https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/016bd76888d7d393fcf2a9b95bf85698.pdf 9dfc18d4d1a3c31fb740b236141b2339 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE -APPROVED March 15, 2005 The meeting was called to order by Richard Weiss, Chair at 7:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Richard Weiss, Chairman Doug Maass Karin Adir Terence McGlynn Donald Stever Ralph Gunderman George Lence Absent: None Also Present: Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Sean McCarthy (Village Architect, Village of Sleepy Hollow) Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dwight Douglas (Village Administrator/Village of Sleepy Hollow) Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting 2) Lighthouse Landing 1) Minutes of February 2005 meeting The minutes from the February 2005 meeting were reviewed. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The Chair seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) (Lence, Adir not present). 2) Lighthouse Landing The Chair asked the applicant if there was any additional information to be presented. Jonathan Stein responded no. The Committee continued this application with the review of policy 13. Policy 13 The Committee reviewed policies 13, 13a, and 13b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13 was not applicable to this application. The Committee reviewed policy 13a. �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13a was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that additional reinforcement would be needed for the bulkhead. Andy Tung responded that it is generally in good condition. The Chair asked if the applicant would repair the bulkhead. Andy Tung responded yes. There was an open discussion on the life expectancy of the riprap for a new construction project. Don Stever responded that typical life expectancy is 30 years. Andy Tung showed photos from the DEIS indicating where riprap is proposed. The Committee agreed that policy 13a was conditionally consistent with this application. The Committee indicated that the applicant must make all necessary repairs. The Committee reviewed policy 13b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13b was applicable to this application. Jonathan Stein referred to public comments regarding having the proposed stairs treated for ice build-up. Dave Smith spoke about possibly providing a boathouse near Kingsland Point Park. He spoke about other water-dependent uses. Dwight Douglas stated that he would like to get the Committee’s recommendations for waterdependent uses. Don Stever stated that policy 13b is conditionally consistent based on what the applicant is proposing and how the applicant plans to protect the activity. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 13b was conditionally consistent with this application. Policy 14 The Committee reviewed policy 14. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 14 was applicable to this application. Don Stever asked if the sloped streets would increase the potential for erosion. He also asked if the proposal would increase the flooding of the Pocantico River. He also asked about the calculations used for the 100-year flood. Andy Tung stated that the lowest structure was at an elevation of 11-feet. He stated that the freeboard used was 4-feet high. He stated that the 100-year flood elevations are at 7-feet high. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 14 was consistent with this application based on the proposed plan. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 2 �Policy 15 – The Committee reviewed policy 15. Doug Maass stated that although there is no proposed dredging, the applicant should consider dredging the area to make water-dependent uses more available. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 15 was not applicable to this application. Policy 16 The Committee reviewed policy 16. Doug Maass spoke about the Boating Infrastructure Grant (BIG). Jonathan Stein stated that if public funds become available, the applicant would return with necessary information. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 16 was not applicable to this application. Policy 17 The Committee reviewed policies 17 and 17a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17 was applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17 was conditionally consistent with this application. The Chair asked about non-structural measures proposed to prevent erosion. Andy Tung spoke about some of the measures proposed to minimize erosion in the Philipsburg Manor area. The Committee reviewed policy 17a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17a was applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 17a was conditionally consistent with this application. Policy 18 The Committee reviewed policies 18, 18a, 18b, and 18c. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 3 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 18, 18a, 18b, and 18c were applicable to this application. Don Stever asked if this development would be a gated community. Jonathan Stein responded no. Ralph Gunderman stated that he was concerned with the proposed project and the proposed scale. He stated that he is also concerned with the traffic impacts. Mark Weingarten stated that the LWRP refers to new roads not existing roads. There was an open discussion on the interpretation of policy 18b. Jonathan Stein stated that the Committee should look at the entire package and not one negative issue. He stated that the positive issues should also be factored into the Committee overall decision. He stated that over 30 acres would be dedicated to public use. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 18 and 18a were consistent with this application. The Committee agreed that policy 18b was consistent with this application (6-1 Adir). The Committee unanimously agreed that Policy 18c was consistent with this application since it had no negative impacts on any natural resources. Policy 19 – The Committee reviewed policies 19, 19a, 19b, 19c, 19d, 19e, and 19f. Don Stever stated that the public could walk along the water but could not access the water. Doug Maass stated that he was opposed to finding this application consistent with policy 19 based on the lack of water-dependent uses. The Chair stated that the applicant should look at each sub-policy individually. Mark Weingarten stated that the applicant is meeting with the Committee at this early stage to get feedback only. He stated that the applicant is not seeking approval at this time. The Committee agreed that policy 19 was consistent with this application (5-2 McGlynn, Maass). The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 19a, 19b, 19c, and 19d were consistent with this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 19e, and 19f were not applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 4 �Policy 20 The Committee reviewed policies 20 and 20a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 20 and 20a were applicable to this application. Andy Tung stated that there is no publicly owned foreshore. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 20 and 20a were consistent with this application. Policy 21 – The Committee reviewed policies 21, 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 21, 21a, 21b, 21c, and 21d were applicable to this application. Don Stever spoke about the public access facilities and water-dependent uses. The Committee agreed that policies 21 and 21a were consistent with this application (5-2 Maass, McGlynn). The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 21b was consistent with this application. The Committee agreed that policy 21c was consistent with this application (5-2 Maass, McGlynn). The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 21d was consistent with this application. Policy 22 The Committee reviewed policies 22 and 22a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 22 and 22a were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 22 and 22a were consistent with this application. Policy 23 The Committee reviewed policies 23, 23a, 23b, and 23c. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23 and 23a were applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23b and 23c were not applicable to this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 5 �Don Stever stated that the lighthouse is a historic structure. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 23 and 23a were consistent with this application. Policy 24 The Committee reviewed policy 24. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 24 was not applicable to this application. Policy 25 The Committee reviewed policies 25, 25a, and 25b. