1 25 11 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d2ca0d05f4e49096ab4e4f1e98d6ccd9.pdf 2d20af3ad735c589c7c9405975fd31c8 PDF Text Text RECEIVED VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING September 19,2002 QQf - g 2002 VILLAGE CLERK The meeting was called to order at 8:03p.m. by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. The Cfc*air noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner David Perlmutter Ed Napoleon Absent: Ed McCarthy Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) / lO/f Announcements: The Chair stated that parking for Planning Board members would be discussed at the end of the meeting. Agenda; 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) Douglass Hill sub-division SMSA/ Verizon Wireless GEISAVireless Location Study Omnipoint Karl Dibble Ichabod's Landing Antonio Rodrigues Laurentino Rodrigues Kendal on Hudson Monopole permit application status McMansions zoning Other Business Minutes David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). I/O c^ �1) Douglass Hill sub-division Andy Tung is representing this application along with John Marwell. Andy Tung explained the proposed sub-division. He spoke about the one-acre driveway to be added to lot "A". He spoke about the proposed easement and covenant. He spoke about the no disturbance zone to protect the view from Kykuit. He also spoke about the pedestrian easement to maintain the existing trails. George Tanner asked if the entire parcel could be placed in a no disturbance zone. Andy Tung responded that the proposed parcels would be for residential use. Nicholas Cicchetti asked about the Waterfront Advisory Committee's decision concerning LWRP policies 5 and 5(b). Andy Tung spoke about the future use of Gory Brook Road and its maintenance. The Chair asked if the covenant would be recorded at the same time as the sub-division. Andy Tung responded yes. Dave Smith stated that any future sub-divisions must come before the Planning Board. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, George Tanner made a motion to close the public hearing. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair read the draft Resolution aloud for the record. Ed Lammers stated that a copy of the covenant should be added to the Resolution. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to adopt the Resolution as amended. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) SMSA/ Verizon Wireless Leslie Snyder is representing the application on behalf of Verizon/SMS A. She stated that she has met with the Village Trustees and they have agreed on a lease. The Chair asked if she had seen a copy of the draft Resolution. Leslie Snyder responded yes. Planning Board Meeting, September 19,2002 2 �The Chair stated that the application conforms to the Village Code by not abutting a residential district. He also stated that this location has the least impact on the Beekman Avenue corridor and which provides the applicant with adequate coverage. The Chair asked the Village consultants if they had any comments on the amended application. There were none. The Chair read the draft Resolution aloud for the record. George Tanner made a motion to adopt the Resolution. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair thanked Snyder & Snyder and Verizon for their patience with regards to this application. 3) GEIS/Wireless Location Study The Chair asked if there were any public comments. Jeffrey Anzavino (Scenic Hudson) spoke. He stated that he has prepared a small presentation concerning cell towers. The presentation consisted of the impacts of cell towers on municipalities and it reviewed the different types of wireless facilities available. The Chair thanked Jeffrey Anzavino for his efforts. The Chair spoke about the scoping outline. He stated that the Village is looking for a systematic approach for allowing cellular companies to provide service to the Village. The Chair read the Resolution aloud for the record. George Tanner made a motion to adopt the Resolution. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that once the DEIS is submitted to the Board, a public hearing will be scheduled. 4) Qmnipoint Mike Peters is representing Omnipoint on this application. Planning Board Meeting, September 19,2002 3 �Mike Peters spoke about Omnipoint's application at 95 Beekman Avenue. He stated that his client would like to seriously look into changing the location to 28 Beekman Avenue. George Tanner asked if Omnipoint's technology would work with a monopole structure. He also asked if Omnipoint's technology would work with other applicant's at Village Hall. Mike Peters responded that he would look into it. David Perlmutter asked Mike Peters to come back to the Board with the visual impact to Village Hall. Mike Peters responded that he would provide all necessary documentation that the Board requires. The Chair informed Mike Peters to contact the Village Administrator concerning a possible lease agreement. 5) Karl Dibble Richard Blancato is the attorney representing this application along with Karl Dibble. He stated that based on last meeting's progress, the Board would be in a position to adopt the draft Resolution this evening. David Perlmutter stated that the applicant was supposed to remove trucks from the property and has not done so. He stated that he is against voting for the Resolution this evening. He stated that he wants the Village to take action to correct the problem. Richard Blancato responded that the bus on the property has been sold and Karl Dibble is waiting for the new owner to have it towed. George Tanner stated that three (3) months have passed since the applicant was asked to have the property cleared of vehicles not associated with his property. Richard Blancato responded that the applicant is currently in court. He stated that as per the agreement with the court, Karl Dibble would have the vehicles removed before the next court date. He also stated that the Board could place conditions on the Resolution. George Tanner stated that he has no faith that the applicant will adhere to the conditions on a Resolution. Ed Lammers stated that the Resolution needs four (4) yes votes in order to pass. The Chair read the Resolution aloud for the record. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Planning Board Meeting, September 19,200? 4 �There was an open discussion on the parked and stored vehicles on the property. David Perlmutter wants the signage and parking issues addressed. George Tanner made a motion to have the Resolution voted on tonight. David Perlmutter seconded. The motion was disapproved by a 2-3 vote (Chair, Cicchetti, Napoleon). The Chair stated that the Resolution would be carried over to the next meeting. He also stated that the applicant should speak to the Village attorney and try to resolve the Board's concerns. David Perlmutter stated that the trucks should be removed immediately. 6) Ichabod's Landing The Chair stated that the Planning Board is an interested agency in this application. He stated that the Village Trustees are the lead agency. He stated that the Board has had previous informal discussions with the applicant. Henry Hocherman is the attorney representing this application along with Bruce Lozito. Henry Hocherman stated that they are here tonight to keep the Board updated on the status of the application. Dave Smith stated that the property is in the Riverfront. He also stated that the Planning Board is an involved agency. He stated that the Planning Board would make final site plan approval. The Chair stated that comments could be submitted until October 9, 2002. Bruce Lozito gave an overview of the proposed project via a site plan. He spoke about the number of residential units that would be created. He spoke about emergency vehicle access and other various planning concepts that were used to develop the site plan. He spoke about the building's exterior details. George Tanner asked if the applicant has spoken to the GM developer concerning the possible construction of an additional roadway to the GM site. Bruce Lozito responded yes. He stated that he has spoke to the GM developer at length concerning the entrances to both properties and how they would mesh together. Planning Board Meeting, September 19, 2002 5 �The Chair stated that the Board would prepare comments for the applicant. 7) Antonio Rodrigues Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application. Sean McCarthy discussed the original proposal from 1996. He stated that the applicant did not complete the project due to cost overrun. He discussed the traffic flow in and out of the proposed site with relation to the existing commercial building. He discussed the drainage for the complete site. He also discussed the landscape plan. The Chair asked if there was an underground storage tank on site. Sean McCarthy responded that it was abandoned. The Chair asked about the contents of the tank. Sean McCarthy responded that he did not know. Antonio Rodrigues stated that the previous tenant was not a filling station. George Tanner stated that the tank could have contained hydraulic fluid. Dave Smith asked if a phase 1 or phase 2 environmental report was completed. Sean McCarthy responded that he did not know. George Tanner made a motion to act as the lead agency. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that a traffic analysis is required. George Tanner asked if any blasting would be performed. Sean McCarthy responded that based on the boring samples taken that blasting would not be required. Nicholas Cicchetti asked if the zoning requirements had been met. Sean McCarthy responded yes. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 8) Laurentino Rodrigues Vitali Santo is the project architect. He is representing the application along with Laurentino Rodrigues. Planning Board Meeting, September 19, 2002 6 �The Chair asked if an application has been filed. Dave Smith responded yes but it is incomplete. The Chair stated that the applicant would be allowed to very quickly summarize the project since the application is incomplete. Vitali Santo briefly summarized the project. He discussed the proposed parking plan. George Tanner asked about the number of units to be created. Vitali Santo responded nine (9). George Tanner asked about the number of bedrooms. Vitali Santo responded thirteen (13). The Chair stated that this application would be resumed once a completed application had been filed with the Building Department. 9) Kendal on Hudson Andy Tung is representing this application. He stated that he is before the Board tonight to respond to two (2) conditions in the site plan approval. 1) Roof drainage system and roof penetrations. 2) Garage facade. Andy Tung stated that gutters would be used around the property. He stated that the gutters would connect into drainage piping. Andy Tung spoke about the mechanical equipment on the roof. He also spoke about the roof vent piping penetrations. Andy Tung spoke about the parking facade. The Chair asked why the rock facade was not being used on the lower garage floors. Andy Tung responded that the vegetation would hide it. Ed Napoleon asked if the well for the cooling towers would be open. Andy Tung responded yes. He stated that it would have a safety fence installed on three (3) sides. Dave Smith asked if there was anything else that could attenuate the sound of the cooling towers. Planning Board Meeting, September 19,2002 7 �Andy Tung stated that the sound is being attenuated at the intake and at the exhaust. The Chair stated that this would be carried over to the next meeting so that the Village consultants could properly review. 10) Monopole permit application status Ed Lammers stated that Omnipoint was performing calculations as to the actual height of the monopole. Mike Peters (attorney representing Omnipoint) stated that he has not received the results as of yet. The Chair spoke about ways to provide adequate coverage without a monopole. He also spoke about protecting the Kykuit view shed. The Chair stated that a meeting needs to be scheduled between the monopole proprietor and the occupants to discuss necessary corrections. 11) McMansions zoning The Chair stated that he has received a letter from Westchester County stating that they have no concerns on this matter. Dave Smith stated that it is on the Waterfront Advisory Committee's agenda for their next meeting. He stated that the Trustees could adopt it at their October 8, 2002 meeting. 12) Other Business The Chair stated that another letter needs to be sent to the Village Trustees concerning rezoning the Rockefeller property from one (1) acre to five (5) acres. Dave Smith will send another letter to the Village Trustees repeating the Planning Board's recommendation. The Chair stated that he received a letter from Daniel Beaton concerning the Tappan Motors property. Bob Stiloski stated that he would speak to TomehVs gas station concerning parking at the gas station for the Board members. Planning Board Meeting, September 19,2002 8 �13) Minutes • The minutes for July 2002 will be reviewed at the next meeting. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was (5-0). Adjourned at 10:47 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, (^QkuP^mL Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, September 19,2002 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION Adopted at the September 19,2002 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board RESOLUTION: SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVAL PROPOSED: EJusfe*Mounted Antennas and Related Equipment at the Top Of 28 Beekman Avenue APPLICANT: New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless LOCATION: 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the following materials: 1. Special Permit Application dated October 30,2001, submitted on behalf of the applicant by Leslie Snyder of the law firm Snyder & Snyder LLP containing: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Verizon Wireless' FCC License; Health and Safety Engineers Report from Scinetics Corporation prepared on or about September 26,2001; Radio Frequency Engineer Report prepared by Michael Primich dated October 30,2001; Structural Engineers Report prepared by A. Reginatto Consulting Engineer P.C. dated October 30,2001; Site Plan drawings prepared by H2M Group, dated October 31, 2001; Short Form Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Snyder & Snyder LLP dated October 31, 2001; Long Environmental Assessment Form with Visual EAF Addendum prepared by Snyder & Snyder LLP dated October 31,2001; Coastal Assessment Form prepared by Snyder & Snyder LLP dated October 31, 2001; Engineering reports prepared by Lawler Matusky & Skelly, Engineers, LLP, the Village's Radio Frequency Engineer for the project, dated December 19, 2001 and January 15, 2002; and �2. Review Memoranda from Saccardi and Schiff, Inc., Village Planners, dated November 9, 2001, and from Charles Manganaro Consulting Engineers, dated November 14,2001; 3. Letter dated July 8,2002 from Snyder and Snyder providing coverage maps with facilities being installed on the roof of 28 Beekman Avenue; 4. Letters dated August 14,2002 and August 21,2002 from Snyder and Snyder; 5. Letter dated September 4,2002 from Snyder and Snyder containing an alternative application to install panel antennas and related communication facilities to the roof of 28 Beekman Avenue as an alternative to its application to install the communication facilities to the roof of 95 Beekman containing the following materials: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Memorandum in support of its alternative application prepared by Snyder & Snyder LLP dated September 4,2002; Radio Frequency Engineer Report and affidavit prepared by Michael Primich dated July 2, 2002; Radio-frequency analysis prepared by Paul A. Testagrossa, RF Engineer, Bell Laboratories dated September 3,2002; Visual Analysis prepared by Creative Visuals, Inc. & Virtual Real, Inc., dated August 12,2002; Site Plan drawings prepared by H2M Group, dated August 28,2002; Short Form Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Snyder & Snyder LLP dated August 16, 2002; Long Environmental Assessment Form with Visual EAF Addendum prepared by Snyder & Snyder LLP dated August 16,2002; Coastal Assessment Form prepared by Snyder & Snyder LLP dated August 16,2002; 6. Memorandum of Lawler Mutusky & Skelly Engineers dated September 11, 2002; 7. Revised Radio-frequency analysis prepared by Paul A. Testagrossa, RF Engineer, Bell Laboratories dated September 17, 2002; 8. Letter dated September 18, 2002 from Snyder and Snyder; 9. Letter prepared by Michael Musso, Lawler Mutusky & Skelly Engineers dated September 19, 2002; �WHEREAS, the proposals were discussed by the Planning Board at public Meetings held at Village Hall on November 15,2001, December 20,2001, January 17, 2002, February 21, 2002, March 21,2002, April 18,2002, May 16,2002, June 20, 2002, July 18,2002 and September 19,2002 at which times those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, The Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) reviewed the applications at their December 5,2001 and September 4, 2002 meetings and found the application to install the facilities at 28 Beekman to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board commenced a public hearing at their March 21, 2002 meeting, and closed the public hearing at the April 18,2002 meeting; all those wishing to be heard at the public hearings were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board having reviewed Verizon's application to install the facilities to the top of 95 Beekman Avenue and having determined pursuant to Village Code §62-22.2 that the building located at 95 Beekman abuts a residential district, and that adequate coverage could be achieved by siting the facility at 28 Beekman Avenue, a lot which does not abut a residential district; WHEREAS, the Planning Board also having determined that the installation of the facilities on top of 28 Beekman complies with §62-22.2E(2) which states that "the siting of communication facility on property owned by the Village of Sleepy Hollow shall be encouraged"; WHEREAS, on September 17,2002, the Board of Trustees having passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor of Sleepy Hollow to enter into a lease to install the communication facilities to the roof of 28 Beekman (the "Lease") subject to Planning Board approval, Architectural Review Board approval, a determination under SEQRA with respect to the Lease and review and approval of the Village Attorney; WHEREAS, in the course of its review, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Received an Application Fee; 2. Caused Field Inspections to be made of the property and surrounding areas; 3. Requested, received considered comments from the Village Planner, Village Engineering Consultants, Department of Fire Life Safety about the proposed project; �4. Requested, received and reviewed Short and Long Environmental Assessment Form in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and a Coastal Assessment Form; 5. After review of the field conditions, public comments, recommendations and the Short Environmental Assessment Form as well as other items noted above, has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that an environmental impact and that an environmental impact statement will not need to be prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for special permit approval relative to the installation of antennas and related facilities to the top of the existing building at 28 Beekman Avenue as shown on the site plan prepared by H2M Group; dated August 28,2002, is hereby granted approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman on a copy of this resolution and upon the site plan drawings as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, which endorsement shall permit filing in the Office of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, provided, however, that this approval shall expire one year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not yet been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Applicant has not obtained the required building permit or permits for the construction in accordance with the approved plan(s): 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the Applicant shall pay the Village of Sleepy Hollow all application and review fees as required by the Village Code, as approved by the Village Attorney. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the Applicant shall appear before and obtain an approval from the Architectural Review Board. * 3. The Applicant is to provide a structural engineers report certifying the structural integrity of the proposed communication facilities. 4. The Applicant shall post a bond in an amount to be determined by the Village Engineer pursuant to Village Code Section §62-22.2(0) and/or as determined by the Village Administrator on advice of the Village Engineer. 5. The granting of this permit is subject to the approval and execution of the Lease by the Mayor on behalf of the Board Trustees. �6. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and Local law with respect to the installation, modification and/or removal of the facilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board expresses its concern that the subject property not become overburdened with excessive and unsightly telecommunications facilities and that this Resolution should not be construed as precedent for future applicants to install telecommunications facilities at this site. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW , Chairman Date /• LAST REVISED 9-I9-02 �RESOLUTION Adopted at the September 19,2002 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board RESOLUTION: Negative Declaration and Final Subdivision Plat Approval of Parcel known as Section 115.08, Block 1, Lot 2 PROPOSED: Subdivision of an existing 56.9± acre parcel into two lots, Lot A consisting of ±33.3 acres, Lot B of ±22.2 acres. The application also includes the transfer of 1.4± acres to the owners of two existing adjoining parcels (115.08-1 -35 and 115.08-1-36) and the transfer to Lot A of ±1.0 acres of land from David Rockefeller, the owner of property immediately to the north, under an existing driveway that will serve Lot A. OWNER: David Rockefeller Fund LOCATION: West of Webber Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Part of Section 115.08, Block 1 Lot 2 ZONING: R-l WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the Planning Board) has reviewed a preliminary plat application dated June 5,2002, including long environmental assessment form and preliminary subdivision map submitted on behalf of the David Rockefeller Fund (the Applicant); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has, after following the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) declared themselves to be the Lead Agency in this action; and WHEREAS, Planning Board, after finding the application to be complete, did direct the Applicant to appear before the Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for a consistency review with respect to the goals and policies outlined in the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP); and WHEREAS, the WAC, at its July 2002 meeting did review the application and found it to be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the LWRP; and WHEREAS, at its July 18, 2002 meeting, the Planning Board did approve the preliminary subdivision plat and directed the Applicant to circulate the preliminary subdivision plat to a list of interested and involved agencies as outlined in Chapter 78-7 of the Village's Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2002, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing in which all persons wishing to be heard were; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board, after a complete review �1 of the application materials, including environmental assessment form, coastal assessment form, and Consistency Findings from the Waterfront Advisory Committee does hereby declare that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that an environmental impact statement will not need to be prepared; and be it further RESOLVED, the Planning Board does hereby grant final subdivision plat approval for the subdivision of the subject 56.9 iyproperty into two lots: and be it further . ^ 'cur**" ififajL+A**^ C~»*+4*h~*> RESOLVED, that prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chairman all applicable professional review fees, environmental charges and other Village fees shall be paid to the Village, < * * ^ ^ <^p rf 0*- tif^^i - j j j - i I ritx • • / /%< PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Nicholas Robinson, Chairman F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolutioiu\final Douglass Hill wpd ' ' Date �September 19, 2002 VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION ADOPTING GEIS SCOPING OUTLINE WHEREAS, the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") is provided the authority u^der Chapter 62-22.2.N of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village Code") to grant special use and site plan permits for location, construction and installation of wireless communications facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is concerned with the unplanned proliferation of wireless communication facilities throughout the Village and the potential visual and aesthetic impacts associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is desirous, after reviewing several completed and pending applications to create a comprehensive Village-wide wireless antenna siting plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recognizes the importance of co-locating facilities in strategic locations a*id incorporating stealth technology to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has requested from the Mayor and Board of Trustees, the authorization for the necessary funding to prepare a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) analyzing co-locationai, aesthetics and other issues of sound planning and public policy; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board did cause to be prepared a draft scoping outline which was circulated with a notice for a public scoping session; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2002, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public scoping session in which all rriembers of the public were provided an opportunity to be heard and were; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board extended the public comment period on the GEIS in which written material could be transmitted until September 9, 2002 and to date the Village has not received any written continents on the GEIS scoping outline: and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thai the Planning Board does hereby adopt the scoping outline and directs the Villages Planning Consultant to coordinate with the Village Administrator and the other Village consultants regarding the preparation of the GEIS document to address the impacts of anticipated wireless communication facilities and to ultimately create a comprehensive village-wide wireless antenna plan l^Lt^fOC— N lcnoias Robinson, Chairman F >.y>M-*20 SKcpy H<Xio»CHS\(.J 15 K W Mfeffc *0C V-1?, a^jL. Date , /, ^T i 1 '* H^^^Y\ J") i w ' J �Scoping Outline: Proposed Wireless Communication Facility Locational Plan Village of Sleepy Hollow, New York Lead Agency: Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board. FttMk Scoping Sesnon: July 18, 2002, Village Hall, 28 Bcckman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591. Comment period held open until: September 9,2002, contact Robert Stiloski, Director of Fire and Life Safety, Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Lift of other interested, involved and other agencies: Hon. Philip Zcgarelli, Mayor and Board of Trustees Village of Sleepy Hollow Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee, Richard Weiss, Chairman Village of Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board, James Nazemetz, Chairman Westchester County Department of Planning Town of Mt. Pleasant Supervisor's Office Town of Greenburg Supervisor's Office Mayor Village of Tarrytown Public School district of the Tarrytowns, Howard Smith, Superintendent New York State Office of Parks. Recreation and Historic Preservation New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Region HI Scenic Hudson Description of Proposed Action The Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the Planning Board) is responsible for the review and issuing of special permits and site plan approvals for wireless communication facilities under Section 62-22.2 of the Zoning Code. The Planning Board has become concerned about the proliferation of wireless communication facilities (WCF's) throughout the Village and the potential cumulative impact of these facilities on the landscape. In an effort to coordinate the siting of these facilities, the Planning Board is conducting a wireless communication facility locational plan for the entire Village. The goal of the GEIS is to evaluate where the optimal $ite(s) for co-locating multiple carriers and how those prospective facilities can be constructed so that they present the least impact cumulatively as possible. I. Executive Summary A B C D. £ Brief Description of Proposed Action Need for the Project Summary of Relevant Environmental Conditions Summary of Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Proposed �Draft Scoping Outline Village of Sleepy Hollow Page 2 F. G. Summary of Alternatives Involved and Interested Agencies, Required Permits/Approvals II. Description of Proposed Action 1. Telecommunications Act of 19% 2. Identification of Different Personal Wireless Services Providers a. b. c. d e. Cellular Personal Communication Services (PCS) Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Paging 3. Viewsheds of Local/Regional Significance (L WRP) 4. Existing Wireless Carriers in the Village and Surrounding Area. III. Existing Environmental Conditions, Anticipated Impacts and Mitigation 1. Siting requirements a. Site Identification and Preliminary Screening (1) elevation (2) physical setting (3) aesthetics (4) proximity to sensitive receptors (5) proximity to historic landmarks 2 Identification of potential co-locational sites 3. Impact Evaluation of Each Site (a) (b) (c) 4 aesthetics physical disturbance cumulative impacts Proposed Mitigation (a) stealth �Draft Scoping Outline Village of Sleepy Hollow P»ge3 (b) (c) (d) IV. camouflage landscaping other Alternatives Alternative Sites Considered V. Applicability to Other Village Refutations 1 2. 