriverviews. All views of the Hudson River from public property are generally protected by Policy 25A and the river viewsheds from Pokahoe Drive are, in addition, specifically identified in Policy 25B (referred to in the Explanation of Policies as an important point of visual access). Although views of the Hudson from Hemlock Drive are not similarly referenced in the Explanation of Policies, the views across the Hemlock Drive Site are not dissimilar to those from Pokahoe Drive and are no less entitled to the protection of river views mandated by Policy 25A. Thus the Committee found that the Proposal was inconsistent with Policy 25A Of similar importance was the Committee's recognition that Fremont House in its riverfront setting is clearly identifiable as a man-made resource which contributes to the overall scenic quality of the coastal area. As such this the Committee concluded that this resource would neither be protected, enhanced nor restored by the proposed construction of large structures on either side of it Accordingly the Committee determined that the Proposal was inconsistent with Policy 25. For the foregoing reasons, the Committee unanimously found that the Proposal is inconsistent with Policies 23,23B, 25 and 25A. 'Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 4 �r —1VED JU* 1 7 2003 Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 Vli^w-*. CLERI CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Application for Subdivision at 309 North Washington Street At its meeting on June 4,2003, the Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") reviewed a proposal by Mr. Dan Beaton (the "Applicant") for the subdivision of a single lot located at 309 North Washington Street in the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Site") and the construction of a two-family house on the new lot so created. The Committee reviewed Mr. Beaton's plans and discussed the project with him, and concluded that the subdivision and construction of the new residential structure would not be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the Sleepy Hollow Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan ("LWRP"). Four members of the Committee, comprising a quorum, were present at the meeting. The Proposal The Site is located at the northern end of North Washington Street and subdivision would create a new "flagpole lot" that would include eleven parking spaces to accommodate the parking needs of the new residence and of a multifamily residence occupying a contiguous property. The upper portion of the new residential structure would be partially visible from Route 9, particularly during seasons when the trees are not in leaf. Consistency Findings " The Committee, in reaching its determination as to the consistency of the proposal with the LWRP, gave specific consideration to Policies IK and 25B. Policy IK - RESTORE, REVITALIZE, AND REDEVELOP THE AREA ALONG, AND ON BOTH SIDES OF NY ROUTE 9 (NORTH BROADWAY) WITH APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO LANDSCAPING AND SCENIC VIEWSHED PROTECTION, BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTION WITH BEEKMAN AVENUE AND THE BRIDGE CROSSING THE POCANTICO RIVER. Policy 25B - PROTECT OR ENHANCE THE FOLLOWING IDENTIFIED SCENIC RESOURCES AS AREAS AND VIEWSHEDS OF LOCAL SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE. [The twenty-three identified viewscapes of local importance include U.S. Route 9 (North Broadway)]. The Committee considered the size and location of the proposed new structure and concluded that the degree of its visibility from Route 9 was not significant and that, to the extent it would be visible from the Route 9 corridor, the structure would blend with surrounding residences. The Explanation of Policies applicable to Policy IK includes standard "e" ('The �action must lead to development which is compatible with the character of the area with consideration given to scale, architectural style, density, and intensity of use") and standard "i" ("Adequate off-street parking shall be provided for all uses). North Washington Street includes numerous multifamiiy dwellings and the style and materials for the proposed new residence have been selected to echo the style and materials of the residence currently on the Site. The Applicant advised the Committee that building height was consistent with surrounding structures and with applicable zoning requirements as required by standard "k" ("In order to foster and maintain the small scale historic character of the Village, all new developments and structures shall not exceed the building heights of surrounding structures and that allowed by the zoning district where such use is proposed"). Moreover, the Applicant is providing more parking spaces than are required by Village zoning for the new two-family home, thus providing some relief from the strained parking resources of North Washington Street. Thus, it did not appear to the Committee that the proposed subdivision would adversely affect the Route 9 corridor and its scenic viewshed. The Committee unanimously found that the proposal was not inconsistent with Policies IK and 25B. �r Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York, 10591 " ~EIVED •WN t 7 2003 Vll...„oe CLERK CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Residential Construction - Ridge Street The Waterfront Advisory Committee of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Committee") considered, at its meeting on June 4, 2003, a proposal (the "Proposal") for the construction of a single family residence on Ridge Street in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. The applicants for the Proposal are Peter and Carol Zegarelli. Mr. Lawrence Borges, architect for the proposed project, presented the Proposal and he and Mr. Zegarelli responded to questions from the Committee. Four members of the Committee, comprising a quorum, were present at the meeting. The Committee Unanimously concluded that the proposed construction 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 78,818 square feet of unimproved land at the top of Ridge Street. It is zoned R-3. The Applicant wishes to construct a single-family residence at the site for personal use. Consistency Findings Since the proposed project consists of the construction of a single family residence, the Committee's review is, under the Consistency Review Law (as amended) implementing the LWRP, limited to actions that "will or may have an effect on the policy standards and conditions set forth in LWRP Policies 5B, 23, 23A, 23B, 25 or 25A." The Committee noted that the only applicable LWRP Policy that could be affected by the proposed construction was Policy 5B. Policy 5B - RETAIN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL, AND OPEN SPACE CHARACTER IN THOSE AREAS OF THE VILLAGE EAST OF THE OLD CROTON AQUEDUCT The applicable Explanation of Policies applicable to Policy 5B generally includes the following development goals for the Village: "strengthen existing residential, industrial and commercial centers; "foster an orderly pattern of growth; "increase the productivity of existing public services and moderate the need to provide new public services in outlying areas; �"preserve open space in sufficient amounts" Messrs. Borges and Zegarelli outlined the existing infrastructure available to provide services to the site, and the Committee concluded that these resources appeared adequate so that the proposed construction would not place undue burdens on Village resources. The Committee also referred to the types of development projects and activities that are cited in the applicable Explanation of Policies as being outside the more restrictive development guidelines of Policy 5B. The Committee observed that the proposal seemed to qualify as "Development which, because of its isolated location and small scale, has little or no potential to generate and/or encourage further land development." Similarly, the Committee noted that the use of the site seemed to be consistent with the goal of Policy 5B to maintain the rural character of this part of the Village. The applicable Explanation of Policies includes the following notation, of particular relevance to this site: "To maintain the existing rural agricultural/residential and open space characteristics of the eastern portions of the Village, emphasis will be placed during project review on preserving open space, encouraging development to place in the more built-up areas of the Village and reusing existing building stock." The Committee observed that the use of a sizable building lot for the construction of one residence, rather than the use of the available land (and, perhaps, adjacent properties) for smaller lots and a greater number of homes, would tend to preserve the rural character of this portion of the Village. In addition, Mr. Borges emphasized that the style of architecture chosen for the site was selected with the express purpose of maintaining a rural feeling at this location. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously found that the proposed construction of the proposed single family home would not be inconsistent with Policy 5B. Cg AJ< y^— Richard D. Weiss, Chairman 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 Architectural Review Board Minutes-2003 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_2003-06-04.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2003 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2003 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