Village of Dering Harbor
Architectural Review Board
Minutes
12:00 PM
October 9th, 2021

● The meeting was called to order at 12:01pm
● Attendance- Susannah Rose, Stephanie Deutsch, Bridg Hunt, Mickey Kostow, WayneBruyn (village attorney), Vicki Shields (village clerk), Donna Ritzzmann, Mary Walker, Brandon Rose, George Birman, Patrick Parcells, Samuel Ashner, Karen Kelsey, Claire Kostow, Rob Ferris, Jim Goldman, Dennis Corcoran (applicant), Peter Cook (architect), Peter’s Cook’s wife
● A motion to accept the minutes from the August 14th, 2021 meeting was made by Susannah and seconded by Mickey. 3 votes in favor, 1 abstention. Motion passed.
● New Business

○ Pre-Submission Conference
Applicant- Dennis Corcoran, Property Owner
Street Address: 22 Locust Point Road
SCTM# 701 – 1 – 3 – 14.2
Request for first pre submission conference for feedback on preliminary plans and ideas for construction of new dwelling on property. Dennis gave a brief history of the property and the thought process behind his design, which is very preliminary. He explained that he wanted to use this meeting to make sure he is going in the right direction before moving forward with drawings. He plans on setting the house on the hill to give it a water view. Peter Cook (architect) gave a further explanation of the site plan presented. He added that this is very preliminary and wants to know that this concept meets the ARB guidelines so that they can further develop the plans.
Public Questions/Comments: Patrick Parcells had a question about the driveway and asked if they have considered the sightlines. Peter answered that one of the reasons the driveway entrance is sited where it is on the plan is because it is on grade with the street. Wayne clarified that there are no setback requirements for driveways, just parking.
Board questions:
Mickey had some questions. Asked Dennis if he is building the house for himself. He said yes. Mickey also asked about the gate planned and noted that there are no other driveway gates in the village. Mickey went on to comment that he has no issue with the siting. Bridg asked about what kind of pool fencing is planned. Peter said that he hadn’t put much thought into it. Bridgford suggested that they keep it open as opposed to creating a sort of compound with the pool fencing. Stephanie had some questions and some suggestions based on her concern that this would be the only house on Locust Point Road that doesn’t have the front of the house facing the street. Peter assured her that he works hard to make all 4 sides of his houses look nice. She had further comments about screening of the parking area in relation to Locust Point Road.
Board comments:
Susannah asked Wayne about the curb cut. Is there one? And if not, what is the process of the applicant getting approval of a curb cut. Wayne explained that they would need to get approval from the Board of Trustees. Other than that, she didn’t have any comments because there wasn’t anything aesthetic to review. Stephanie agreed with Susannah. She added that she thinks the siting could be fine if the facades are done properly. It’s a matter of what the house is going to look like from the street. Bridgford thinks the driveway location is appropriate. Mickey commented that there is no requirement to screen the driveway and that it’s up to the applicant. He also mentioned that the ARB has been discussing dark sky lighting and asking applicants to consider keeping direct lighting and bright lights adjacent to other properties to a minimum. Stephanie commented that Dark Skies legislation has not been passed in the village and still needs to be agreed upon in the village. She also urged the applicant to have a landscape plan, particularly since it is now the ARB’s responsibility to determine which trees can come down. She commented that she thinks the view of the house from the street and the impact on the community is more important than the view from the house. Wayne clarified how the code reads on identifying trees and clearing underbrush. Clearing underbrush can happen without a permit.

○ Discuss the following related to “Housekeeping and Policies”
Susannah started by asking and clarifying exactly what the Trustees asked the ARB to weigh in on. Wayne explained that the Trustees are considering a local law amending the zoning code specifically dealing with driveways and parking areas. One element of that is a section that would require review by the ARB of driveways and parking areas. The specific question was whether there are any other standards or conditions that the ARB might recommend to the Trustees to include in the code. Bridg had comments in the form of a letter about the process, which he read into the record (see attached). Susannah commented that she thinks there are a lot of strong opinions on this topic. She asked Wayne and Vicki if there was any email or correspondence with the Trustees that the ARB was left out of. Wayne explained that Stephanie was at the Trustees meetings when the local law was discussed and that she would be able to speak to that. The ARB did discuss what the village board were seeking at one of their meetings and the discussion morphed into other topics. Wayne said that if the ARB has recommendations or suggestions to the village board on any matter, it would be up to the ARB to develop and discuss those topics amongst themselves and then formulate a recommendation to the village board. Specifically, the village board is only looking for direction on driveways and parking areas. Susannah asked Vicki where the 18 page addendum to the Design Principles came from. She said it came from Alfredo by way of Stephanie in an email. Stephanie explained that she had been at several Trustees meetings and that she would relay the message of what the Trustees were asking for to the ARB. She also stated for the record at those meetings that she does not know where the ARB stands on this topic and had not discussed it. She relayed the message to Alfredo and recalled that she, Brad, and Clora had worked on a similar project a couple of years ago and that was what was used as a starting point for the addendum. It was intended to be a draft for discussion and that is how it was developed. Susannah made it clear that the addendum that was drafted was not drafted by the current ARB. For that reason, she suggested that this discussion be tabled. She also urged that moving forward, all ARB related discussions happen in public, with everyone present, for everyone to hear. Mickey commented that he also felt blindsided by the addendum and did not like the prescriptive nature of it. He thinks that having a prescriptive code disempowers the ARB and takes away its ability to review applications on a caseby- case basis. He also wonders about the ARB’s relationship with the village board and what that relationship is supposed to look like. Susannah and Bridg suggested that if the village board wants input from the ARB, that they send their request in the form of an email, so that it’s clear what they are being asked to do. Patrick Parcells commented about the relationship of the BOT and the ARB and noted that the current BOT went to great lengths to make sure the ARB is an independent board. That said, the standards and guidelines have to go through the legislative process, which is decided and controlled by the BOT. Stephanie spoke about the benefit of a BOT liaison to the ARB, which she thinks worked well in the past. Susannah suggested people send letter/emails to the ARB, to be read at the next meeting, if they want their thoughts to be heard.

● ARB Standards for landscaping, outdoor lighting, driveways, parking- tabled until ARB hears from BOT on specifically what they are asking for.
● Preferred materials list- tabled for a later date TBD.
● Maximum number of pre submission conferences to allow applicants.

Bridg commented that at previous meetings, it was agreed that 3 conferences should be sufficient. But he feels like it is a moving target and hesitates to cap the number if an applicant really needs more guidance. Susannah asked if the ARB ever agreed on a fee for pre-submission conferences. Stephanie recalled that it was suggested that the first two conferences would be free, and any conferences after that would be $1,000 per conference. Susannah’s suggested that it be 3 pre submission conferences at no charge, afterwards a fee, unless the board waives the fee. Stephanie isn’t comfortable with allowing the fee to be waived at the discretion of the board. Feels it’s too arbitrary. Mickey commented that this is a courtesy that the ARB is offering applicants to help them get to a real plan. A motion was made by Bridg and seconded by Mickey for the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the ARB recommends to the BOT, with respect to the fee schedule, to allow 3 pre-submission conferences at no fee and additional presubmission conferences for a fee of $1,000 each, the fee for which may be waived by vote of the ARB.
3 votes in favor. 1 not in favor (Stephanie). Motion passed.

● A motion to adjourn at 1:05pm was made by Susannah and seconded by Mickey.
All Board members voted in favor.