3 LWRP Tree Ordinance Other VI. Adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated if the proposed action is implemented. VII. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of environmental resources that would be associated with the proposed action should it be implemented. VIII. Any growth inducing impacts of the proposed action. IX. Appendix Field measurement survey analysis F \M\M-720 Skcpy Hc4U>w\GEIS\A**w* Wntku Cmm Fac ColocMKmil M M ~ p * �Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. RECEIVED JUL 2 2 ?nn? VILLAGE CLERK Planning and Development Consultants TRANSMITTAL TO: Angela Everetts, Village Clerk 245 Mam Street White Plains New York 10601 Tel 914-761 3582 FAX 914-761 3759 sands@saccschiff com 33 Front Street Hempstead New York 11550 Tel: 516-486-0610 FAX-516-486-0615 DATE: Jury 19, 2002 PROJECT: Resolutions THE FOLLOWING REASON VIA 0 Originals 0 Your Comments 0 Hand Delivery/Messenger X Resolutions X Your Distribution 0 First Class Mail 0 Agreement 0 Your Information 0 Express Mail/Next Day/Fed Ex 0 Copy 0 As Per Your Request X UPS DESCRIPTION/COMMENTS: Enclosed find the following resolutions; 1. Notice of Intent to Act as Lead Agency Village-Wide Wireless Communications Facility Siting Plan 2. Subdivision of Parcel Known as Section 115.08, Block 1, Lo2 John J. Saccardi, AICP David B Schiff. AICP PP 3. Syrette Dym, AICP David B Smith. AICP Margaret H Uhle, AICP RLA Bonita J VonOhlsen. RIA County House Road Cluster Subdivision Final Subdivision Plat Approval 4. Planning Board SEQRA Finding Statement Kendal on Hudson Continuing Care Retirement Community 5. Kendal on Hudson Continuing Care Retirement Community Site Plan and Wetland Permit Approval Csaba Teglas. AICP Consultant Land Development Comprehensive Planning Zoning Real Estate Economics Environmental Studies Housing ^tori murnty Development F:\M\M-720 Sleepy HoUovATraiumidabVAngeU-ViUage Clok Sent By: David B. Smith, ACIP �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD DECEIVED RESOLUTION im o 9 otiM L c L NOTICE OF INTENT TO ACT AS LEAD AGENCY 'mi VILLAGE-WIDE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY VILLAGE C L P D RK SITING PLAN WHEREAS, the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") is provided the authority under Section 62-22.2.N of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village Code*') to grant special use and site plan permits for location, construction and installation of wireless communications facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is concerned with the unplanned proliferation of wireless communication facilities throughout the Village and the potential visual and aesthetic impacts associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is desirous, after reviewing several completed and pending applications to create a comprehensive Village-wide wireless antenna siting plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recognizes the importance of colocating facilities in strategic locations and incorporating stealth technology to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereto declare its intent to act as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Reviev/(SEQR^rkw» for the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) analyzing colocational, aesthetics and other issues of sound planning and public policy; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board will be holding a public scoping session on July 18,2002, at 8:00 PM at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 on the attached draft scoping outline; and, be it further fv> RESOLVED, that the public comment period will held open until Styfir <? ' during which time written comments can be submitted for the Planning Board's consideration and such correspondence should be directed to Mr. Robert Stilowski, Director of Fire and Life Safety at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591. Nic/iolas Robinson, Chairman F \M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolutions\M720.22 - Wireless GEIS noi.wpd Date �RESOLUTION Adopted at the July 18,2002 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board «... JUL * 2 9f\(y VILLA RESOLUTION: Subdivision of Parcel known as Section 115.08, Block 1, Lot 2 PROPOSED: Subdivision of an existing 56.9± acre parcel into two lots. Lot Aconsisting of ±33.3 acres, Lot B of ±22.2 acres the transfer of l.4± acres toQie owners of two existing parcels (115.08-1-35 and 115.08-1-36) and the transfer to Lot A of ±1.0 acres of land from David Rockefeller, the owner of property immediately to the north, under an existing driveway that will serve Lot A. OWNER: David Rockefeller Fund LOCATION: West of Webber Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Part of Section 115.08, Block 1 Lot 2 ZONING: R-l WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the Planning Board) has reviewed a preliminary plat application dated June 5,2002, including long environmental assessment form and preliminary subdivision map submitted on behalf of the David Rockefeller Fund (the Applicant); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has, after following the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) declared themselves to be the Lead Agency in this action; and WHEREAS, Planning Board, after finding the application to be complete, did direct the Applicant to appear before the Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for a consistency review with respect to the goals and policies outlined in the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP); and WHEREAS, the WAC, at its July 2002 meeting did review the application and found it to be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the LWRP; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board does hereby grant preliminary plat approval and directs the Applicant to distribute the preliminary plat to the appropriate agencies as outlined in Article III.6B of the Village of Sleepy Hoi low-Subdivision Regulations for comment prior to submission of the application for Final Subdivision Plat Approval. PLANNING BOARD Jc^<*^*2* Date F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolutions\Dougtass Hill.wpd �RECEIVED RESOLUTION COUNTY HOUSE ROAD CLUSTER SUBDIVISION FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL J "L 2 2 WO? w-1 VILLAGE CLERK WHEREAS, on May 25, 1999, the Village Board of Trustees (Village Board) initiated a proposal to rezone all non-public lands located east of the Old Croton Aqueduct and south of Bedford and County House Roads in the Village of Sleepy Hollow from R-3, Single Family Residence/Moderate Density (5,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size) to R-1, Single Family Residence/Open District (43,560 sq. ft. minimum lot size); and WHEREAS, as required under Section 62-53.B of the Village Zoning Code, the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (Planning Board) reviewed the proposed rezoning and made recommendations that would result in a lower on-site density and would allow for the application of clustering as provided under New York State Village Law; and WHEREAS, on September 19,1999, County House Road, LLC (the "Applicant") submitted an application, consistent with existing zoning, to the Village of Sleepy Hollow requesting preliminary subdivision approval to subdivide approximately 11.9 acres of property designated on the Village of Sleepy Hollow Assessment Maps as Section 115.12 Block 2, Lots 35 and 36; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 1999, after completing the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) the Village Board did rezone the subject site from R-3 to R-l and did authorize Planning Board to utilize the clustering provisions as provided under Section 7-738 of the New York State Village Law; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 1999 the Planning Board declared its intent to act as Lead Agency with respect to the proposed action; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 1999, the Planning Board declared itself to be the Lead Agency with respect to the proposed action; and WHEREAS, the Lead Agency, after careful examination and review of a conventional 11 lot subdivision, did determine that an 11 lot conventional subdivision could be properly laid out on site; and WHEREAS, on February 17,2000, the Lead Agency held a properly noticed public hearing on the preliminary subdivision plat application and draft expanded full EAF at which members of the Planning Board, Village staff, Village consultants and members of the public provided comments, and the Planning Board has duly considered all such comments; and WHEREAS, on April 5,2000 the Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee (W AC) conducted a consistency review comparing the proposed project with policies outlined in the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP); and Page 1 of 5 �WHEREAS, after review of the proposed action, the WAC unanimously concluded that the proposed action was consistent with the overall goals and policies of the LWRP; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency under SEQRA has required the preparation of a draft expanded full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) with accompanying reports, caused such draft expanded full EAF form to be circulated for public review; provided a public hearing where all those wishing to be heard were heard and on May 1, 2000 adopted a Negative Declaration accompanied by a Findings of Fact, thus completing the required process of environmental review for the proposed action; and WHEREAS, on May 1 2000, the Planning Board granted preliminary approval for the 11 lot clustered subdivision; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2000, the Applicant submitted a request for final subdivision approval; and WHEREAS, on May 16,2002, the Planning Board held a properly noticed public hearing on the final subdivision plat at which hearing all those wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the application for final subdivision plat approval consists of the following drawings which have been reviewed in detail by the Planning Board: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. I. j. k. 1. Illustrative Site Plan prepared by Robert Lamb Hart, last revised July 6,2000; Subdivision Plat prepared by Stephen T. Johnson, P.L.S. July 6,2000; Area Map for final subdivision plat, no author, dated July 6,2000; Site Utility Plan prepared by Michael Wein, P.E. last revised July 6,2000; Site Grading Plan prepared by Michael Wein, P.E. last revised July 6,2000; Erosion Control Plan prepared by Michael Wein, P.E. last revised May 12, 2000; Road and Sewer Profile, prepared by Michael Wein, P.E. last revised August 28, 2000; Detail and Notes, prepared by Michael Wein, P.E. last revised July 24,2000; Erosion Control Details, prepared by Michael Wein, P.E. dated September 1, 1999; Conceptual Tree Preservation and Landscape Plan, prepared by Robert Lamb Hart, last revised July 6,2000; Conceptual Design Guidelines, prepared by Robert Lamb Hart, dated July 6, 2000: January 7, 2000; and NYSDOT Improvements, prepared by Michael Wein, P.E., dated April 28,2000; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is required to secure the completion of certain subdivision improvements as shown on the Subdivision Plat, including roads, sanitary sewers, water mains, and stormwater drainage facilities; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted an estimate of costs for the construction of such Page 2 of 5 B �facilities to Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers (CAMCE), engineering consultants to the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, CAMCE has confirmed that the estimate of $275,000 is a correct estimate; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that said Application for final subdivision plat approval relative to the cluster subdivision of 11.9± acres into 11 residential lots and one open space lot as shown on the Subdivision Plat dated July 6, 2000 is hereby granted approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman on the final subdivision plat provided, however, that the following items are to be completed before filing the final plat, or as otherwise appropriate: 1. The road design standards for the proposed cul-de-sac shall be amended as allowed under the cluster authorization to reduce the paved portion of the road width to 18 feet and the diameter of the paved portion of the proposed cul-de-sac to 80 feet. This design consideration is consistent with planning publications reviewed by the Planning Board and recommendations from the Westchester County Planning Board (January 31, 2000). 2. The proposed open space components reflected on the final plat shall consist of a 0.46± acre passive recreation area located at the vicinity of Bedford and County House Road, a 1.07± acres portion with a stormwater detention facility linked by a 15 foot wide trail system (1.53± acre open space component to be dedicated to the Village), and 0.84± acres of conservation buffer easement along Bedford and County House Roads. The Applicant has agreed to improve the open space parcel with a scenic overlook, at its expense and in accordance with a plan approved by the Village Board of Trustees, prior to the dedication of said open space parcel to the Village of Sleepy Hollow and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for thefirstunit. The cost of said improvement shall be limited to $40,000. If the actual cost of such improvement is less than $40,000, the difference shall be donated by the Applicant to the Village Recreation Fund for recreational purposes, pursuant to Section 19B-5 of the Village Code. 3. The Applicant has agreed to provide an access easement to the stormwater detention facility using a stabilized sub-surface material designed to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer, and suitable for access by the Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Public Works for maintenance of such. 4. The Applicant has agreed to deposit $15,000 into a dedicated fund prior to the filing of the final subdivision plat and to be held in trust by the Village, the interest of which is to be utilized to offset the cost to maintain the stormwater detention facility in perpetuity. 5. Prior to the signing of the subdivision plat, all outstanding professional review fees, environmental charges and other Village fees shall be paid to the Village, satisfactory to the Mayor and or the Village Attorney. Page 3 of 5 �6. The Applicant has agreed that the development of the proposed subdivision shall be phased such that lots 1 and 2 shall be the last lots developed. A sight line analysis was prepared for the proposed curb cuts, the results of which indicate that there is sufficient sight distance to allow for safe ingress and egress to andfromthe project site. The Planning Board notes that the ability to coordinate the design process for lots 1 and 2 with the neighboring Village of Tarrytown provides the potential for eliminating an additional curb cut onto County House Road which would provide further mitigation; but it is not a condition of this approval. 7. Erosion control measures to be utilized during construction shall be provided in accordance with Westchester County Best Management Practices. 8. To the extent that determinations of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would result in material changes to the approved subdivision plat, the Applicant is required to return to the Planning Board to for an amendment to the final subdivision plat. 9. The Appl icant has agreed to provide landscaping as shown on the approved Conceptual Tree preservation and Landscape Plan last revised July 6, 2000 and must fully comply with the Village's Tree Ordinance. Trees to be provided as part of the landscape plan shall be a minimum of 3" caliper. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Applicant is required to appear before the Village's Tree Commission for a tree permit, if one is required. 10. The proposed action incorporates typical specification clauses for rock excavation and controlled blasting (Blasting Plan contained in EAF Appendix titled Preliminary Subsurface Investigation and Addendum, prepared by Tectonic Engineering Consultants, dated November 3, 1999) which mitigates potential impacts related to rock removal. The Applicant has agreed to file a Blasting Plan with the Village and the Applicant will coordinate with the Village Engineer prior to the start of rock removal activities. Rock removal activities shall occur during normal construction hours as provided in the Village Code. 11. In an effort to maintain and enhance the scenic and visual quality of the site and surrounding area, the Planning Board and the Applicant agree that all on site utilities shall be placed underground. 12. Consistent with the planning principles espoused in the clustering provisions authorized under Section 7-738 of the New York State Village Law, the Applicant proposes and the Planning Board hereby establishes the following modified setback requirements for the proposed action: Minimum front yard: 25 feet; Minimum rear yard 35 feet; Minimum side yard 15 feet; Minimum setback from Bedford Road and County House Road: 40 feet and such setbacks are indicated on the final plat. Page 4 of 5 �13. In accordance with the provisions of Section 16.A(1) of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Subdivision Regulations, the Planning Board estimates the amount of the bond to secure subdivision improvements as shown on the subdivision plat to be $275,000 and requires the Applicant to post a bond with the Sleepy Hollow Village Board in that amount prior to the signing of the plat. Dated: May 16,2002 Sleepy Hollow, New York Sleepy Hollow Planning Board ij&a$4~~- By:_ NicholaS Robinson, Chairman F VMXM-720 Sleepy Hotlow\ReJo)ubonj\M720 05 cohouierd final plat approval wpd A*. M^* ^ ^ uiU<^ Page 5 of 5 �RECEIVED JUL 2 2 W9 April 18,2002 VILLAGE CLERK Revised May 13,2002 VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT KENDAL ON HUDSON CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY WHEREAS, on or about June 11, 1999, Kendal on Hudson, a New York not-for-profit corporation and Phelps Community Corporation, a New York not-for-profit corporation (jointly the" "Applicant") did submit a formal petition for amendments to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Zoning Code ("Zoning Code") and an application for Site Plan Approval (collectively, the "Petition") to the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Sleepy Hollow for the construction of a not-for-profit continuing care retirement community ("CCRC") as defined in and regulated under Article 46 of the New York Public Health Law to be called "Kendal on Hudson," on a leased parcel of land on the grounds of the Phelps Memorial Hospital ("the Action") also known and designated on the tax assessment map of the Town of Mount Pleasant as Section 110.11, Block 1, Lots 1, 2 and 3 and on the tax assessment map of the Village of Sleepy Hollow as Section 11, Blockl, Lots 3A, 3a.l and 3A.1M (the "Site"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant's initial proposal called for a CCRC comprising 225 independent living apartments, 40 enriched housing ("assisted living") units, 42 skilled nursing rooms, related accessory uses and parking for 397 vehicles contained within 449,955± square feet of building program (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, said Petition did include, among other items, a site plan application form, Village fee agreement form, site plan application checklist, text of the proposed zoning 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 �amendment, coastal assessment form, full environmental assessment form, a grant of conservation and access easement made by Laurance S. Rockefeller in favor of Phelps Ommunity Corporation and a Project description and conceptual site plan; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 1999, the Mayor and Board of Trustees for the Village of Sleepy f o l l o w ("Village Board") did declare their intent to act as the Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act "SEQRA") for this Action and did cause to be circulated a Notice of Intent to Act as Lead Agency to all other interested and involved agencies for their comment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the Planning Board) is cm involved agency as defined in Section 617.2(s) of the SEQR regulations by virtue of the planning Board's ability to grant site plan approval and a wetlands permit; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board did not object to the Village Board acting as Lead ^Agency; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 1999, after circulation of the Notice of Intent to Act as Xead Agency, the Village Board, at a regularly scheduled meeting, did declare itself to be the Xead Agency for this Action ; and WHEREAS, the Lead Agency did conduct a thorough environmental review process -which included a formal scoping process, review and acceptance of a Draft Environmental impact Statement (DEIS), review and acceptance of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and preparation and adoption of an Environmental Findings Statement; and 2476/02/168284 V l 5/13/02 �WHEREAS, the Lead Agency held a series of public hearings on both the DEB and FEIS in which all members of the public were encouraged to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board did meet with the Applicant on several occasions during the formal environmental review process and did submit to the Lead Agency comments on the preliminary DEIS for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in response to the Applicant's Petition, the Village Board drafted and thereafter circulated Proposed Local Law #1 of 2001 of the Village (the "Local Law"X which Local Law would amend the Zoning Code to make a CCRC a special permit use within the HHospital District and to set forth certain definitional, lot and bulk criteria specifically related to such CCRC uses; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2001, the Planning Board adopted and forwarded to the Village Board recommendations on the proposed Local Law as required under the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Village Board, acting in both its corporate governmental capacity and as Lead Agency, scheduled concurrent public hearings on the FEIS and on the proposed Local Law for February 27, 2001; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2001, concurrent public hearings on the FEIS and the proposed Local Law were opened and the Village Board, acting in its corporate governmental capacity and as Lead Agency, Village staff, Village consultants and members of the public did comment on the FEIS and proposed Local Law; and 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 �WHEREAS, on February 27, 2001, the Village Board, acting in both its corporate governmental capacity and as Lead Agency, closed the public hearing on the FEIS but adjourned the public hearing on the proposed Local Law without fixed date; and WHEREAS, by letter to the Applicant's attorneys dated April 26, 2001, the Lead Agency requested further information from the Applicant with respect to comments on the FEIS, particularly