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 25, 25a, and 25b were applicable to this application. There was an open discussion on the former GM plant and its scenic impact on the Hudson River views. Andy Tung showed two photos. The first photo was of the current GM site. The second photo was a rendering of the proposed development. Jonathan Stein reviewed the renderings of the development from the Hudson River. He spoke about the planned density and the relation to the Ichabod’s Landing site. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 25, 25a, and 25b were consistent with this application. Policy 26 The Committee reviewed policy 26. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 26 was not applicable to this application. Policy 27 – The Committee reviewed policy 27. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 27 was not applicable to this application. Policy 28 The Committee reviewed policy 28. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 6 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 28 was not applicable to this application. Policy 29 The Committee reviewed policy 29. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 29 was not applicable to this application. Policy 30 The Committee reviewed policy 30. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 30 was not applicable to this application. Policy 31 – The Committee reviewed policy 31. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 31 was not applicable to this application. Policy 32 The Committee reviewed policies 32 and 32a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32 was not applicable to this application. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32a was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that the applicant must comply with this policy since it is a NY State law. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 32a was consistent with this application. Policy 33 – The Committee reviewed policy 33. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 33 was applicable to this application. Doug Maass asked if any storm water runoff east of the Metro North tracks would be directed into the Pocantico River. Andy Tung responded that all of the runoff would be directed into the Pocantico River. He stated that the pavement in the area would be removed. He spoke about the proposed storm water management plan in detail. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 33 was consistent with this application. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 7 �Policy 34 The Committee reviewed policies 34 and 34a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 34 and 34a were not applicable to this application. Policy 35 – The Committee reviewed policies 35, 35a, 35b, 35c, 35d, and 35e. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 35, 35a, 35b, 35c, 35d, and 35e were not applicable to this application. Policy 36 The Committee reviewed policy 36. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 36 was not applicable to this application. Policy 37 The Committee reviewed policy 37. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 37 was applicable to this application. Don Stever stated that this policy is regulated by the NYSDEC SPDES permit. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 37 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 38 The Committee reviewed policy 38. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 38 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 39 – The Committee reviewed policy 39. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 39 was applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 8 �The Committee agreed that Policy 39 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Committee reviewed policy 39a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 39a was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 40 The Committee reviewed policies 40 and 40a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 40 and 40a were not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 41 – The Committee reviewed policies 41 and 41a. The Committee unanimously agreed that policies 41 and 41a were applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Committee agreed that policies 41 and 41a were consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 42 The Committee reviewed policy 42. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 42 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 43 The Committee reviewed policy 43. The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 43 was not applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Policy 44 The Committee reviewed policy 44. There was an open discussion on whether or not to make an overall consistency finding with regards to the DEIS. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 9 �The Committee unanimously agreed that policy 44 was applicable to this application (6-0 Maass absent). Don Stever stated that the Pocantico River area is a tidal wetland. He stated that the west side of the development would not affect the wetlands. He expressed concerns with the locations of the proposed Village DPW area near the Pocantico River wetlands. The Committee agreed that policy 44 was consistent with this application (6-0 Maass absent). The Chair summarized the policies that the Committee found inconsistent with this application. The policies were: Policies 1(h), 2, 2(a), 5, 5(a) Mark Weingarten stated that a recommendation is not needed at this time. Ralph Gunderman stated that the Committee should make an overall consistency finding on the Final EIS. He stated that a preliminary overall consistency finding on the Draft EIS seems inappropriate. The Chair stated that recommendations would provide guidance to the applicant. There was an open discussion on whether a formal recommendation should be made. Don Stever expressed concerns over a possible vote of inconsistent. He stated that he would rather see a recommendation of consistency with specific recommendations. Jonathan Stein stated that a recommendation is not required at this time. He summarized the DEIS process to date. He spoke about the linkage study and the exhaustive research effort that the applicant has done to prepare the DEIS. The open discussion on whether a formal recommendation should be made continued. The Chair made a motion to make a formal consistency finding. Terence McGlynn seconded. It was approved (6-1 Stever). George Lence stated that he saw more positive aspects than negative but the negatives are too big to overcome. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Terence McGlynn stated that the inconsistencies with the LWRP outweigh the consistencies. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Karin Adir stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 10 �The Chair made two general recommendations. He stated that the development needs additional water-dependent uses and that the density of the site needs to be decreased. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Doug Maass complimented the applicant on the thoroughness of the proposal. He stated that not enough attention has been paid to the waterfront. He stated that he is concerned with the density and the height of the proposed structures. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. He recommended that the applicant add other water-dependent uses to the application. Ralph Gunderman stated that the applicant needs to address the bottleneck ingress/egress of the site. He also stated that the development needs to be reduced in scale. He stated that the application was inconsistent with the LWRP. Don Stever abstained from voting. He stated that the committee members are to keep the Village’s interests in mind. He stated that too much emphasis is being placed on waterdependent uses of the development. He expressed concern over the density of the site determining a vote of inconsistency with policy 5. The DEIS was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP by a vote of 6-0 (Stever abstained). The Chair stated that written findings would be provided. Ralph Gunderman made a motion to adjourn. Karin Adir seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 10:18 PM. APPROVED - Waterfront Advisory Committee Meeting, March 15, 2005 11 � 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-2005 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_2005-03-15.pdf Subject The topic of the resource Waterfront Advisory Committee Minutes-2005 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2005 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