with regard to the overall scale and density of the Project, the affordability of the Project to Village residents and the condition of existing trees on the Site; and WHEREAS, by letters dated May 18, 2001 and May 25, 2001, the Applicant responded to the Lead Agency's request for further information; among other things, the letter provides additional information regarding a potential reduction of the total number of CCRC units (reduction of 16 enriched housing living units from 40 to 24) of the Project and a reduction of the maximum height of Project buildings to five stories, consistent with "Alternative C - Project Modifications" as set forth at pages IV-8 through IV-13 of the accepted DEIS, along with a concomitant reduction in overall bulk; and WHEREAS, it is noted that the Village Board acted as the Lead Agency under SEQRA and did determine in the Environmental Findings Statement adopted June 19, 2001, that the proposed Project, with the mitigative measures identified therein, would not have a significant environmental impact and a copy of said Environmental Findings Statement is attached hereto; and 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 �WHEREAS, following the completion of the environmental review process for the proposed action, the Village Board took the following actions: • On July 10, 2001, following submission of a zoning petition by the Applicant, held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed zoning text amendments which would permit a CCRC use as a special permit use in the H-Hospital District; • Enacted a Local Law to allow for an amendment of the Sleepy Hollow Zoning Ordinance to permit CCRC's as special permit uses within the HHospital District; • Held a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, 2001, following submission of a special permit application by the Applicant, on the special permit application during which all persons interested were provided an opportunity to be heard; • Granted a special permit to the Applicant on September 18, 2001, to permit the construction of the proposed CCRC facility on the western portion of the Phelps campus; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2001, the Applicant submitted an application for site plan and wetlands permit approvals to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2001, October 18, 2001 and November 5, 2001, the Planning Board did publicly discuss the contents of the proposed site plan application and the format in which it would be reviewed; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2001, December 3, 2001, December 20,2001, January 17, 2002 and February 21, 2002 the Planning Board conducted and/or continued a public hearing on the detailed site plan and wetlands permit application upon due notice and all persons wishing to be heard were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2001 and again on November 7, 2001, the Applicant met with the Village of Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board (ARB) as required under the 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 -5- �special permit approval. The ARB did discuss the application at length and did provide a unanimous recommendation to the Planning Board regarding their comments on the proposed site plan; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2002, the Applicant appeared before the Village of Sleepy Hollow Tree Commission (Tree Commission) as required under Chapter 52A of the Village Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Tree Commission discussed the proposed site plan. Based on comments raised by Tree Commission, the Applicant was able to modify the site plan to save additional mature trees located in the western portion of the site. After a complete review of the application and modifications to the site plan, the Tree Commission granted the Applicant the requested tree permit with the requirement that the sum of $10,000 to be provided to the Tree Commission as mitigation for the removal of trees and the Applicant agreed to the provision of said sum; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that having reviewed the DEIS, the FEIS, supporting and related documents, comments received from the public, involved and interested agencies and from the Village's staff and consultants, the Village's Architectural Review Board, and the Applicant's responses thereto, and upon the entire record of the proposed action, the Planning Board hereby concurs with the environmental findings made by the Mayor and Board of Trustees acting as the Lead Agency and makes the following additional findings and determinations pursuant to 6 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 617.11: 1. Temporary noise levels will increase in the area during the construction of the Project and long-term minimal noise levels will be generated by residents, employees, service providers, deliveries, visitors and exterior mechanical equipment (e.g., roof-mounted cooling towers and 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 -6- �exhaust fans). Specific mitigation measures include the landscape enhancements in the buffer area in the southern portion of the site and the use of a decorative rooftop element to shield and attenuate noise resulting from proposed cooling towers and compressors. These increases are likely not to be perceptible to the human ear and have been minimized or mitigated by incorporating noise attenuation or dampening measures where appropriate, and vegetative screening as discussed above. The Applicant is required to take appropriate steps to minimize noise impacts arising from construction, including limiting construction activities to daytime hours and in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations and Village Codes. The Planning Board finds that there will be no significant adverse noise impacts from construction, vehicular traffic and operation of the proposed Project. 2. Air quality may be temporarily impacted due to dust emissions during site disturbance for construction. These impacts will terminate when construction is completed. The Applicant will be required to use best construction management practices as indicated on Site Plan Drawing 7.2 and otherwise to take all appropriate steps to control dust emissions, including watering of exposed areas and mandatory dust covers for trucks. As a means to mitigate potential impacts to air quality, the Applicant will be required to consider the use of natural gas as an alternative to oil as a source of fuel for its heating. The Planning Board finds that with the implementation of the indicated control measures during construction, there will be no significant adverse air quality impacts from fugitive dust emissions. 3. The Proposed Action is located within the Hudson River Drainage Basin. Existing stormwater runoff from the Site generally flows westward discharging into a wetland area 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 �adjacent to the Metro-North Railroad tracks and the Hudson River. Construction of new buildings, parking areas and associated roadways will not result in increased peak stormwater flows for Hudson River discharge points if proposed drainage measures, including water quality basins, are implemented. During large storm events (100 year storm) the stormwater management system has been designed to pipe the overflow from the stormwater quality basins directly to the wetland area in the southwest corner of the site. Stormwater from the site is I directed to the wetlands in a controlled manner, diverting high flow events directly to the wetland to eliminate overtopping of the water quality basins. Metro-North Railroad has reviewed the stormwater management plan and provided correspondence which indicates that they are satisfied with the analytical methodology. Metro-North Railroad has stated that their concerns regarding the potential impact of runoff on the adjacent railroad have been satisfied. I Regrading of the Site will increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. ^^ An erosion and sediment control plan has been prepared in accordance with Westchester County's Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control. The Project will involve disturbance to more than five acres of land. Accordingly, the New York State DEC guidelines, as contained in the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities, have been incorporated into the design of the Stormwater Management Plan. It is the Applicant's obligation to maintain the stormwater management system. Further, the Applicant has agreed to and shall be required to reimburse the Village for routine inspection of the on-site stormwater management system once the site construction is completed and the site is open. Such inspections would occur periodically throughout the year, but not less than twice per year. Afc The Village inspector would, when required, identify where repairs or other maintenance would need to be made to maintain the stormwater management facility. If the 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 -8- HP^a^£ittiiiSI£B9^BSHHHHHIHHI^IBIHil^^^lHHHH^^H^HH^IHIHMI^HnHHHHIi^HHBH^H �Applicant does not make improvements in a timely manner, the Village will make the improvements or required maintenance and charge the Applicant for the cost of such improvements. Upon the failure of the Applicant to pay the cost of the maintenance and or improvements this would constitute a lien against the property. The proposed Stormwater Management Plan includes two water quality basins to reduce nutrient loading into the on-site wetland area and eventually to the Hudson River and to provide detention of stormwater runoff. The Applicant also incorporates "stormceptor" devises to further remove sediments and other materials from the stormwater runoff. The Applicant will prepare and adhere to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as is required under the SPDES General Permit. The Planning Board finds that the proposed stormwater quality and erosion control program minimizes potential stormwater impacts to the maximum extent practicable. 4. Approximately 0.97 acres of upland areas that are protected under Village law as wetland buffer will be disturbed as a result of the proposed action. No impacts to Village regulated wetlands are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. The Applicant has prepared a wetland mitigation program, which includes supplementing the existing wetland buffer area on the southern end of the Site with woodland and flowering trees as well as evergreens. The presently eroded stream channel will be stabilized and replanted to provide additional habitat and erosion control. The Planning Board finds that the existing wetland functions will be maintained or enhanced by the Applicant's activities. 5. There are no unique or rare habitats on the Site that could potentially be impacted by the Project. Construction related activity will result in disturbance of approximately 15 acres within the Site and an additional 3± acres in the easement area. Approximately 1,200 trees 2476/02; 168284 VI 5/13/02 -9- �within the proposed disturbance area will be removed. Of thisfigure,the tree survey reveals that 37 percent are already dead or in poor condition and another 29 percent were found to have only marginal value. The Applicant has proposed a comprehensive landscape plan, including an infill planting program for the identified buffer adjacent to the Sleepy Hollow Manor neighborhood and a series of landscaped berms in the vicinity of Rockwood Hall. The infill planting and overall landscape plan include the replanting of approximately 607 trees and which shall range for deciduous treesfrom1 inch to 4 inches in caliper and for evergreen trees height ranging from 8-10 feet in height to 10-12 feet. The number of trees proposed to be planted as part of the overall Project landscaping plan exceeds that initially shown and considered as part of the environmental review and is now roughly equivalent to the number of healthy trees proposed to be removed as part of the proposed Project. The Planning Board finds that the removal of some vegetation is an unavoidable impact of the Project and that the Applicant has appeared before the Village Tree Commission and received a permit subject to Chapter 52 A of the Village Code. In addition, the Tree Commission requested as mitigation, that the Applicant provide to the Village, a fee in the amount of $10,000 to mitigate the impact of proposed tree removal. The infill planting program and comprehensive landscaping plan will also mitigate the loss of existing vegetation and will provide screening to minimize the potential visual impacts of the Project to the maximum extent practicable. Installation of landscaping in the proposed landscape buffers shall be initiated as early as practicable during the construction process. No significant species or habitats will be displaced by the proposed Project. 6. The Applicant has agreed to provide the Village with fees in lieu of reservation of parkland and open space as defined under Section 62 of the Village Code, such fee amounting to 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 -10- �Six Hundred Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 ($662,500.00) Dollars, the payment of which is spelled out in the Development Fee Agreement adopted by the Village Board on September 18,200-1. 7. The western 21± acres of the 61± acre Phelps Memorial Hospital campus is currently vacant and is characterized by a meadow area and a stand of primarily deciduous trees which provide a limited view of the Hudson River in the winter months and block the view of the Hudson River in the spring, summer and fall. The Project will alter the visual character of the Site. The majority of the vacant, wooded and meadow portions of the Site will be developed with buildings, access roadways, walkways and ornamental plantings. The Applicant has proposed to establish an approximately seven acre wooded buffer in the southern portion of the Site separating the Project facilities from the residential neighborhood in this vicinity. Provisions will be made for the preservation and maintenance of this buffer, which will vary in depth between 150 and 400 feet. In order to mitigate adverse effects on the site the Applicant has agreed to include a pedestrian trail system starting at the site loop road and extending south into the buffer area. The proposed trail system in this part of the site does not connect through to Birch Close. The comprehensive landscaping plan incorporates the planting of more than 600 deciduous and evergreen trees. Landscape plantings will be concentrated on the southern portion of the Site in the vicinity of the seven acre wooded buffer, proposed loop road and in the northern portion of the Site in the vicinity of the easement over the parkland. A decorative border element and additional landscape plantings are proposed in the immediate surrounding of the James House. 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/U2 -11- �To mitigate potential adverse visual impacts of the Project the following conditions will be imposed: a) The Applicant shall adhere to the landscaping plan presented in the FEIS, as modified by the letter submitted by the Applicant to the Village Board dated May 18, 2001, and as supplemented by the incorporation of additional landscape plantings; including infill planting in the wooded buffer area separating the Project facilities from the residential neighborhood to the south and the construction of landscaped berms within the Rockwood Hall access easement area. b) That landscaping proposed within the southern buffer areas or otherwise outside of the temporary construction zone, shall be installed during the first planting season, but in no case later than six months after the issuance of the building permit, subject to drought conditions. The landscaping proposed within the northern buffer area shall be installed during the first planting season following completion of site work (carriage trail/berm/rough grading of Loop Road) in area and relocation of construction fence to top of berm. c) Incorporation of specific design elements as part of the architectural program including the use of: a continuous stone facing of one or more stories; projecting bay windows and other window treatments to vary the facade; use of tower elements to vary the massing and vertical 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 -12- �dimensions of the buildings; and the use of lantern elements and dormers to provide a more residential character to the roofline. d) Provision of a publicly accessible riverfront promenade and overlook connecting to the Rockwood Hall State Park Preserve carriage paths. The Planning Board has identified three (3) potential future locations for a trail connection between the proposed pedestrian walkway on the project site and the neighboring residential community to the south, west to the Hudson River, north to Route 9A or to the south. e) Provision of an additional sidewalk on the north side of ILU East and ILU West and more clearly delineated crosswalks which enhance pedestrian circulation on site. f) The Applicant has provided for a conceptual design treatment for the roofscape which incorporates decorative elements for rooftop penetrations. 8. The Applicant has prepared more detailed drawings and discussed at length with the Planning Board the potential visual impacts associated with the development and construction of the proposed parking structure. The Applicant has included details of proposed lighting fixtures that would be used on both levels of the parking facility. Light spill off from the parking garage has been mitigated through the incorporation of specific light fixtures as indicated on Site Plan drawing A-4.0. Such fixtures use specific lighting elements and shields which focus their illumination to the maximum extent practicable. Further, the first level (partially below grade) of the proposed garage structure has been designed to house the fixtures within the ceiling structure 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 -13- �such that there is no direct glare resulting from the interior of the parking structure. Further, -the Applicant has been directed to prepare, as part of subsequent building facade and roof %op treatment review provided as a condition of site plan approval, details of the parking garage facade. The garage facade detail shall specify color and detailing and be architecturally complementary in character to the balance of the building program. In addition, the Applicant has enhanced the initially proposed landscape program to further screen the lower level of the parking structure from points due west and south. Further, it is noted that there is approximately 240 feet of existing woodland separating the proposed parking facility from the resideivtial homes to the south. This buffer area is proposed to be further enhanced with additional ir»fill plantings. Given that these infill plantings are located outside the limit of disturbance line, tt*.ese plantings shall be installed immediately after the issuance of a building permit, if said permit is issued during the planting season, or no later than six months from the issuance of said mulcting permit, if said permit is not issued during the growing season. 9. As a result of the Proposed Action, the current informal parking arrangement on Rockwood Road for those patrons of Rockwood Hall will be eliminated. To mitigate -this impact, the Planning Board requested and the Applicant agreed to a provide a 15 sj^ace temporary parking area within the grounds of Rockwood Hall subject to OPRHP approval. In the event of an overflow parking situation, signage will be provided directing patrons to the n^rtb end of the Hospital parking lot. The hospital has set aside no less than 30 spaces to be used o n a temporary basis for Rockwood Hall overflow parking. Before Completion of the Project, the Applicant agrees to provide for a forty-five ( 4 5 ^ car parking area subject to the approval of NYSOPRHP. Until such time, the temporary parking will continue. 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 -14- �10. Approximately 0.97 acres of upland areas that are protected under Village law as wetland buffer will be disturbed as a result of the proposed action. No impacts to Village regulated wetlands are anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action. The Applicant has prepared a wetland mitigation program, and the Applicant has applied to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board for a wetland disturbance permit as required under the Village's Wetland/Watercourse Protection ordinance. Mitigation proposed as part of the Project, includes supplementing the existing wetland buffer area on the southern end of the Site with woodland and flowering trees as well as evergreens. The presently eroded stream channel will be stabilized and replanted to provide additional habitat and erosion control. The Planning Board finds that the existing wetland functions will be maintained or enhanced by the Applicant's activities. The Planning Board finds that the impact of the Project on views from surrounding properties will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable through the implementation of the conditions set forth above. Subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures identified herein by the Planning Board as required to be made, the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow hereby certifies with respect to the site plan application and the wetlands permit application that: 1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met and fully satisfied; 2. Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the Proposed Action with the mitigation measures imposed herein is one which minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable, 2476/02/168284 VI 5/13/02 -15- �including effects disclosed in the DEIS, FEIS and set forth in this Findings Statement. 3. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will be minimized or avoided by incorporating as conditions to the decision, those mitigation measures which were identified as practicable. 4. After due consideration, the Planning Board finds that this action will achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social, economic and other considerations of sound public policy. ^JMSJJ & \ 4)U«*t^-, Dated: Nicholalsu Robinson, Chairman ^JjL^ If; 3-00 ^L " 2476/02/16tt* 284 VI 5/13/02 -16- �RECEIVED JUL 2 2 ?nn? VILLAGE CLERK April 18,2002 V I L L A G E CLERK R e y i s e d M a y 1 3 2 ( K ) 2 RESOLUTION KENDAL ON HUDSON CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SITE PLAN AND WETLANDS PERMIT APPROVAL WHEREAS, on September 6, 2001 Kendal on Hudson and the Phelps Community Corporation (jointly the "Applicant"), including its successors and assigns submitted an application to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board ("the Board") requesting site plan and wetlands permit approvals to develop a continuing care retirement community ("CCRC"); and WHEREAS, the proposed CCRC is situated on approximately 24 acres on the western portion of the existing Phelps Memorial Hospital Center ("Phelps") campus designated on the tax assessment maps of the Town of Mount Pleasant as Section 110.11, Block 1, Lots 1,2 and 3; and WHEREAS, the proposed CCRC consists of 225 independent living apartments, 24 enriched housing units and 42 skilled nursing beds along with common facilities provided in approximately 435,000 square feet of building area, serviced by 393 parking spaces (the "project"); and WHEREAS, the proposed project was the subject of a comprehensive environmental review conducted by the Mayor and Board of Trustees acting as the Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and that the Mayor and Board of Trustees did issue an Environmental Findings Statement on June 19, 2001, which Findings Statement 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 �concluded that with the mitigation measures imposed, the project minimizes or avoids environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable and that after due consideration, the Proposed Action will provide a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social, economic and other considerations of sound public policy; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 59A of the Village Code, the proposed project was reviewed by the Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for consistency with the goals and policies in the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP); and WHEREAS, on June 18, 2001, the WAC found and made a recommendation to the Mayor and Board of Trustees that, on balance, the proposed project was consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2001, the Mayor and Board of Trustees conducted their own LWRP consistency review and issued findings concluding that, on balance, the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the LWRP; and WHEREAS, following the completion of the environmental review process for the proposed action, the Village Board took the following actions: • On July 10, 2001, following submission of a zoning petition by the Applicant, held a duly noticed public hearing on proposed zoning text amendments which would permit a CCRC use as a special permit use in the H-Hospital District; 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 -2- �• Enacted Local Law #1 of 201 to allow for an amendment of the Sleepy Hollow Zoning Ordinance to permit CCRC's as special permit uses within the H-Hospital District; • Held a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, 2001, following submission of a special permit application by the Applicant, on the special permit application during which all persons interested were provided an opportunity to be heard; • Granted a special permit to the Applicant on September 18, 2001, to permit the construction of the proposed CCRC facility on the western portion of the Phelps campus; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has included in support of the site plan and wetlands permit applications the following large scale plans generally entitled: SP-1.0 SP-2.0 SP-2.1 SP-3.0 SP-3.1 SP-4.0 SP-5.0 SP-5.1 SP-6.0 SP-7.0 SP-7.1 SP-7.2 SP-8.0 SP-8.1 SP.9.0 DP.9.1 Title Scale Cover Sheet Master Site Plan Site Layout Plan Site Layout Plan Site Grading Plan Site Grading Plan Site Utility Plan Landscape Concept Plan Landscape Concept Plan Driveway Profiles Erosion Control Plan Erosion Control Plan Erosion Control Details Tree Survey & Protection Plan Tree Survey & Protection Plan Boundary/Topographic Survey Site Details Utility Details 1"=100' 1" = 50' 1" = 50' r = 50' 1" = 50' 1" = 50' 1" = 50' 1" = 50" 1" = 50' As Noted 1" = 50" 1" = 50' As Noted 1" = 50' 1" = 50' 1"=100' As noted As noted 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 -3- Last Revised 02/05/02 02/05/02 03/11/02 02/05/02 04/04/02 02/05/02 03/11/02 04/04/02 04/04/02 07/19/01 03/11/02 03/11/02 03/11/02 02/05/02 02/05/02 03/17/99 04/04/02 04/04/02 Source DTS* DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS DTS CHS** DTS DTS �Last Revised 02/05/02 PEA*** 1/32 = r-0" 02/05/02 PEA*** Floor Plan Levels 89s = 102s 1/32 = r-0" 02/05/02 PEA*** Floor Plan Levels 113s = 123-4'1/4 Floor Plan Levels 133' 81/4"s=Roof Building Elevations Site Sections Parking Deck 1/32" =r-0" 02/05/02 PEA*** 1/32" - r - 0 " 02/05/02 PEA*** i/i6"=r-o" 02/05/02 1/32" -1MT 02/05/02 02/05.02 As noted PEA*** PEA*** PEA*** Title Scale r-o" A-l.l Composite Floor Plan levels 40s=50sl/32" = Floor Plan Levels 65s = 76'-51/2" A-1.2 A-1.3 A-1.0 A-1.4 A-2.0 A-3.0 A-4.0 Source * DTS (Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP) ** CHS (Charles H. Sells, Inc) *** PEA (Perkins Eastman Architects, PC); and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2001, October 18, 2001 and November 5, 2001, the Planning Board did publicly discuss the contents of the proposed site plan application and the format in which it would be reviewed; and WHEREAS, on November 21,2001, December 3,2001, December 20, 2001, January 17, 2002 and February 21,2002 the Planning Board conducted and/or continued a public hearing on the detailed site plan and wetlands permit application upon due notice and all persons wishing to be heard were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board also received written correspondence from Scenic Hudson dated November 16, 2001 and January 17, 2002 and from Metro-North Railroad dated March 8,2002; and 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 -4- �WHEREAS, the Planning Board did discuss in detail with the Applicant issues related to construction and site preparation, architecture and landscaping, circulation, utility systems and wetland buffer activities; and WHEREAS, as a result of public input during the public hearing process and comments raised by the Planning Board, Village staff, and Village consultants, modifications were made to the proposed site plan application; and WHEREAS, the proposed development would result in the temporary disturbance to approximately 0.97 acres of wetland buffer area; and WHEREAS, to offset approximately 0.97 acres of temporary wetland buffer impacts, the Applicant has prepared a wetland buffer mitigation plan consistent with the requirements of Section 61 of the Village's Wetland/Watercourse Protection law which plan will result in supplementing the existing wetland buffer area on the southern end of the site with woodland and flowering trees as well as evergreens. Further, the presently eroded stream channel will be stabilized and replanted to provide additional habitat and erosion control; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has prepared a soil and sediment erosion control plan which conforms to the Westchester County Best Management Practices Manual Series for controlling stormwater runoff which will rriinimize potential impacts to the on-site wetlands; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, as a condition of the Special Permit issued approving the project, did appear before the Village of Sleepy Hollow Architectural Review Board ("ARB") at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 24, 2001, at a special work session on November 7, 2001, and at the ARB's regularly scheduled meeting of November 28,2001; and 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 �WHEREAS, the ARB provided written recommendations to the Planning Board for its review and consideration; and WHEREAS, under Chapter 52A Tree Conservation, of the Village Code, the Applicant was required to prepare a comprehensive tree survey, landscape planting plan and meet with the Village's Tree Commission to seek a tree permit; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 2002. the Applicant did meet with and discuss the proposed site plan with the Tree Commission. Comments raised by the Tree Commission led to modifications of the proposed site plan to preserve an area of mature trees in the western portion of the site. After further discussion the Applicant received a tree removal permit from the Village's Tree Commission, said permit was conditioned upon a fee in the amount of $10,000 to be paid to the Tree Commission to mitigate the impact of the proposed tree removal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board, as an involved agency as defined under Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, after thorough review of the environmental documentation, determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Environmental Findings Statement adopted by the Mayor and Board of Trustees as attached to the Planning Board's environmental findings; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 59A of the Village Code and after careful review of the Consistency Findings recommendation by the Village's WAC and Consistency Findings adopted by the Mayor and Board of Trustees, the Planning Board hereby determines that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Village's LWRP; and, be it further 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 -6- �RESOLVED, that the site plan and wetlands permit approval incorporate by reference the legends on the site plan drawings and any material variation from the approved site plan shall require a resolution from the Planning Board approving said changes; and RESOLVED, that the final site plan approval and wetlands permit, as defined in the recitals are granted and approved, the Planning Board Chairman is authorized to sign the plans, and permits may be issued, subject to the conditions and modifications identified below: CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE SITE PLAN IS SIGNED 1. The Applicant's submission to the Village's Special Counsel for review of a fully executed lease agreement by and between Kendal on Hudson and Phelps Community Corporation (the Lease Agreement) for the Project, said lease to contain terms and conditions drawn to the satisfaction of counsel which protect and prohibit development on that portion of the site denoted as the "buffer area" of approximately seven acres and more fully described on Site Layout Plan SP-2.0. 2. Said Lease Agreement shall also contain terms and conditions drawn to the satisfaction of the Village's Special Counsel which will provide for public pedestrian access in accordance with the conditions of approval by the approving authorities and as shown on the approved site plans (including site plan drawing SP-2.0). Kendal on Hudson shall provide public pedestrian access over its walkway system within the western portion of its site from and to the Rockwood Hall portion of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve to the north within 90 days from the issuance of a certificate of occupancy and from and to the Village of Sleepy Hollow street system or future greenway or coastal trail connecting to the "Buffer Area" to the south (said connection to the street system at the south or to any future greenway or coastal trail connecting 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 -7- �to the "Buffer Area" to be determined at a future date by the Village of Sleepy Hollow). Such public pedestrian access shall be permitted and provided for throughout the term of the lease, generally during the daylight hours, subject to reasonable restrictions regarding time, nature and manner in which public access shall be provided as established by Kendal on Hudson with the approval of the Village Administrator. CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED OR ANY CONSTRUCTION COMMENCED 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a 100% performance bond shall be submitted in a sum determined by the Village's Engineer and shall be furnished to and accepted by the Village, to guarantee the satisfactory and complete installation and construction of all infrastructure, as determined appropriate by the Village Engineer, including sewage, water, drainage, roads, sediment and erosion control measures, stormwater detention, wetlands buffer mitigation and traffic improvements. It is the Applicant's obligation to maintain the stormwater management system. Further, the Applicant has agreed to and shall be required to reimburse the Village for inspection of the on-site stormwater management system once the site construction is completed and the site is open. Such inspections would occur periodically throughout the year, but not less than twice per year. The Village inspector would, when required, identify where repairs or other maintenance would need to be made to maintain the stormwater management facility. If the Applicant does not make improvements in a timely manner, the Village will make the improvements or required maintenance and charge the Applicant for the cost of such improvements. Upon the failure of the Applicant to pay for the required maintenance and or improvements related to the stormwater management facility, this would constitute a lien against the property. I * ? * * ! 1*8275 V2 5/13/02 �2. The Applicant shall review with the Planning Board the proposed roof drainage system, including the type of materials if gutters and leaders are used, or in their absence, how drainage would be accommodated away from the building and directed to the stormwater management system. 2. The Applicant shall prepare, subject to Planning Board review and approval, drawings illustrating the organization and aesthetic treatment of the roof penetrations and roof scape treatment which shall include sound attenuation and shielding for any use of cooling towers and compressors for the facility's air conditioning system(s). Further, the Applicant shall include facade treatment details for the proposed garage facility, using materials which complement the already proposed buildings. 3. The Applicant shall provide to the Village landscape maintenance bonds the amount of which is to be determined by the Village Administrator and Engineer. Two bonds shall be posted: a) maintenance of A bond with a minimum term of two years shall be posted for the general site landscaping, the landscaping to thereafter be maintained and replaced as necessary. b) A bond with a term of five years shall be posted to guarantee plantings and the maintenance thereof for all planting in the "buffer area", to be thereafter maintained and replaced as necessary. 4. The Applicant shall co-ordinate with the Village of Sleepy Hollow's Director of Life and Fire Safety, Chief of Police and Fire Chief regarding the preparation and implementation of 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 �the blasting protocol program. Such program shall include notification and inspection (pre and post blasts) procedures for those buildings located within 500 linear feet from the proposed blasting area. The blasting protocol shall also include coordination with the Hospital during times of blasting events. 5. The Applicant shall prepare a written report to the Planning Board detailing the final grading and landscape plans as approved by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) for that area located within Rockwood Hall State Park portion of the Rockefeller State Park Preserve. As a condition of this site plan approval, the Applicant is required to construct the proposed trail connections leading to Rockwood Hall utilizing design standards as specified in the NYSOPRHP "Carriage Path System, Rockefeller State Park Preserve, Manual for Design, Construction and Maintenance." The Applicant must, subject to New York State Parks Department practices, provide appropriate public access at reasonable times between the Kendal property walkway system and Rockwood Hall State Park pursuant to the approved site plan. In the event that these other site plan approvals for those areas outside the Village of Sleepy Hollow differ substantially from the site plans approved herein, then the Applicant shall be required to submit said changes to the Planning Board for review and approval. 6. Submission for review and comment to the Architectural Review Board of the finalized project facade designs and materials. OTHER CONDITIONS 1. Prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO), the Applicant shall offer for dedication water lines and corresponding easements to the Village of Sleepy 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 -10- �Hollow as generally denoted on Site Utility Plan SP 4.1, said improvements to be constructed and installed to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 2. As early during the construction process as practicable, the Applicant shall prepare and install landscaping in those buffer areas located on the northern and southern portions of the site in the vicinity of Rockwood Hall and the neighboring Sleepy Hollow Manor residents. Infill planting within the southern buffer areas shall be installed during the initiation of site work, if work is initiated during the planting season, but not later than six months from the initiation of site work, if said work does not begin during the growing season, subject to drought conditions. Landscape screening on the northern portion of the site shall be installed immediately following completion of site work (carriage trai^erm/rough grading of loop road) and relocation of construction fence to top of berm if such completion takes place during the planting season or during the next subsequent planting season. 3. As part of the construction of the site access road, the Applicant shall construct, subject to NYSOPRHP approval, a temporary parking area which would serve patrons using Rockwood Hall. During that time when the site is under construction, the Applicant has agreed to make approximately 30 parking spaces available for overflow parking for visitors to Rockwood Hall. Signage will be posted in the temporary parking lot in Rockwood Hall directing overflow traffic to the Hospital's northern parking lot. The installation of the site loop road in the northern portions of the site shall also incorporate the proposed landscape buffers as early as practicable during the construction process (see Condition 2 above). Subject to NYSDOT and NYSOPRHP approval, the Applicant will seek to incorporate signage and walkways which 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 �would enhance pedestrian circulation and safety. Before completion of the project, Applicant agrees to provide for a forty-five (45) car parking area subject to the approval of NYSOPRBP. Until such time, the temporary parking will continue. 4. Although reviewed in the Environmental Impact Statement document, the Applicant is not proposing a pedestrian only connection to the neighboring Sleepy Hollow Manor residence neighborhood. The plan shall indicate a potential location where such a connection could be made if and when the Village requests. If such request is made, the Applicant must insure that appropriate public access be provided at reasonable times between the Kendal walkway system and areas to the south, pursuant to the approved site plan. Such a connection would be constructed utilizing NYSOPRHP design standards. 5. Prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall make application and diligently seek a New York State Department of Transportation permit and undertake to construct a dedicated turning lane at the Route 9/Route 117 westbound intersection as discussed in the FEIS and Environmental Findings Statement. As part of this process, the Applicant will post with NYS DOT a bond for said improvements as required. If the permit has not been issued by NYSDOT or work has not begun under the permit at the time of issuance of said certificate of occupancy, then a $100,000 letter of credit shall be posted with the Village. Said letter of credit may be drawn on by the Village of Sleepy Hollow to obtain the permit and undertake this work at the Village's sole discretion. If said permit has not been issued and substantial construction undertaken within two years from the posting of the letter of credit, the letter of credit shall be returned to the Applicant. 2476/02/168275 V2 5/13/02 -12- �6. The Applicant shall prepare a detail for Planning Board review of any proposed entry signage, including location, use of materials, overall design and color. 7. Substantial construction of 'the Project" commencing within one year of the date of adoption of the site plan approval and thereafter being diligently pursued to completion with the opportunity for extensions of the site plan approval and wetlands permit to be granted for good cause by the Planning Board at the request of the Applicant for a period of six months. Nichoh 2476/02/(68275 V2 5/13/02 -13- �vl *\ * Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. w Planning and Development Consultants 245 Main Street White Plains New York 10601 Tel: 914-761-3582 FAX: 914-761-3759 sands@saccschiff.com 33 Front Street Hempstead New York 11550 Tel: 516-486-0610 FAX: 516-486-0615 t DATE: July 9,2002 TO: Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor and Board of Trustees FROM: David B. Smith, AICP CC: Dwight Douglas, Administrator Brian Murphy/Ed Lammers, Murphy, Stecich & Powell Nicholas Robinson, Planning Board Chairman RE: Oversized Residential Development Zoning Text Amendment The following is an updated draft of proposed zoning text amendments relative to regulating the size of new residential development. This particular issues has been discussed at length with the Planning Board, the Village Administrator and most recently with the Chairman's Committee. The most recent revisions reflect the input for the aforementioned plus a review of recently enacted language in nearby Westchester communities. Our office is currently working on a companion piece to the proposed text amendments which would include a neighborhood character survey. As suggested by the Village Administrator, the survey would start with the R-2 and R-2A zones and focus on: John J. Saccardi, AICP David B. Schiff. AICP, PP Syrette Dym, AICP Oavid B. Smith, AICP Margaret H. Uhle, AICP, RLA Bonita J. Von Ohlsen, RLA Csaba Teglas, AICP Consultant Land Development Comprehensive Planning Zoning Real Estate Economics Environmental Studies ising munily Development # 1. lot coverage for both principal and accessory buildings. This portion' of the survey would use existing mapping to be provided by the Town of Mt. Pleasant. 2. Building height - number of stories conducted by windshield survey 3. Building type - inventory of building types to be a basis for describing building characteristics including such items as roof line treatment, materials and garage placement. The inventory information would become a resource for the Architectural Review Board during their review of individual projects. �To: Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor and Board of Trustees July 9, 2002 Page 2 Proposed new zoning text indicated using italics font. Section 62-4 Definitions. FLOOR AREA - The sum of the gross horizontal area of the several floors of a structure and its accessory buildings. "Floor area" shall not include cellar space, stairways, unenclosed porches, decks, patios and breezeways, accessory off-street parking space or loading berths or any floor-toceiling height of less than seven (7) feet. FLOOR AREA RATIO - the ratio of gross floor area of all structures on a lot to the total lot area. Section 62-9. D. Purpose and Applicability. The distinctive character of the different residential neighborhoods in the Village of Sleepy Hollow is based on the diversity in the style and design of homes as well as the general uniformity in the scale of homes located on similarly-sized lots in the different neighborhoods throughout the community. The potential for tearing down existing home and replacing them with substantially larger homes or building large additions to existing home threatening the appearance and impacts upon the health, safety, welfare and quality of life for the residents of the Village of Sleepy Hollow. Maximum Floor Area Ratio as indicated in Table 62-9. D-l herein, the maximum floor area ratios (FAR) for houses in single family districts shall be as follows: Table 62-9.D-1 Illustrative Table of Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Lot Size FAR Maximum Building Site (s.f.) > 80,000 0.14 11,200 70,000 0.15 10,500 60,000 0.15 9,000 50,000 0.15 7,500 43,560 0.16 6,969 30,000 0.22 6,600 20,000 0.31 6,200 15.000 0.40 6,000 10,000 0.42 4,200 5,000 0.55 2,750 4,000 0.60 2,400 3,000 0.62 1,860 �To: Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor and Board of Trustees July 9, 2002 Page 3 62-9. E Special Permit for Land Consolidation and Development in Residential Districts. In all residence districts, a special permit shall be required when two or more building lots are combined for the purpose of constructing a residential building or buildings. Special Permit Approval The Planning Board may authorize the issuance of a special permit for the merging ofone or more lots in a residential district for the purpose of constructing a residential building(s), after a public hearing and provided that it shall find that the following conditions and standards have been met: J. The proposed building shall relate to the surrounding neighborhood by way of a quality of building and overall site design which will enhance and protect the character and property values ofthe adjacent neighborhood. The Planning Board shall evaluate bulk, dimensions, materials, location on the site and in relation to development on adjoining properties, the natural terrain and vegetation, where applicable. 2. The Planning Board shall also consider whether the proposed structure has a striking dissimilarity, visual discord or inappropriateness with respect to other structures located or proposed to be located within the same residential neighborhood. Should you have any question regarding the proposed zoning text amendments indicated above please feel free to call. I look forward to discussing this matter with the Board at your next meeting. F \M\M-720 Sleepy HollowvMemos\M-720.28-oversized resident dev ord �Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Planning and Development Consultants 245 Main Street White Plains New York 10601 Tel: 914-761-3582 FAX: 914-761-3759 sands@saccschiff com 33 Front Street Hempstead New York 11550 Tel: 516-486-0610 FAX: 516-486-0615 John J. Saccardi, AICP David B Schiff. AICP, PP Syrette Dym. AICP David B. Smith, AICP Margaret H. Utile, AICP, RIA Bonita J Von Ohlsen, RLA July 16,2002 To: Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor and Board of Trustees From: David B. Smith, AICP cc: Dwight Douglas, Administrator Brian Murphy, Village Attorney Nicholas Robinson, Planning Board Chairman Re: Supplemental Information for Neighborhood Character Study The Village is currently considering zoning text amendments which would begin to address the issue of inappropriately sized homes being built within existing established neighborhoods. The proposed zoning text addresses the issue of overall size of new construction or additions to existing homes, but does not go into detail with respect to the compatibility of the new residence to its neighbors and/or surrounding area. This was one of the issues raised by the Village Administrator in his initial review of the proposed zoning text amendments. What has been suggested is the preparation of a neighborhood character survey, a sample of which is attached hereto. It has been suggested that the survey include a photograph of each residence, along with an accompanying map to illustrate overall lot coverage. The purpose of which is to provide the Planning Board and the Architectural Review Board with a building inventory which would be a basis for describing the range of building characteristics including: building height, roof treatment, architectural elements, garage location, and typical building materials. From the survey a series of acceptable design guidelines could be prepared for alterations, additions and new construction, all drawn from and supported by the inventory. This would be similar in concept to the illustrations prepared for the Village of Scarsdale Design Review Guidelines For Houses in Residence Districts which was circulated to the Board previously. Csaba Teglas. AICP Consultant Land Development Comprehensive Planning Zoning Real Estate Economics Environmental Studies rtousing community Development Before continuing much further with the survey I wanted to provide the Village with an opportunity to comment on both the scope and level of detail. I look forward to discussing this matter further with the Board, should you have any questions or comments on the above or attached please feel free to call. �• — ••»««.<.•* .,*-%*«!tM''iMWftBlS'i«fiiffJ: � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-09-19 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9d1536f916e5e329da7de4586ae0871c.pdf 97f5040187add61c9fbcb5f06f40c991 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING October 17,2002 RECEf VED NOV ~ 8 9(11)7 The meeting was called to order at 8:04 pm by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. tdiCftfik£ CLERK noted that a quorum was present. >«^ i Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner David Perlmutter Ed McCarthy Absent: Ed Napoleon Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schifl^illage Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and life Safety) * ** ' * - *- ^ Announcements: None. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) Kendal on Hudson Karl Dibble Omnipoint Antonio Rodrigues Laurentino Rodrigues Ichabod's Landing Monopole permit application status GEIS/Wireless Location Study CFF Realty Barnhart Park Inner Village Parking Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). �1) Kendal on Hudson This is a continuation from previous meetings. Andy Tung is representing this application along with Steve Evanusa. Andy Tung spoke about the roofscape and garage facade final designs. He spoke about moving the cooling towers to grade near the parking lot and their impacts. George Tanner asked if anyone could fit under the garage railings and access the cooling towers. Andy Tung responded no. He discussed the proposed railing design. The Chair asked if the Village consultants had any questions. There were none. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. There were none. The Chair asked when the plantings would be set. Andy Tung responded as soon as the site is stabilized from the constriction activity. David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the site plan with regards to the garage and cooling towers. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 2) Karl Dibble This is a continuation from previous meetings. Richard Blancato is representing this application along with the applicant Karl Dibble. Richard Blancato stated that he had some comments on the draft Resolution that he received from the Village Attorney. He stated that the dates are missing from items # 7 and #17. He proposed a date of one-year from the issuance of the building permit. There was an open discussion on the date to be inserted. The Chair recommended adding language to state that the applicant is to agree with the Village Building Department on a phased implementation of the site development with specific dates for each phase and submit this schedule to the Planning Board no later than November 21, 2002 and complete all work by September 18, 2003. Planning Board Meeting, October 17, 2002 2 �There was an open discussion on the length of time it would take to complete all of the remediation work as well as all of the proposed site plan work. The Board, by consensus, asked the applicant to resolve the drainage and retaining wall issues first then return with a schedule for the remaining work. Karl Dibble stated that the neighbors do not have any more water entering their properties. Antonio Rodrigues is one of Karl Dibble's neighbors. He stated that Karl Dibble has added an additional two (2) feet of concrete to the top of the existing walls. The Chair polled the Board. Nicholas Cicchetti asked how long will the work take to complete. Dan Pennella responded about 60 days. George Tanner had no comment. David Perlmutter stated that the Board should approve the drainage and the walls. He also stated that the applicant should return in 30 days and report on the status of the drainage and the retaining walls. Based on his report, the Board will either allow the applicant to proceed with the remainder of the work or recommend that the matter be turned over to the Village Attorney. Ed McCarthy stated that the applicant should return in 30 days. Richard Blancato stated that the entire plan should be approved. David Perlmutter made a motion to reject the application and move the matter to the State Supreme Court. George Tanner seconded. The Chair asked the Board for comments. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that he is against rejecting the application. Richard Blancato stated that the remediation work would be listed first on the construction schedule. There was an open discussion on how to proceed with the application. Planning Board Meeting, October 17, 2002 3 �I Richard Blancato stated that the site plan was mutually agreed upon previously. He stated that the applicant wants to start working. The Chair referred to the Village Engineer. Dan Pennella stated that if the applicant starts and does not finish the work; it would be a big concern for the neighbors. Karl Dibble stated that he wants to do the job right. The Chair recommended altering the resolution by having the applicant perform the remediation work first and then submit a construction schedule for the remainder of the work. Richard Blancato stated that the applicant wants to perform all of the property drainage at the same time. The Chair asked David Perlmutter to repeat his motion. David Perlmutter stated that based on the current unlawful condition of the site, the continuance of unlawful work and the applicant's unlawful remedial work he motion to reject the application and refer the matter to the State Supreme Court. George Tanner asked about the drywells on the property. There was an open discussion on the property drainage. The Board agreed to approve all drainage work. Karl Dibble stated that he wants the entire site plan approved or nothing. Richard Blancato asked the Board for an adjournment to later in the meeting so that he may speak to his client. 3) Omnipoint This was adjourned to next meeting as per applicant's request. 4) Antonio Rodrigues Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application along with Antonio Rodrigues. Sean McCarthy stated that five (5) copies of the site plan and drainage plans were sent to the NYS DOT. He also stated that Adler Consulting has been contracted to perform a Planning Board Meeting, October 17,2002 4 �traffic study of the proposed parking and traffic plan. He discussed the proposed intersections in detail. George Tanner stated that he was concerned about the ingress and egress of the site and also about making a left-hand turn from the property. Sean McCarthy responded that the traffic consultant would issue a report on their findings. The Chair asked if the Board had other comments. There were none. The Chair asked if the OPRHP (Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation) were contacted since Phillipsburg Manor is across the street. Sean McCarthy responded no. Nicholas Cicchetti asked if the exit would be at the northernmost part of the property. Sean McCarthy responded that the exit is currently at this location. He explained how traffic would flow in case someone was unable to secure a parking space. David Perlmutter made a motion to have the Planning Board act as the lead agency. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that the applicant should work on the Environmental Assessments and the traffic consultant's reports. He stated that the applicant should appear before the Architecture Review Board and the Waterfront Advisory Committee in the meantime. Dave Smith responded that the applicant is on the October 21, 2002 Waterfront Advisory Committee's agenda. 5) Laurentino Rodrigues There was nobody present for this application. 6) Ichabod's Landing The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. Nichols Cicchetti spoke about the road to be built for the stores on the north side. Bruce Lozito responded by speaking about how people would access these stores as well as access to the site. Planning Board Meeting, October 17, 2002 5 �Nicholas Cicchetti asked about the view shed from Route 9. Bruce Lozito responded that the Village has accounted for the view shed in the LWRP. George Tanner asked if the applicant has spoken to the GM developer (Roseland) as of yet. Bruce Lozito responded yes. He stated that Roseland is still working out their plans for the site. Ed McCarthy asked how would the stores receive their deliveries. Bruce Lozito discussed two methods on how merchants would receive their deliveries. The Chair stated that the property is too dense and crowded. He stated that viable alternatives under SEQRA have not been fully addressed. He also stated that the applicant has not shown any factual data as to how the project would succeed. Bruce Lozito responded that they would provide this data in the FEIS. The Chair stated that until the road is known, it is an artificial plan. He also stated that this is the first waterfront project, it must be realistic. The Chair stated that the applicant is not making use of the deep-water port. Bruce Lozito asked if the Board had any ideas. The Chair stated that the applicant could load people for riverboat rides. The Chair stated that a less dense site would be more beneficial to the community. Bruce Lozito responded that he would try to revise the plan and make it more workable. 2) Karl Dibble (continued)Richard Blancato requested an adjournment to next month. He stated that the applicant would return with a construction schedule. He stated that the schedule would reflect all remediation work being performed first. He stated that the ARB meeting is in November. He stated that the applicant couldn't get on their agenda without an approved site plan. Ed Lammers stated that this was a viable alternative. He also stated that the site plan should not be approved without a schedule. David Perlmutter stated that additional screening should be added. George Tanner stated that the schedule should be reviewed by the Village Engineer prior to the next meeting. Planning Board Meeting, October 17,2002 6 �The Chair read the motion aloud. The applicant will provide the following: 1) construction schedule with phased remediation 2) revised screening 3) identification of work The Chair asked when the schedule would be ready for review by the Village Engineer and the Building Department. Richard Blancato responded two weeks. The Chair stated that the schedule is due by October 31, 2002. David Perlmutter added that no additional construction should be done in the meantime. George Tanner made a motion to approve. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 7) Monopole permit application status Ed Lammers stated that he has reviewed the records of previous monopole applicants. He stated that he does not have a sufficient record. George Tanner recommended checking with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ed Lammers asked the Village Planner and Village Engineer to check for any information. The Chair stated that once the files are compiled, the Board would have a worksesion and discuss. Ed Lammers stated that Sprint wants to measure the height of the monopole and make any necessary corrections. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that a Resolution exists concerning the monopole height. He stated that he remembers the applications from previous Tree Commission reviews of surrounding trees as a result of monopole applications. 8) GEIS/Wireless Location Study The Chair stated that the scope has been adopted. Dave Smith stated that selected sites were looked at. He stated that Village owned sites were looked at first, school property (not buildings) were looked at second. He stated that Barnhart Park was looked at for a possible flagpole since it would cover the inner Planning Board Meeting, October 17, 2002 7 �Village and GM as well. He also stated that all technologies would be evaluated. The Chair asked when will the draft GEIS be available for review. Dave Smith responded by the end of the year. The Chair stated that once it is reviewed, a public hearing would be held. He stated that all case studies from the other communities would be included. 9) CFF Realty Victor Solavik is the project architect. He is representing this project on behalf of the applicant. Victor Solavik spoke about the project. He described the proposed 2nd floor addition to the existing structure. The Chair asked about traffic ingress and egress. Victor Solavik responded that there are no changes in the traffic pattern. George Tanner asked about the number of parking spaces. Victor Solavik responded that there are 16 spaces available. He also stated that this is more that what is required. The Chair stated that the Board must declare itself as the lead agency and then refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Dave Smith stated that the Board should refer the applicant to the Architectural Review Board for preliminary comments. George Tanner made a motion to declare the Planning Board as the lead agency, refer the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee and to the Architectural Review Board. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). 10)Barnhart ParkThe Chair stated that the Village Board of Trustees wants to be the lead agency. Dave Smith stated that the Village Trustees have declared lead agency status but the Planning Board would have final site plan approval. The Chair stated a Phase I review of the site should be performed. Planning Board Meeting, October 17,2002 �Dave Smith stated that he would make that recommendation to the Village Board of Trustees. 11) Inner Village Parking Dave Smith stated that he met with George Tanner and Larry Rodrigues concerning Village parking. He stated that they have prepared a sketch of an area in the inner Village that could accommodate 45-50 spaces. Dave Smith also stated that any Zoning Board applicant who cannot meet the parking requirements under the Village Zoning Code would be required to provide a fee to waive the requirement. He stated that the fee would go to the Village Parking Authority. 12) Minutes The minutes from July 2002 were reviewed. George Tanner made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The minutes from September 2002 were reviewed. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, October 17,2002 9 �RECEIVED NOV 16 ?nn? RESOLUTION VILLAGE CLERK KENDAL ON HUDSON CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SITE PLAN APPROVAL October 17, 2002 WHEREAS, on September 6,2001 Kendal on Hudson and the Phelps Community Corporation (jointly the "Applicant"), including its successors and assigns submitted an application to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board ("the Board") requesting site plan and wetlands permit approvals to develop a continuing care retirement community ("CCRC"); and WHEREAS, the proposed CCRC is situated on approximately 21.4 acres on the western portion of the existing Phelps Memorial Hospital Center ("Phelps") campus designated on the tax assessment maps of the Town of Mount Pleasant as Section 110.11, Block 1, Lots 1,2 and 3; and WHEREAS, the proposed CCRC consists of 225 independent living apartments, 24 enriched housing units and 42 skilled nursing beds along with common facilities provided in approximately 435,000 square feet of building area, serviced by 393 parking spaces (the "project"); and WHEREAS, the proposed project was the subject of a comprehensive environmental review conducted by the Mayor and Board of Trustees acting as the Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and that the Mayor and Board of Trustees did issue an Environmental Findings Statement on June 19, 2001, which Findings Statement concluded that with the mitigation measures imposed, the project minimizes or avoids environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable and that after due consideration, the Proposed Action will provide a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social, economic and other considerations of sound public policy; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2001, October 18, 2001 and November 5, 2001, the Planning Board did publicly discuss the contents of the proposed site plan application and the format in which it would be reviewed; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2001, December 3, 2001, December 20, 2001, January 17, 2002 and February 21,2002 the Planning Board conducted and/or continued a public hearing on the detailed site plan and wetlands permit application upon due notice and all persons wishing to be heard were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board did discuss in detail with the Applicant issues related to construction and site preparation, architecture and landscaping, circulation, utility systems and wetland buffer activities; and WHEREAS, as a result of public input during the public hearing process and comments raised by the Planning Board, Village staff, and Village consultants, modifications were made to the proposed site plan application; and Page I of 3 �WHEREAS, the Planning Board, as an involved agency as defined under Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, after thorough review of the environmental documentation, determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Environmental Findings Statement adopted by the Mayor and Board of Trustees as attached to the Planning Board's environmental findings; and WHEREAS, that the site plan approval incorporates by reference the legends on the site plan drawings and any material variation from the approved site plan shall require a resolution from the Planning Board approving said changes; and WHEREAS, as part of the site plan approval there were specific conditions to be completed before building permits are issued or any construction commenced including: 2. The Applicant shall review with the Planning Board the proposed roof drainage system, including the type of materials if gutters and leaders are used, or in their absence, how drainage would be accommodated away from the building and directed to the stormwater management system. 3. The Applicant shall prepare, subject to Planning Board review and approval, drawings illustrating the organization and aesthetic treatment of the roof penetrations and roof scape treatment which shall include sound attenuation and shielding for any use of cooling towers and compressors for the facility's air conditioning system(s). Further, the Applicant shall include facade treatment details for the proposed garage facility, using materials which complement the already proposed buildings. WHEREAS, on September 4, 2002, the Applicant submitted supplemental material including: A 1.5 Roof Plan A2.1 East Elevation (Commons & ILU East) A3.1 Architectural Details and Materials - Typical Elevation SP-11.0 Parking Garage - Detail Site Plan A4.1 Parking Garage -Detail Elevation A4.3 Parking Garage - Section through Cooling Towers all dated 09/05/02, and prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has responded to site plan approval conditions outlined above as follows: • proposes to incorporate a roof drainage system consisting of gutters and downspouts that will be directly connected to the site drainage piping and stormwater management system. The gutters and downspouts will be made of aluminum and painted white to match the buildings' architectural trim; • prepared a roofscape treatment plan that includes an architectural shingle that varies from medium to dark brown; plumbing vents located on the west, south and north facing slopes to minimize visibility from the James H use to the east, said vents to extend a maximum Page 2 of 3 �of twelve inches above the roof surface and to be painted black; and incorporation of rooftop architectural elements such as "lanterns", a "tempietto" to screen major roof penetrations and mechanical appurtenances; and • relocation of the project's cooling towers from the tempietto at the west end of the commons building to a below grade well located between the west side of the parking garage and the adjacent Kendal visitor parking area. Sound attenuators are proposed on top of the towers and evergreen screen plantings are proposed around the perimeter of the well. • incorporation of pre-cast concrete panels for the parking garage that match the earth-tone colors of the Kendal on Hudson residential buildings. WHEREAS, the Planning Board did discuss the proposed supplemental site plan information at their September 19,2002 regularly scheduled meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board requested additional information related to the design of the cooling tower; and WHEREAS, on October 2,2002, the Applicant submitted A4.3 Parking Garage - Section through Cooling Towers dated 10/01/02, prepared by Divney Tung Schwalbe, LLP; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after careful evaluation of the material submitted the Planning Board does hereby approve the supplemental and revised site plan elements as meeting the requirements of Conditions 2 and 3 of the "Conditions to be Completed Before Building Permits Are Issued or Any Construction Commenced" and incorporates those components as part of the approved site plan; and be it further RESOLVED, that the conditions and mitigation identified in the Planning Board's previous site plan approval remain in full force and effect. <4A & \ XsM-w— Nicholas Robinson, Chairman fi/e^tJbr Dated F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolulions\koh revised site plan.wpd Page 3 of 3 2)^ Jco 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-10-17 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/5ea2e18c7631b5759f99feb4864136ea.pdf 0a0b6437430f943b3f64c68d64f389ad PDF Text Text RECEIVED VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING July 18,2002 SEP I 1 ?00|fc VILLAGE CLERK The meeting was called to order at 8:03p.m. by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. /2^/L^f ^0ns-e^,$ Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner David Perlmutter Ed McCarthy Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Absent: Ed Napoleon Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Angie Borders (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Mike Musso (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly/Village RF Engineer) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Douglas Hill sub-division Karl Dibble Scoping session for the GEIS/Wireless Location Study SMSA/ Verizon Wireless Monopole permit application status Zoning Code amendments Other Business Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) (Szwem-Kopczynski absent.) a) Douglas Hill sub-division Andy Tung summarized the Waterfront Advisory Committee decision. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. �There were none. The Chair read the Resolution aloud (see attached). Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to adopt the Resolution as stated. David Perlmi^tter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0) (Szwem-Kopczynski absent). George Tanner made a motion to hold the public hearing at the September 19, 200^2 meeting. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). (Szwem-Kopczynski absent). b) Karl Dibble This is a continuation of the public hearing. Tim Cronin illustrated the existing conditions via nine (9) photos. George Tanner asked if the applicant had applied to the ZBA for a variance for t h ^ fence. He stated that the fence should be 5-foot tall. Richard Blancardo responded that the fence would be changed to be 5-foot tall. The Chair asked if the Village Planner and Village Engineer had any questions. There were none. George Tanner commended Tim Cronin for the excellent work presented in the drawings. He also stated that the trucks that are not part of Mr. Dibble's business would be removed from the property. Karl Dibble responded that he is in the process of removing the additional vehicle^, The Chair asked if there were any public comments. There were none. David Perlmutter made a motion to close the public hearing. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). David Perlmutter made a motion to draft a Resolution for the next meeting. He al^o stated that the removal of vehicles should be added to the Resolution. The Chair added that the Resolution is subject to other required Village approvals^ George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Planning Board Meeting, July 18,2002 2 �c) Draft scope GEIS Wireless Location Study The Chair referred to Dave Smith. Dave Smith stated that the public comment period would be held open until September 9, 2002. The Chair invited public comments on the draft scope. Jeff Ansavino (Scenic Hudson) spoke. He stated that he would be submitting comments on the draft scope. He offered to hold a presentation on the planning for a wireless communication facility. There were no other public comments. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. There were none. The Chair stated that comments could be submitted to Bob Stiloski until September 9, 2002. d) SMSA/ Verizon Wireless This is a continuation from previous meetings. Leslie Snyder gave a chronological summary of the entire application to date. She stated that Village Hall and the Reservoir property would not provide adequate coverage. She stated that thefindingsof the Architectural Review Board and Waterfront Advisory Committee stated that there is no visual impact as a result of this application. The Chair asked if there are any questions. George Tanner questioned Exhibit D in the affidavit package. He asked if the signal could be transmitted behind itself. Michael Primrich responded that the antenna would not transmit behind itself. George Tanner asked how the applicant would transmit to the west. Vincent Amendola asked the Board to look at sheet 3 of the submitted package. He stated that the proposed antenna system would provide coverage to the west. Michael Primrich stated that the antenna pattern could not be overlaid by distance. He stated that the Phoenix program incorporates the terrain in calculation coverages. He stated that the North and South antennas collectively provide coverage to the West. Planning Board Meeting, July 18,2002 3 �George Tanner asked if exhibit A uses the Phoenix program. Leslie Snyder responded yes. George Tanner stated that based on the coverage maps, why not use Village Hall. Vincent Amendola responded that the coverage is based on the height of the building and the road. There was an open discussion on the differences between he coverage maps. The Board asked the applicant to explain if the antennas could be mounted to Village Hall. Leslie Snyder stated that there is a 36-foot difference in height between the two structures and theridgelineis different. Vincent Amendola provided an elevation plan to further illustrate the ridgeline. George Tanner asked if the antennas would be mounted to the roof of the Van Tassel Vincent Amendola responded that the antennas would be mounted to the parapet. George Tanner asked how far off the roof floor would they be mounted. Vincent Amendola responded about 12". The Chair read NYS Building Code section 1191.2 (b) (exterior protection) aloud for the record. He stated that the applicant would need a ruling from the NYS Building Code or from the Village Building Department. Vincent Amendola responded that they would seek a ruling from the Village Building Department. David Perlmutter asked if the GM site were excluded, would Village Hall provide sufficient coverage for the Village. Michael Primrich responded that it would not be cost effective but coverage would be sufficient. Leslie Snyder responded that Village Hall is a pitched roof and the antennas could not be flush-mounted. George Tanner stated that the applicant could use a freestanding flagpole. Leslie Snyder responded that the flagpole needed would be 3-times the height of the existing flagpole. There was an open discussion on the requirements needed for a proposed flagpole. The Chair stated that the applicant has not shown all of the alternates that are available. He stated that the Village is trying to allow universal cellular coverage under the Planning Board Meeting, July 18,2002 4 �Ordinance. He also stated that the Van Tassel is eligible for listing under the State or National Register. The Chair stated that the applicant should provide the following information: 1) How they intend to comply with the NYS Building Code. 2) The history of the Van Tassel and the historic contribution to the Village. 3) If the historic structure of the building will be effected. Leslie Snyder stated that the aesthetics of the Van Tassel were previously addressed. There was an open discussion on the historic nature and aesthetics of the Van Tassel. The Chair asked the applicant if they had anything further to submit. Leslie Snyder responded no. She stated that she wanted the letter from the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation submitted for the record. The Chair summarized the Secretary of Interiors Standards for restoration of Historic Structures. He also summarized some of the historic nature of the Van Tassel building. He stated that a historic architect or art historian could determine if adding this equipment to the building would compromise the historic nature of the Van Tassel. Ed Lammers referred to Section 62.22.2 (D) sub-section (8) of the Village Code. He stated that although both structures are in a C-2 district, the Van Tassel abuts a residential district and Village Hall does not. Pursuant to 66.22.2(D) (8), the applicant has burden to prove that adequate coverage cannot be achieved by citing the facility on a lot, which does not abut a residential district. Accordingly, the applicant must prove that Village Hall or some other site that does not abut a residential district cannot be utilized. The Chair asked the applicant if their application is complete or will the applicant submit further documents on the historic fabric of this building meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for restoration of Historic Structures. Leslie Snyder asked if the historic input would help the Board make its decision. The Chair stated that an expert should evaluate the building and the possible impact as a result of this proposed application. David Perlmutter stated that a comparison should be made between the Van Tassel and Village Hall because he thinks that it is a more appropriate structure since it does not abut a residential district. Leslie Snyder responded if she should compare the two structures with the GM site or without the GM site. David Perlmutter responded that the GM site is a hypothetical situation. He stated that if a large structure were built on the GM site, the current Verizon proposal would not be sufficient to provide cellular coverage to the GM site anyway. Planning Board Meeting, July 18,2002 5 �Leslie Snyder asked if the Board would prefer multiple sites instead of one site in order to provide coverage. The Board agreed that this alternative should be evaluated by using whatever technology available. The Chair referred to Mike Musso for input. Mike Musso asked the applicant about the height used to represent Village Hall in the coverage maps. Vincent Amendola responded that 35-feet was used for Village Hall. George Tanner asked the applicant to contact Metro North for possibly installing an antenna on their property. The Chair asked if there were any other comments from the Board. There were none. Leslie Snyder asked for a recess in order to discuss possible alternatives with her client. This was temporarily adjourned. e) Monopole permit application status Dave Snyder is representing Sprint Communications, Inc. He stated that the Village Attorney invited him to the meeting. He stated that Sprint is prepared to do whatever is necessary to conform to the original approval. Ed Lammers stated that he has invited all occupants of the monopole as well as several local interested agencies to speak about the monopole. He stated that Sprint contacted him regarding making the necessary corrections to the monopole. He also stated that Sprint was informed that a Stop Work Order was issued. Felix Sanchez is the Regional representative for Crown. He stated that he is representing the monopole owners. George Tanner asked about Sprint's location on the pole. Dave Snyder responded that Sprint is on the top of the pole. He stated that Sprint is prepared to make all revisions necessary to conform to the original approval. Felix Sanchez stated that he feels that the monopole is at the correct height. The Chair asked if the monopole could be replaced and made to look like a Christmas tree. Planning Board Meeting, July 18, 2002 6 �Felix Sanchez responded yes. The Chair stated that this use is not permitted in a hospital zone. This was adjourned to next meeting. d) SMSA7 Verizon Wireless (continuedV Leslie Snyder stated that if the Planning Board were prepared to make a decision tonight, they would accept it. She stated that if the Board were not prepared to make a decision, they would provide whatever is necessary. The Chair stated that the record is incomplete. He stated that the applicant needs an appropriate architect or art historian familiar with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The Chair asked the Board for their comments. David Perlmutter stated that the applicant is determined to use 95 Beekman Avenue. He stated that the maps provided to the Board are wrong and incomplete. He stated that the applicant has not provided enough information. He also stated that he is prepared to make a decision to deny the application. George Tanner responded that he was prepared to make a decision. Nicholas Cicchetti responded that he was prepared to make a decision. Ed McCarthy responded that he was prepared to make a decision. Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski responded that she was not prepared to make a decision. The Chair referred to the applicant. Leslie Snyder asked if the only thing outstanding from the record is the architectural historian. The Chair stated that the Village Planner also asked for a comparison to Village Hall. The Chair referred to the Village Planner. Dave Smith asked the applicant if they could possibly use an array of antennas on Village Hall. Leslie Snyder asked if the Board would approve Village Hall. The Chair responded that if Village Hall is a viable alternative, and the aesthetics are approved, they would certainly consider approving Village Hall. Planning Board Meeting, July 18,2002 7 �There was an open discussion on what constitutes an acceptable alternative. It was determined that by using other technologies on Village Hall, it would be acceptable. The Board stated that the visual impact should not be severe. Leslie Snyder stated that the applicant would submit a rooftop mount since the antennas cannot be flush mounted to the Village Hall roof. The Chair referred to Mike Musso. Mike Musso asked about the mounting equipment associated with this application. He stated that Village Hall could be used if the Village has an attic or other appropriate space that the equipment could be kept. The Chair asked the applicant to work with the Village Administrator on securing a lease with the Village. If that cannot be worked out, then he also stated that the applicant could get a historic architectural analysis of the Van Tassel building. Also, the applicant could answer the question raised concerning the interpretation of the NYS Building Code. Leslie Snyder stated that the applicant would try to secure a lease with Village Hall. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 0 Zoning Code Amendments Dave Smith summarized the comments to the letter dated July 9, 2002 (see attached). The Chair asked if the Board had any objections to the changes. There were no objections. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to approve with revisions. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). g) Other Business The Chair stated that the Village Trustees have asked for recommendations for a moratorium on all future wireless applications until the GEIS is completed. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve the recommendation with the exception that it does not apply to the existing Omnipoint and Verizon applications. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Dave Smith submitted a copy of a letter dated July 16, 2002 to the Village Trustees concerning the Neighborhood Characteristic Study (see attached). Planning Board Meeting, July 18, 2002 �h) Minutes The minutes for March 2002, April 2002, May 2002 and June 2002 were reviewed. George Tanner made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted with approval of Village Counsel. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, July 18,2002 9 �RESOLUTION Adopted at the July 18,2002 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board RESOLUTION: Subdivision of Parcel known as Section 115.08, Block 1, Lot 2 PROPOSED: Subdivision of an existing 56.9± acre parcel into two lots. Lot A consisting of ±33.3 acres, Lot B of ±22.2 acres the transfer of 1.4± acres tot he owners of two existing parcels (115.08-1-35 and 115.08-1-36) and the transfer to Lot A of ±1.0 acres of land from David Rockefeller, the owner of property immediately to the north, under an existing driveway that will serve Lot A. OWNER: David Rockefeller Fund LOCATION: West of Webber Avenue TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Part of Section 115.08, Block 1 Lot 2 ZONING: R-l WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the Planning Board) has reviewed a preliminary plat application dated June 5,2002, including long environmental assessment form and preliminary subdivision map submitted on behalf of the David Rockefeller Fund (the Applicant); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has, after following the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) declared themselves to be the Lead Agency in this action; and WHEREAS, Planning Board, after finding the application to be complete, did direct the Applicant to appear before the Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for a consistency review with respect to the goals and policies outlined in the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP); and WHEREAS, the WAC, at its July 2002 meeting did review the application and found it to be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the LWRP; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board does hereby grant preliminary plat approval and directs the Applicant to distribute the preliminary plat to the appropriate agencies as outlined in Article III.6B of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Subdivision Regulations for comment prior to submission of the application for Final Subdivision Plat Approval. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW ,Chairman F- \M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolutions\Douglus Hill wpd Date � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-07-18 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/f41a34e6a3d0f48b22b438fdfd7d35d9.pdf cc9787a43378a64d45bc5571704e0596 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING June 20, 2002 The meeting was called to order at 8:04p.m. by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner David Perlmutter Ed Napoleon Present: RtCEIVED JUL - 5 2002 VILLAGE CLERK Absent: Ed McCarthy Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Mike Musso (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly/Village RF Engineer) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Announcements: None. Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) 0 J) Douglas Hill sub-division Karl Dibble Draft scope GEIS Wireless Location Study Monopole Permit application status SMSA/ Verizon Wireless Historic Landmark designation Affordable Housing Phelps Professional Building Minutes Other Business George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Napoleon absent). a) Douglas Hill sub-division The Chair asked if the Board had any questions for the applicant. 1\t/o\ �There were none. The Chair stated that he disagrees with the application with regards to the scenic impacts to the site. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to refer this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee for LWRP review. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (Napoleon absent). b) Karl Dibble The applicant provided the proof of mailings to Bob Stiloski. Richard Blancardo is the applicant's attorney. He clarified the proposed use of the property. He stated that there is an existing building on the property and that the proposed additional structure would be an extension of the current mixed-use. He stated that the only possible zoning restriction would be lot coverage and that the proposal would not violate that zoning restriction and that no variances would be required. He stated that the height of the structure would be worked out with the architect and Building Department. He stated that the property would not be used as a nursery. He stated that the property would not contain gas tanks, fertilizer, etc on site. Lastly, he stated that the applicant would be residing above the proposed new structure. Tim Cronin is the Project Engineer. He spoke about the proposed retaining wall changes and the new dry wells. Jim Margotta asked about the railroad tie retaining wall. Tim Cronin responded that it would be removed. The Chair asked about the corrective measures to be taken for the drainage of the property. Tim Cronin responded that two dry wells would be added. The Chair asked if the proposed dry wells would prevent water from flowing onto the neighbor's property or onto Broadway. Tim Cronin responded yes. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair referred to the Village consultants. Planning Board Meeting, June 20,2002 2 �Dan Pennella asked if there would be two terrace walls built on the west side. Tim Cronin responded that the walls would be installed to protect the neighbor's property. He stated that the walls would be two-foot high. Dave Smith asked if any maintenance would be needed for the dry wells. Tim Cronin responded that there is no maintenance required for the dry wells. The Chair opened the public hearing. Don Catano (43 Lawrence Ave.) spoke. He stated that the property was raised 5 feet. He asked if the property would be raised two additional feet. Tim Cronin responded no. He stated that the wall would be two feet in total. Don Catano asked if the existing retaining walls and dirt would be removed. Tim Cronin responded yes. Don Catano stated that the property should be leveled back down to street level. Tim Cronin discussed the original conditions. He spoke about the retaining walls. Don Catano stated that he disagreed with the stated original conditions. He stated that the applicant poured concrete footings. He stated that the footings should be removed. Tim Cronin responded that he is unaware of any footings. He stated that once the grade is restored, all foreign materials would be removed. There was an open discussion on whether the Board could recommend restitution to the neighbors for damages caused by the applicant. The Chair referred to the Village Attorney. Ed Lammers responded that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to recommend any restitution. Antonio Rodriguez spoke. He stated as long as the job is done properly, he is satisfied. He asked about the distance between the walls and the buildings. Tim Cronin responded that the walls would start one foot onto the applicant's property. Charles Dumis (47 Lawrence Ave.) spoke. He asked about the parking associated with the property. Tim Cronin responded that there are 13 spaces available on the property. Charles Dumis asked how many vehicles on the property are used for the business. Tim Cronin responded four spaces would be used for the business. Mrs. Catano spoke. She stated that the applicant has planted 20-foot high trees on top of the existing gravel and retaining walls. Tim Cronin responded that it would be corrected. Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2002 3 �Jim Margotta asked for a landscaping plan to be submitted. Dan Pennella stated that the applicant was to provide sketches to further illustrate the retaining walls. There was an open discussion on the sketches to be provided. It was decided that the applicant would provide a landscape plan. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to submit the following: 1) A landscape plan 2) Visuals Richard Blancardo responded that the Village Ordinance requires screening. Don Catano requested that the screening not exceed 5-6 feet in height. The Chair stated that a green buffer should be installed and maintained by the applicant. Tim Cronin inquired about the visuals required by the Board. There was an open discussion on the visuals to be submitted to the Board. Dave Smith asked about the equipment to be stored on site. Karl Dibble responded that the equipment would be stored in the proposed garage. George Tanner asked if the other vehicles would be removed from the property. Karl Dibble responded yes. David Perlmutter made a motion to hold the public hearing open to the next meeting. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). c) Draft scope GEIS Wireless Location Study The Draft was circulated to the Board (see attached). The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. There were none. The Chair stated that the Public Schools of the Tarrytown's should be added to the list of interested agencies. The Chair stated that the ARB criteria and SEQRA laws of the Village of Sleepy Hollow should be added (in part II). He also stated that the Village Tree Ordinance should be added (in part V). Planning Board Meeting, June 20,2002 4 �It was agreed that the public comment period for the GEIS would b ^ held open until September 9, 2002. The Chair read the Resolution aloud for the record (see attached). George Tanner made a motion to adopt the Resolution. Nicholas C icchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). d) Monopole permit application status The Chair summarized the current monopole issues. He referred to the Village consultants for their input. Ed Lammers stated that on May 22, 2002, Sprint contacted Bob Stiloski in order to perform some work on the monopole. He stated that Bob Stiloski informed Sprint that no work should be performed on the monopole. Bob Stiloski stated that on May 29, 2002, Sprint was observed performing work on the monopole. Ed Lammers stated that the Village instructed the representatives o^" Sprint to cease working on the monopole, and that Sprint may only perform such work as was necessary to make sure the system is operational. He stated that Sprint would have to appear before the Planning Board and explain exactly what was done. Leslie Snyder spoke. She detailed what was previously approved a^id what currently exists. She spoke about Sprint's attempt to move the antenna from the current height of 116 feet to the approved height of 110 feet. There was an open discussion on whether an applicant can make acLjustments to modify a previously approved site plan. It was determined that alterations to a previously approved site plar* require a new application. The Chair stated that Kykuit and the Rockefeller State Park Preserve are a concern of the Planning Board. He sated that Sprint stipulated that the height of thie monopole would not exceed the height of the tree line. Despite Sprint's stipulation, t:he height of the monopole exceeded the height of the tree line. He stated that a notice should be sent to Sprint, all monopole occupants and Phelps Hospital inviting them t o the next Planning Board meeting to discuss the height of the monopole. The Board discussed whether the monopole is a hospital use. Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2002 5 �George Tanner made a motion to carry this item over to the next meeting. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that the Board would like to review the original lease between the monopole occupants and Phelps Hospital. e) SMSA/ Verizon Wireless This is a continuation from previous meetings. Leslie Snyder stated that Verizon has re-approached St. Theresa's Church. She submitted a letter dated June 2,2002 from St. Theresa's Church indicating that they are still not interested in placing an antenna on the roof of the church. Leslie Snyder submitted revised coverage maps to the Board. The Chair asked if the maps were provided to the Village consultants. Dan Pennella stated that his office had not received the revised maps. Leslie Snyder provided copies to the Village consultants. George Tanner referred to Exhibit A from the submitted affidavit. He referred to the coverage gaps. Leslie Snyder responded that a different simulation program was used to generate the revised coverage maps. George Tanner compared Exhibit A and Exhibit B. He stated that they don't match. Leslie Snyder responded that there are differences with the software and the plotter used. There was an open discussion on the accuracy of the maps used to demonstrate the proposed coverage. The Chair stated that the maps should be accurate since they are part of the public record. George Tanner asked about the proposed antenna mounting locations. Vincent Amandolo responded that the antennas would be mounted on the North, South and East portions of the building. George Tanner asked how Verizon is picking up coverage to the West. Michael Primrich responded that the antenna selected would provide adequate coverage Planning Board Meeting, June 20,2002 6 �to the West. George Tanner asked if the antennas could be guided up and down as well as side-to-side. Michael Primrich responded yes but they would not provide adequate coverage. The Chair stated that Village Hall is not adequate according to submitted maps. He asked the applicant to further explain. Vincent Amandolo responded that there is a 30-foot difference in height between the Van Tassel Building and Village Hall. George Tanner asked for the elevations of both buildings above sea level. Vincent Amandolo responded that both buildings are at 80 feet above sea level. George Tanner asked about the Village owned property at the reservoir. Leslie Snyder responded that a monopole would be required. The Chair stated that the reservoir is 405-feet above sea level. The Chair stated that there are two Village properties available. They are as follows: 1) Village Hall 2) Reservoir The Chair stated that the Code requires the applicant to submit viable alternatives and also encourages the use of Village owned lands and that it would be helpful to submit a written explanation detailing why both locations are not viable. Michael Primrich stated that if the structure elevation is too high, the location is not useable. He stated that tall buildings in Manhattan are not used for this same reason. Leslie Snyder asked for a clarification on what the Board expects at the next meeting. It was discussed that the applicant should demonstrate why the applicant cannot use either Village Hall or the Reservior. The Chair asked if there were any other questions. Dan Pennella asked if coverage maps of the monopole are computer generated. Michael Primrich responded yes. He explained that Verizon uses several different software packages. He stated that these plots are generated and merged with street atlas software at the same scale. The Chair asked if the Board had any other questions. Planning Board Meeting, June 20, 2002 7 �There were none. David Perlmutter made a motion to continue to the next meeting. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that all materials should be submitted 10 days prior to the next meeting. 0 Historic Landmark designation The Chair stated that the Board has been asked for comments on the Historic Landmark designation for the mansions between the high school and the elementary school. There were no objections by consensus. g) Affordable Housing This was carried over to next meeting. h) Phelps Professional Building The Chair stated that as a condition of a previous site plan approval, some of the parking for the building was to be carried over to another site. George Tanner asked about the blasting protocols. The Chair stated that the Board should look at the blasting protocols for the Town of Greenberg as a model. i) Minutes The minutes for March 2002, April 2002 and May 2002 will be reviewed at the next meeting. j) Other Business Dave Smith stated that he has received a letter from Mike Peters representing Omnipoint. He stated that Omnipoint claims to have responded to all of the Village's comments. The letter also states that Omnipoint is revising their comments to reflect the height issues. Planning Board Meeting, June 20,2002 8 �The Chair stated that the Board would not hold a meeting in August 2002. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, June 20,2002 9 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ACT AS LEAD AGENCY VILLAGE-WIDE WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SITING PLAN WHEREAS, the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") is provided the authority under Section 62-22.2.N of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village Code") to grant special use and site plan permits for location, construction and installation of wireless communications facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is concerned with the unplanned proliferation of wireless communication facilities throughout the Village and the potential visual and aesthetic impacts associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is desirous, after reviewing several completed and pending applications to create a comprehensive Village-wide wireless antenna siting plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recognizes the importance of colocating facilities in strategic locations and incorporating stealth technology to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby declare its intent to act as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) laws for the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) analyzing colocational, aesthetics and other issues of sound planning and public policy; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board will be holding a public scoping session on July 18,2002, at 8:00 PM at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 on the attached draft scoping outline; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the public comment period will held open until during which time written comments can be submitted for the Planning Board's consideration and such correspondence should be directed to Mr. Robert Stilowski, Director of Fire and Life Safety at Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591. Nicholas Robinson, Chairman F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\ResoIutions\M720.22 - Wireless GEIS noi.wpd Date �Scoping Outline: Proposed Wireless Communication Facility Locational Plan Village of Sleepy Hollow, New York Lead Agency: Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board. Public Scoping Session to be held on July 18,2002. Comment period held open until July 25,2002. List of other interested, involved and other agencies Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor and Board of Trustees Village of Sleepy Hollow Westchester County Department of Planning Town of Mt. Pleasant Supervisor's Office Town of Greenburg Supervisor's Office Mayor Village of Tarrytown New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Region III. Scenic Hudson Description of Proposed Action The Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the Planning Board) is responsible for the review and issuing of special permits and site plan approvals for wireless communication facilities under Section 62-22.2 of the Zoning Code. The Planning Board has become concerned about the proliferation of wireless communication facilities (WCF's) throughout the Village and the potential cumulative impact of these facilities on the landscape. In an effort to coordinate the siting of these facilities, the Planning Board is conducting a wireless communication facility locational plan for the entire Village. The goal of the GEIS is to evaluate where the optimal site(s) for co-locating multiple carriers and how those prospective facilities can be constructed so that they present the least impact as possible. I. Executive Summary A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Brief Description of Proposed Action Need for the Project Summary of Relevant Environmental Conditions Summary of Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts Mitigation Measures Proposed Summary of Alternatives Involved and Interested Agencies, Required Permits/Approvals II. Description of Proposed Action 1. Telecommunications Act of 1996 �2. Identification of Different Personal Wireless Services Providers a. b. c. d. e. Cellular Personal Communication Services (PCS) Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Paging 3. Viewsheds of Local/Regional Significance (LWRP) 4. Existing Wireless Carriers in the Village and Surrounding Area. III. Existing Environmental Conditions, Anticipated Impacts aad Mitigatim 1. Siting requirements a. Site Identification and Preliminary Screening (1) elevation (2) physical setting (3) aesthetics (4) proximity to sensitive receptors (5) proximity to historic landmarks 2. Identification of potential co-locational sites 3. Impact Evaluation of Each Site (a) (b) (c) 4. Proposed Mitigation (a) (b) (c) (d) IV. aesthetics physical disturbance cumulative impacts stealth camouflage landscaping other Alternatives Alternative Sites Considered V. Applicability to LWRP �VI. Adverse environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated if the proposed action is implemented. VII. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of environmental resources that would be associated with the proposed action should it be implemented. VIII. Any growth inducing impacts of the proposed action. IX. Appendix Field measurement survey analysis F:\MVM-720 Sleepy HoUowVScoping OutlincsNProposed Wireless Comm Fac Cotocational Ptan.wpd � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-06-20 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/ce0a7bd089f077b6dfefe5b453da4dba.pdf b8f4462fd5249e75f1cb3a3d409d3214 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING April 18, 2002 RECEIVED MAY 1 3 ° W VILLAGE CLERK The meeting was called to order at 8:05p.m. by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti Ed Napoleon George Tanner David Perlmutter '//%/ Absent: Ed McCarthy Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti/ Village Engineer) Don Ruggerio (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Ward Willis (Keane & Beane/Village Special Counsel) Mike Musso (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers/Village RF Engineer) Announcements: None. Agenda: A) B) C) D) E) F) G) H) I) J) County House Road SMSA/ Verizon Wireless Fremont Pond Dredging Laurentino Rodriguez Karl Dibble Kendal-On-Hudson Douglas Hill sub-division Other Business Resolutions Minutes George Tanner made a motion to auopt the revised agenda. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). O ^ �A) County House Road The Chair read a brief statement from Joel Sachs summarizing the recent court decision on the County House Road application. Tom Julius is the applicant. He requested that the public hearing be scheduled for the Board's next meeting. The Chair asked if the Board had any objections. There was no objection. George Tanner made a motion to schedule the public hearing for final plat approval on May 16, 2002. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Tom Julius stated that he submitted easements that were previously in draft form. The Chair stated that the applicant should confer with Village Counsel and the Village Planner. B) SMSA7 Verizon Wireless This is a continuation of a previous meeting. The Chair asked if the applicant had anything to add. Leslie Snyder is the attorney representing this application. She summarized the application to date including the Waterfront Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Board reviews. She also spoke about the previous Planning Board meeting and several concerns of the public and of the Board. She stated that she would address all concerns. The Chair summarized the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He referred to the Village RF Engineer. Mike Musso (Village RF Engineer) spoke about his review of the application. He spoke about the federal criteria for safe emission levels. He stated that the FCC governs the emission levels based on worldwide studies performed by the NYS Department of Health, EPA, etc. He stated that cellular service operates at a particular frequency. He stated that the maximum exposure (Building roof) is 23-times lower than the federal criteria for safe emission levels. At lower levels, the exposure is 100-times lower than the federal criteria for safe emission levels. At the nearby elementary school (Morse) the exposure is 300-times lower than the federal criteria for safe emission levels. He stated Planning Board Meeting, April 18,2002 2 �that the calculations used the worse case scenario. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Maryann Grogan (95 Beekman Ave spoke). She read a letter from Dr. Mulder (University of Wisconsin). She asked about the Relative Risk (RR). Mike Musso responded that the Relative Risk takes a great time to perform. He stated that it would be based on a study including people who were exposed and people who were not exposed. Maryann Grogan asked about the milli-T static field. Mike Musso referred to Arnie Amosaki (RF Consultant). Arnie Amosaki responded that the milli-T static field is for magnetic field applications. He stated that this application would exhibit electro-magnetic fields. He stated that the milli-T fields do not apply. Maryann Grogan asked about the effects on pacemakers. Mike Musso referred to a study on microwaves and pacemakers. He stated that the study showed no effects on pacemakers. He stated that this application is operating below microwave frequencies. He also stated that modern pacemakers are made with a shielding device. Maryann Grogan thanked the Board for their efforts. Mario Bellanich spoke. He stated that the Village residents are afraid of exposure. He stated that this application must be looked at very carefully. Ann Cronan spoke. She stated that she was concerned with the emissions and their effects on the local elementary school (Morse). The Chair asked if a representative of the building was present. There was nobody present to represent the building owners. The Chair asked if the landlord was notified. Leslie Snyder responded that the landlord was notified and is in favor of the application. The Chair referred to Arnie Amosaki. Arnie Amosaki spoke about the power density emissions. He stated that cellular phone emissions are 1000-times more powerful than the equipment proposed in this application. Planning Board Meeting, April 18, 2002 3 �The Chair asked Arnie Amosaki to submit his qualifications to the Board for the record. Arnie Amosaki agreed. The Chair referred to the Village Attorney. Ed Lammers spoke to the public about the limitations of the Planning Board. He stated that the Planning Board could determine that the cell towers, etc, are aesthetically pleasing. He stated that the applicant must meet the FCC standards. He stated that the applicant must try to place on Village property to minimize disruptions but must also provide alternative sites. He stated that the Board couldn't place higher criteria than allowed by the FCC. Maryann Grogan asked about the weight of the antennas. She stated that there have been previous problems with the roof. Leslie Snyder stated that a structural engineer has certified the proposed work. The Chair stated that the Village Engineer would perform an independent review. Leslie Snyder summarized the application to date. She discussed the Waterfront Advisory Committee's decision and stated that this application had been pending for some time. She reviewed the visual impact via four photos. She showed the small panel antennas on the Van Tassel building and stated that the panels would not be seen at all. She referred to Vincent Amandola for his input. Vincent Amandola (H2M Group) spoke on behalf of Verizon as a planning consultant. He stated that the antennas would blend into the building exterior. Leslie Snyder stated that this would be the only application that Verizon would be submitting in the Village. George Tanner read Village Code Section 62-22-2 (3) concerning other providers. Leslie Snyder referred to page 3 of the submitted RF affidavit. There was an open discussion on the coordination between other providers. Leslie Snyder asked if the Board had any other concerns. There were none. The Chair stated for the record that the application has not been pending for some time. He also stated that the applicant has not been delayed by other Village Boards. He stated that the Board would review the full application once the public hearing is completed to assure that the applicant has complied with all provisions. Planning Board Meeting, April 18, 2002 4 �The Chair asked if there were any other public comments. Maryann Grogan asked if there would be any other providers looking to place antennas on the roof of the Van Tassel. Leslie Snyder responded that other applicants could submit proposals to place equipment on the Van Tassel but they would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Leslie Snyder referred to a letter submitted to the Board dated April 16,2002 from Snyder and Snyder with the attached copy of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since there were no other public comments, Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to close the public hearing. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). George Tanner made a motion to move the application to the next meeting so that the Planning Board could properly review the entire application. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). C) Fremont Pond Jerome Fine is presenting this application. He stated that the application is complete. The Chair opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, George Tanner made a motion to close the public hearing. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair read the Resolution for the record. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to approve the Resolution with minor corrections. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). D) Laurentino Rodriguez This is a continuation of a previous meeting. The Chair referred to the Village Planner and Village Engineer. Dave Smith stated that the applicant complied with the design requirements of the Planning Board. He stated that the applicant would re-stripe Chestnut Street. Dan Pennella stated that the architect has completed all engineering requests. He stated Planning Board Meeting, April 18,2002 5 �that a complete set of drawings should be provided. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. George Tanner asked if the parking has been tied into the deed. Ed Lammers responded that the parking is a requirement of the Resolution. He stated that the applicant must submit proof prior to seeking a Building permit. The Chair asked if there were any other comments from the Board. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Karl Dibble (315 Broadway) asked if drainage calculations were submitted. Dan Pennella responded yes. Since there were no other public comments, George Tanner made a motion to close the public hearing. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair read the Resolution for the record. George Tanner made a motion to adopt the Resolution as revised. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). E) Karl Dibble This is a continuation of previous meetings. The Chair referred to the Village Planner and Village Engineer for their comments. Dave Smith stated that the plans from the Architect were submitted on time. He stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee requested that they be allowed to review the plans of the additional building. Dan Pennella stated that the storm water calculations were submitted and were acceptable. He stated that revisions were submitted based on discussions between the consultants. The Chair asked if the public had an opportunity to review the plans. Antonio Rodriguez stated that he has not reviewed the drawings. Planning Board Meeting, April 18, 2002 6 �The Chair stated that the Board needs time to review the plans. David Perlmutter made a motion to carry over the application to the next meeting. He stated that if the Village Engineer or Village Planner finds that the applicant is not cooperating, he would make a motion to drop the application from the Planning Board agenda. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). F) Kendal on Hudson This is a continuation of a previous meeting. The Chair gave a summary of the previous meeting. Dave Smith distributed page 8 of 14 of the Resolution. It included the proposed changes. (See attached). The Chair referred to the applicant. Andy Tung spoke about revisions to the plans based on a letter from the Village Engineer. The Chair asked the Planning Board for comments. George Tanner asked if the parking garage design is completed. Andy Tung responded that the garage should not stick out but blend into the buildings. He spoke about the garage in detail. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. There were none. Al DelBello stated that the language of page 8 of 14 summarized the Rockwood Hall issue. The Chair asked if the lease agreement was provided to the Village Special Counsel. There was an open discussion on the lease agreement. It was determined that the lease agreement would be reviewed. Final Site Plan approval would be dependent on the proper review and acceptance of the lease agreement. The Chair asked about the State Park requirements on the carriage path maintenance. Planning Board Meeting, April 18,2002 7 �Al DelBello responded that the applicant would comply. Dave Smith spoke about page 11 of 14. The Chair asked if the applicant had a copy of the document. Andy Tung responded no. The Chair asked about the connecting path. There was an open discussion on the connecting path. It was determined that proper language would be added. The Chair asked if there were any other connections. There were none. The Chair reviewed the Resolution for the record. He referred to the Board's comments on: 1) Noise 2) Air quality The Chair asked why the applicant chose oil over natural gas. Andy Tung responded that high-pressure gas is needed and only low-pressure gas is available. George Tanner stated that he was concerned with the potential of oil tank leakage. The Chair stated that the language would be revised to state that the applicant would try to use natural gas instead of heating oil. 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Storm water runoff at the Metro North tracks. Wetlands Tree Commission review Recreation Fees Pedestrian trail system and wooded buffer area Garage facade Construction road/15 spaces on Rockwood Hall There was an open discussion on the current and proposed parking conditions. It was determined that the parking would be permanent. Appropriate language was added to properly reflect these changes. 10) Wetlands buffer area and stream channel stabilization. There was an open discussion on whether a negative declaration would be issued. Planning Board Meeting, April 18, 2002 8 �Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to adopt with changes. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (4-0) (David Perlmutter not present). The Chair summarized the Site Plan and Wetlands permit approval for the record. The document was reviewed and minor grammar and punctuation changes were made. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). David Jones thanked the Board for their diligent efforts on this application. G) Douglas Hill Sub-division This is an informational meeting. Andy Tung is representing this application with John Maxwell (attorney). They are representing the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Andy Tung summarized the parcel limits. He described the proposed sub-division. He stated that the proposal would cut the parcel in half. Andy Tung stated that a 1.4-acre parcel would be sold to a neighbor. He stated that the 1.4-acre parcel would be mixed in with an existing parcel in order to construct a onefamily residence. He stated that the other parcel would give land under a driveway to an existing neighboring landowner. George Tanner asked about the current zoning. Andy Tung responded R-1. The Board had no further questions. H) Other Business The Board was required to elect a Chairman. David Perlmutter made a motion to re-elect Nicholas Robinson. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). I) Resolutions a) Resolution to recommend removal of the existing monopoleThis Resolution is a recommendation by the Planning Board to the Village Board Planning Board Meeting, April 18, 2002 9 �of Trustees and Building Inspector to remove some or all of the existing monopole bases on the occupants' failure to abide by the site plan approval. The Chair referred to Dave Smith for his comments. Dave Smith stated that all cell occupants would have to appear before the Planning Board as a result of this Resolution. The Resolution was read aloud for the record (attached). David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the Resolution. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). b) Resolution for Generic Environmental Impact Statement The Chair spoke about the generic environmental impact statement (GEIS). The Resolution was read aloud for the record (attached). Ed Lammers stated that the Board should seek Board of Trustees approval for consulting fees. The Chair agreed and appropriate language was added. George Tanner made a motion to approve. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). J) Minutes The minutes for March 2002 will be reviewed at the next meeting. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 11:23 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, April 18,2002 10 �April 18,2002 To: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman and Planning Board Members From: David B. Smith Re: Kendal on Hudson Site Plan/ Wetlands Permit Approval Attached hereto is revised language regarding public access between the Kendal facility and Rockwood Hall State Park and potential future connection to the south. This language reflects input from Kendal on Hudson representatives, our office, Keane & Beane, and the Village Administrator and hopefully provides a reasonable solution to this issue. �CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE SITE PLAN IS SIGNED 1. The Applicant's submission to the Village's Special Counsel for review of a fully executed lease agreement by and between Kendal on Hudson and Phelps Memorial Hospital O S I I l i BEsiiiSliffll *°r m e Project, said lease to contain terms and conditions drawn to the satisfaction of counsel which protect and prohibit development on that portion of the site denoted as the "buffer area" of approximately seven acres and more fully described on Site Layout Plan SP-2.0. BBlBWlBffB^^ tmrnmumwawmBBB Page 8 of 14 �RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on or about October 15, 1998, the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board ("the Planning Board") approved a site plan and special permit approval for the installation of a 110-foot monopole and two antenna arrays, New York SMSA Limited Partnership and Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Collectively "the Applicant") with related equipment at the base thereof for wireless communications on the grounds of Phelps Memorial Hospital (''the action"); and WHEREAS, after an environmental review conducted by the Planning Board, the Planning Board granted site plan and special permit approvals for the action based on a site plan submission consisting of six sheets, last revised 9/15/98; and WHEREAS, sheet 6 of 6 of the approved site plan entitled "Monopole and Shelter Elevations" prepared by Edwards & Kelcey Engineers, last revised 6/29/98 includes a depiction of the monopole and antenna arrays as approved by the Planning Board and such approvals included a monopole and antenna array system which did not exceed 110 feet; and WHEREAS, on November 13,2001, Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers (CAMCE) did submit to Nicholas Robinson, Chairman and Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Members, a memorandum which detailed field measurements depicting actual height of the monopole; and WHEREAS, the CAMCE memorandum reviewed field measurements which indicated the monopole height was, 117.08 ± feet in height, in excess of that initially approved by 7.08± feet; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board finds that the subject monopole is in violation of the initially approved site plan and special permit; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby recommend that the Mayor and Board of Trustees direct Building Inspector to take all necessary steps to have the existing monopole taken down; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommends to the Mayor and Board of Trustees direct the Building Inspector to utilize Section 62-22.2.0 of the Village Code for the removing of the existing monopole; and be it further RESOLVED, that henceforth, all future applications for this site would be subject to Section 6222.2.J which requires that any alteration of an existing communications facility to be subject to the same procedures, rules and regulations applicable to an original application. Nicholas Robinson, Chairman F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolutions\M720.17 Legal Wireless - 4-15-02.wpd Date �RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") is provided the authority under Section 62-22.2.N of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village Code") to grant special use and site plan permits for location and construction and installation of wireless communications facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is concerned with the unplanned proliferation of wireless communication facilities throughout the Village and the potential visual and aesthetic impacts associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is desirous, after reviewing several completed and pending applications to create a comprehensive Village-wide wireless antenna siting plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recognizes the importance of colocating facilities in strategic locations and incorporating stealth technology to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby declare its intent to act as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) laws for the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) analyzing colocational, aesthetics and other issues of sound planning and public policy; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby direct its consultants to prepare an initial scoping outline identifying those issues to be addressed in the GEIS effective the date of authorization on this resolution. Nicholas Robinson, Chairman F:\M\M-720 Sleepy HoIlowVReso!utions\M720.22 - Wireless GEIS - 4-15-02.wpd Date � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-04-18 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/afeadf7af4be301e0dd52513b49294cd.pdf 2e0dde29dd81512d7a27ce0b92407506 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING May 16,2002 RECEIVED The meeting was called to order at 8:02p.m. by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. TJ^ffhain «_._ noted that a quorum was present. VILLAGE CLERK Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner David Perlmutter Ed McCarthy Absent: Ed Napoleon Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & SchifFVillage Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Joel Sachs (Keane & Beane/Village Special Counsel) Mike Musso (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly/Village RF Engineer) Tftfffo \ 71™ * Announcements: The Chair stated that there would be a work session with the Village Board of Trustees to discuss Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for the McMansion phenomenon. He stated that this will take place at the June meeting of the Village Board of Trustees. Agenda: A) B) C) D) E) F) GEIS Wireless Location Study County House Road Karl Dibble SMSA/ Verizon Wireless Annual Report Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). A) GEIS Wireless Location Study The Chair stated that the generic study would be performed to analyze the aesthetics and �coverage within the Village. This would eliminate the need to perform an EIS for every site. He stated that this would provide a basis for future and more detailed EIS's. He stated that applicants would only be required to provide a supplemental EIS. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to declare the Planning Board lead agency. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair referred to Dave Smith to prepare the public notice. Dave Smith stated that he would prepare the scoping outline. He stated that it would provide other agencies to submit comments. The Chair agreed. He stated that next month, the Board would have the public scoping session. Noelle Kirsch (attorney representing Omnipoint) spoke. She asked the Chair about the Board's opinion on pending applications. The Chair invited the applicant to the scoping meeting. He stated that the Omnipoint application is proceeding and the Board is awaiting the FEIS. He stated that the Omnipoint application may not be affected at all. He stated that the GEIS would provide an understanding on how to provide coverage in the Village. Noelle Kirsch stated that she would like for the FEIS to be taken into consideration. She stated that all items would be ready for the Board's June 2002 meeting. The Chair asked for all items to be submitted 10-14 days before the meeting. B) County House Road The Chair referred to Joel Sachs. Joel Sachs gave a summary of the recent court decision. He stated that Tarrytown appealed the March 2002 decision. He stated that the applicant and Sleepy Hollow have filed papers opposing the appeal. He spoke about a letter that was received from Tarrytown's counsel opposing the Planning Board's scheduled public hearing on the County House Road application. Joel Sachs provided the Board with a memo stating that the Board could proceed with the public hearing. David Perlmutter made a motion to proceed with the scheduled public hearing. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Henry Hocherman summarized the approval process and the status of the current Planning Board Meeting, May 16,2002 2 �application within the Village. Bruce Lozito summarized the proposed sub-division. He discussed lot sizes, scenic overlook, etc. The Chair opened the public hearing. There was no public comment. The Chair referred to the Village consultants for their input. Dave Smith asked about the trees to be removed. The Chair responded that the Tree Commission would evaluate the trees on the property. Dan Pennella stated that there were no engineering comments. David Perlmutter made a motion to close the public hearing. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). George Tanner made a motion to approve the final sub-division plat approval. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). O Karl Dibble This is a continuation of previous meetings. The Chair referred to a letter from Jim Margotta to Ed Lammers (see attached). Ed Lammers stated that the Building Inspector has some questions on the application. The questions were placed in memo form so the applicant could respond. He stated that the applicant needs to address how the property would be used. The Chair read the letter aloud for the record. The Chair referred to the Village consultants for their input. Dave Smith stated that he is awaiting the Waterfront Advisory Committee's decision. Dan Pennella discussed revisions to the retaining walls. David Perlmutter asked if the walls could be clarified visually. Dan Pennella responded yes. Planning Board Meeting, May 16,2002 3 �David Perlmutter asked if the walls could be seenfromRoute 9. Dan Pennella responded slightly. David Perlmutter asked if the walls could be seenfromthe neighbor's property. Dan Pennella responded that the walls could be seenfromAntonio Rodriguez's property. The Chair referred to the applicant to explain the Building Inspector's letter. Karl Dibble responded that the property would not be used as a nursery or for retail. He stated that the garage would store vehicles. He stated that there would be no fertilizer on the property. He also stated that the height of the garage (16') is needed since some of the vehicles are 15' tall. There was an open discussion on the height of the structure. It was agreed that the applicant would build to conform to the Village Zoning Code. David Perlmutter made a motion to schedule the public hearing. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). David Perlmutter stated that the applicant must provide visuals to explain the proposed series of retaining walls as well as theflowof the storm water. D) SMSA/Verizon Wireless • This is a continuation of a previous meeting. Leslie Snyder summarized the application to date. She stated that the application is complete. She summarized Waterfront Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Board approvals. The Chair stated that the alternate sites were not clear in the application. He stated that he wanted to know why Village Hall is not to be used. George Tanner stated that coveragefromthe Phelps monopole originally showed no coverage gaps. He asked why is this application needed. Leslie Snyder responded that the original application matches this application. David Perlmutter asked why was Village Hall not used. Leslie Snyder responded that it is not tall enough to provide adequate coverage. Michael Primrich (Verizon RF Engineer) discussed the proposed application with regards to the coverage it would be providing. Planning Board Meeting, May 16,2002 4 �George Tanner asked if this would be the last application in the Village by Verizon. Michael Primrich responded yes. He stated that it would provide adequate coverage to the GM site. Leslie Snyder showed the proposed antennas on the Van Tassel and the GM site via four photos. There was an open discussion on the coverage areas. The Chair stated that the applicant should prove to the Board that all alternates have been addressed. George Tanner asked if the St. Theresa's church steeple was looked at. Leslie Snyder responded that the church was not interested. She provided a copy of the letter to the Board. The Chair read the letter aloud for the record. Vincent Amandola stated that the height of Village Hall is not higher that the Van Tassel. Leslie Snyder stated that the height is important in order to provide adequate coverage to the Village and the GM site. George Tanner responded that the submission does not indicate providing coverage for the GM site. Michael Primrich responded that this application would provide adequate coverage to the GM site. George Tanner asked if Verizon would make this part of their application. Leslie Snyder responded that if a high-rise were built, this application would not be adequate. George Tanner responded that if a 5-story building were built on the GM site, would the coverage be adequate. Michael Primrich responded yes. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that the maps need to be more accurate. Leslie Snyder responded that the maps would be submitted with more coverage details. There was an open discussion on the ability of this application to provide coverage to Kendal and the GM site. It was determined that the applicant would provide further coverage maps. David Perlmutter asked the applicant to meet with the Deputy Mayor, Mario DeFelice about re-visiting St. Theresa's church. Ed Lammers stated that the Structural Engineer must state in his report that the roof and Planning Board Meeting, May 16,2002 5 �parapet can support the weight of the equipment facility. Vincent Amandola responded that the equipment is attached to the parapet and not the roof and the parapet in its existing condition can support the facilities. Dan Pennella stated that the original application showed coverage to Merlin Avenue. He stated that the new application shows coverage to Hunter Avenue. He asked which coverage area is correct. Leslie Snyder responded that she would have the answer at the next meeting. There was an open discussion on the coverage of Merlin Avenue. It was determined that the applicant would determine if adequate coverage exists or not. The Chair stated that the applicant would do the following: 1) Determine if the steeple of St. Theresa's Church is available. 2) Determine actual coverage. Bob Stiloski asked how the equipment would get to the roof. Vincent Amandola stated that a crane would be required. Bob Stiloski stated that the applicant would have to address all Police and Fire Department concerns. E) Annual Report The Board reviewed the Annual Report submitted by Dave Smith. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments. There were none. F) Minutes The minutes for March 2002 and April 2002 will be reviewed at the next meeting. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 1 Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, May 16,2002 �J' iO' i u i / i vo.oo ««i v«. CAA cx'tutjix'i'tuuui; Village of Sleepy Hollow Department of Fire & Life Safety MEMORANDUM TO: Edward Lammers, Esq. FROM: James T. Margotta, Building Inspec DATE: May 13,2002 RE: 315 North Broadway I5-14-17A Jkf Karl Dibble is the owner of 3 IS North Broadway which is located in the C-l District On the property at the present time, is a two-family residence with an office on the lower floor. There is a proposal for a two-story accessory building in the rear yard. The office building will contain a garage with an apartment on the second floor. The architect has not indicated the variances that will be required There is no explanation of how the property and the accessory building will be used and there is no mention of the coverage of the rear yard. The building is proposed to be 38*-4" high. Schedule of Regulations Part U states that the maximum height of a building is 35-0. There is no indication of the maximum height of an accessory building in the Zoning Code. There are some concerns about the use of the property and the garage. Will the property be used as a nursery? Will there be an underground gas tank? How will the garage be used? What vehicles will be stored in the garage? The garage is 16-0 high: are there plans for automotive lifts? Where will fertilizer be stored? Will there be safeguards for loose fertilizer that may flow into the drainage system? Please refer to Section 62.20-3.F of the Village Code. Cc: David B. Smith JTM:sgs �RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") is provided the authority under Section 62-22.2.N of the Zoning Code of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (the "Village Code") to grant special use and site plan permits for location and construction and installation of wireless communications facilities; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is concerned with the unplanned proliferation of wireless communication facilities throughout the Village and the potential visual and aesthetic impacts associated therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is desirous, after reviewing several completed and pending applications to create a comprehensive Village-wide wireless antenna siting plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board recognizes the importance of colocating facilities in strategic locations and incorporating stealth technology to mitigate potential aesthetic impacts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby declare its intent to act as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) laws for the preparation of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) analyzing colocational, aesthetics and other issues of sound planning and public policy; and, be it further RESOLVED, that upon the authorization of funding necessary for the GEIS by the Mayor and Board of Trustees, the Planning Board does hereby direct its consultants to prepare an initial scoping outline identifying those issues to be addressed in the GEIS effective the date of authorization on this resolution. Nicholas Robinson, Chairman F \M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolutions\M720 22 - Wireless GEIS - 4-15-02 wpd Date � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-05-16 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/9f5b65cf202f7a180a56ca2c4f6cc104.pdf a0cac2bb745a3d7f4cbb67084ef54e6f PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING March 21,2002 RECEIVED nm - . 9ftfl . JUW ' * H,/ VILLAGE CLERK The meeting was called to order at 8:05p.m. by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Ed McCarthy Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Ed Napoleon George Tanner David Perlmutter Absent: Nicholas Cicchetti Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & SchifiTVillage Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony Del Vecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti/ Village Engineer) Don Ruggerio (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Joel Sachs (Keane & Beane/Village Special Counsel) Announcements: The Chair stated that the Laurentino Rodriguez application was not noticed and will not be on this month's agenda. He stated that it will be on next month's agenda. Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) A Discussion on Affordable Housing Techniques Kendal-On-Hudson Verizon Fremont Pond Dredging Omnipoint Karl Dibble Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). ll/pl /I*(0^ �a) A Discussion on Affordable Housing Techniques Dave Smith discussed affordable housing based on the Linkage Study. There was a concern of the possible effects to the inner Village once the GM property is developed. Also, the effects of the new Metro North railroad station. He stated that it creates less affordable housing. The Chair stated that these are preliminary discussions. John Saccardi discussed methods of affordable housing. He discussed the impact of GM and Metro North. In White Plains, he stated that zoning blocks were analyzed. John Nolan discussed affordable housing in Dobbs Ferry. He stated that affordable housing was built based on the potential loss of their volunteer Fire Department. He discussed zoning overlays. He stated that the Village could engage a not-for-profit housing development. The development could look at developing affordable housing. John Saccardi stated that zoning could be used as a tool to create affordable housing. The Chair stated that the Mayor wanted to look at land-use provisions in the Code. He stated that the Village is to be maintained during the GM process. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair asked if there were any public comments. Gwen Smith asked how the affordable housing would be accomplished. She asked if it would be similar to the complex on Route 119. She stated that they gave preference to Village employees and the rest of the apartments were awarded via a lottery. She stated that there were problems with the lottery system. John Saccardi responded that the Village must target specific needs of certain income levels. Don Catano stated that the Village should not forget senior citizens. The Chair agreed. The Chair asked about the New Roc Housing development. John Nolan responded that New Rochelle uses numerous Federal, State or County programs. John Saccardi responded that the subsidies could be layered to bring the costs down. The Chair stated that the Board would try to meet with George Raymond to discuss Planning Board Meeting, March 21,2002 2 �possible recommendations to the Village Code. Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski stated that the analysis should consist of municipalities of similar size to Sleepy Hollow. She used Armonk as an example. The Chair stated that the waterfront district needs to be looked at in order to keep the Village affordable. * -. b) Kendal on Hudson This is a continuation of a previous meeting. Andy Tung met with the Village Engineer and the Tree Commission. He stated that the Tree Commission has granted a permit. The Chair referred to Dave Smith. Dave Smith stated that he has been working with the applicant on the site plan. He stated that there are three items before the Board for their review and approval. 1) Resolution of Recreation Fee agreement 2) SEQRA Findings statement 3) Site Plan and Wetlands permit Dave Smith stated that there is one outstanding issue. He stated that the connection between Kendal and Rockwood Hall. He stated that the applicant would provide permanent access between the properties. He stated that the language needs to be clarified. The Chair asked if there were any engineering comments. Don Ruggerio referred to his memo. A copy was given to the applicant. The Chair stated that the Board has received a letterfromMetro North Railroad stating that they accept the proposed design. The Chair stated that Kendal would provide funds for the Village to perform annual inspections of the drainage system. If the system needs to be cleared, the Village would clear it and bill Kendal. The Chair referred to the Tree Commission minutes. Al DelBello stated that Kendal has made offers to make the proposed facility accessible Planning Board Meeting, March 21,2002 3 �to the public. He stated that the language should be clarified. Dave Smith referred to item #6 (on page 10) of the Site Plan and Wetlands permit. He stated that if Kendal would close the passage to Rockwood Hall, they would be in violation of the special permit. The Chair responded that the language might need to be clarified. The Chair stated that there is nothing in the Board approval on the garage. Andy Tung stated that he spoke to the project architect on the garage topic. He stated that they would be returning to the Planning Board and the Architectural Review Board withfinalcolors and materials. George Tanner asked if the lightingfixturewould protrude above the tee. Andy Tung responded no. George Tanner asked about the size of the trees. Andy Tung responded that the trees would be between 6-8 feet tall. George Tanner asked if the trees would block the lightfromthe lot. Andy Tung responded yes. He stated that the trees would be close to the lot. The Chair asked if there were any other comments. There were none. The Chair read the Recreation Fee Resolution for the record. David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the resolution with the addition of the words "U.S. dollars". Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair reviewed the SEQRA findings statement for the public. He spoke about: 1) Noise & dust levels 2) Air quality 3) Metro North's approval of storm water management plan 4) Wetlands 5) Tree Commission review 6) Fee agreement 7) Pedestrian trail system and wooded buffer area 8) Garage facade 9) Construction road/15 spaces on Rockwood Hall Al DelBello stated that the 15 spaces are subject to Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation approval. Planning Board Meeting, March 21,2002 4 �10) Wetlands impact There was an open discussion on page 14 of 17 concerning the garage facade. There was an open discussion on how to handle the guarantee of public access to Rockwood Hall. It was agreed that language would be added to the Site Plan and Wetlands Permit approval. Ed McCarthy made a motion to approve the SEQRA findings. There was no second. David Perlmutter stated that the documents should be properly reviewed. The Board agreed. The Chair stated that the Board would review and comment at the next meeting. c) Verizon Wireless/SMSA This is a continuation of a previous meeting. Leslie Snyder is the attorney representing this application. She summarized the application to date including the Waterfront Advisory Committee and Architectural Review Board reviews. She commented on the January 15,2002 Village RF Engineer review which stated that the emission levels were acceptable. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. The Chair opened the public hearing. Theresa Ferguson (95 Beekman Ave) spoke. She stated that she was concerned about possible interference with her pacemaker. Leslie Snyder responded that there would be no interference. Ann O'Connor (95 Beekman Ave) asked about the location of the antennas in relation to the school. The Chair responded that the School Superintendent has raised this issue to the Mayor. Leslie Snyder responded via photos. She stated that the emission levels from the Van Tassel were measured and they are below the FCC criteria. She stated that Verizon is using existing technology. She stated that thefrequenciesto be used are the same as TV Planning Board Meeting, March 21,2002 5 �channels 71-83 in the UHF spectrum. Don Catano asked about the NY State regulations. Leslie Snyder responded that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 discusses emission standards. George Tanner asked if the Village would be guaranteed that this will be the only application on the roof of the Van Tassel. Leslie Snyder responded that the Village Code allows co-applicants. Ed McCarthy stated that 250 families live in the Van Tassel and he is concerned. Leslie Snyder responded that the risks are low. She stated that the Village RF Engineer's report support her statement. George Tanner asked if the Federal Standards are valid. Leslie Snyder responded that the Federal Standards have a safety factor built in. The Chair stated that the Village is considering performing an environmental review under SEQRA to look at all possible designs and coverages. Leslie Snyder stated that the applicant has complied with all Village Laws concerning communication devices. She also stated that the applicant has visited and received approvals from other Village Boards. She stated that it is an unnecessary delay. Leslie Snyder asked the Board if the health risk is the only concern. The Chair responded that the Board wants to review the entire application. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). It would be carried over to next meeting and would be first on the agenda. d) Fremont Pond Jerome Fine is presenting this application. He reviewed the dredging process. He discussed the time of year that the dredging will occur and the impact to residents. The Chair asked if the site plan needs to be approved. Dave Smith responded that the wetlands permit needs to be approved. George Tanner made a motion to schedule to public hearing for the next meeting. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Planning Board Meeting, March 21,2002 6 �e) Omnipoint This is a continuation of previous meetings. The Chair stated that the public comment period still has 2 days to go. The Chair asked the applicant if they had anything to add. Mike Peters stated that Omnipoint had received a letter from Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). The letter was distributed to the Board. The Chair stated that the Board had received no comments from OPRHP. Mike Peters stated that he would like a copy of the 11/13/01 letter from the Village RF Engineer. The Chair agreed. This was adjourned to the next meeting. f) Karl Dibble This is a continuation of previous meetings. Karl Dibble is the applicant. He stated that his architect is still working on the elevations. He submitted a letter from his attorney requesting an adjournment until next month. The Chair read the letter aloud for the record. George Tanner asked the Village Engineer if the applicant's consultants had contacted his office. Dan Pennella responded that he was contacted about four weeks ago. There was an open discussion on whether to adjourn the application. David Perlmutter made a motion to drop the application from the Planning Board agenda if all applicable documents are not submitted to the Board by April 3,2002. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). g) Minutes The minutes for December 2001 were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a motion to Planning Board Meeting, March 21,2002 7 �approve the minutes as submitted. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The minutes for January 2002 were reviewed. George Tanner made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The minutes for February 2002 were reviewed. George Tanner made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, March 21,2002 8 �Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. A w i n g and faetopment Consultants 245 Main Street WNte Plains tew * r t 10601 1 * 914-761-3582 FAX: 914-761-3759 SWdsOsaccschiff.coni 33 Front Street HJwYbrtc 11550 1*516-486-0610 FAX: 516-486-0615 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 20, 2002 TO: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman and Planning Board Members FROM: David B. Smith CC: Hon. Philip Zegarelli, Mayor Dwight Douglas, Village Administrator Edward Lammers, Village Attorney Dan Pennella, CAMCE MikeMusso.LMS Mike Peters (on behalf of the Applicant) RE: Omni point DEIS Our office has been in communication with the Mayor and Village Administrator regarding potential issues which should be addressed as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Provided herewith are comments raised during those discussions as well as comments from our own review of the DEIS document. John J. Saccardi. AlCP 1. What is the relationship of the Applicant to Crown Atlantic Company; and, the relationship of Crown Atlantic Company to Phelps Memorial Hospital? 2. Does the Phelps Memorial Hospital pay taxes on the parcel where the proposed action is located? r j * i d B Schiff. AICP. PP Syrette Dym. AICP 0nidB.Smitri.AICP Margaret H. UMe. AICP RLA Bonita J. Von Ohlsen. RlA CsabaTeglas.AJCP Const*** Land Development Comprehensive Planning Zoning Real Estate Economics Environmental Studies Housing murViy Development The Chairman has raised the issue of what exactly is the monopole's height? The Village's consulting engineer has provided the Village with documentation that indicates that the height is above what was initially approved. �IH> March 20,2002 Nicholas Robinson, Chairman and Planning Board Members Page 2 The Applicant needs to respond to theManganaro memorandum ofNovember 13,2001 with respect to the actual height of the facility. JMV 4. The Village's consulting engineer has previously submitted a series of substantive comments (see memorandum dated November 13,2001). The Applicant needs to respond to all of these issues in the FEIS. 5. DuringthepubUchearin^theAppHcant'sRFEngine^rindi^tedthattbecoveragedepictions contained in the Radio Frequency Engineering Report (maps 1-15) may not be accurate due to the presence of existing vegetation. It is important for the Village in evaluating this proposal that the most accurate depiction be provided, particularly where it illustrates the worst case scenario. The Applicant is requested to review Maps 1-15 and provide any updates where necessary. 6. The Applicant should assess the ability to meet their comprehensive plan coverage (Appendix F, Map 15) by: 1) utilizing a lower elevation of the existing monopole, and 2) supplementing that coverage with another facility at another location including, but not limited to: a) the Village Reservoir, b) Douglas Park, and c) the Village pumping station. 7. The Applicant should explain at what point would there be sufficient volume on the proposed network that would require additional sites to be added within those areas already covered or proposed to be covered. One issue that the Village needs to consider is the eventual development of the General Motors site which may add another 1,QQ0± residents plus an as yet undetermined number of employees and visitors to the Village. ¥<•'••' i !< |! r. F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\MoiK)«\M720J2-RobJn»on3-204)2.wpd �Iff. \ March 21,2002 RESOLUTION Village Of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Ratification of Recreation Fee Agreement WHEREAS, on September 18, 2001, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Sleepy Hollow ( the "Village Board") did adopt a resolution approving a development fee agreement between Kendal on Hudson, a New York not-for-profit corporation {"Kendal"), Phelps Community Corporation ("Phelps") (jointly the "Applicant") and the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and WHEREAS, said development fee agreement resulted from a thorough environmental review process and the granting of a special permit to allow a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) as special permit use in the H-Hospital District; and WHEREAS, the Village Board has requested that the Planning Board ratify that portion of the Development Fee Agreement (see attached) as adopted by the Village Board; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that upon review of the development fee agreement, the Planning Board concurs with the amount of the fee in lieu of parkland and that Kendal shall pay to the Village a recreation fee in the amount of six hundred sixty two thousandfivehundred ($662,500) which recreation fee shall include fees payable under Section 19B-5 ofthe Village Code, fees in lieu of reservation of park, land and open space under Chapter 62 of the Village Code and fees in lieu of park land under the Village Law of the State of New York Section 7-725 and 7-730, with said recreation fee to be payable to the Village no later thanfive(5) days after the closing on the sale of the bonds by the Westchester County Industrial Agency to providefinancingfor the subject project; and, be it further RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the Mayor and Board of Trustees for their records. Nicholas Robinson, Chairman F:\M\M-720 Sleepy Hollow\Resolutions\022102 KOH fee.wpd Date �01/17/2002 12:48 FAX 91463114-1UJU2 MEETING DATE: RESOLUTION #: 09/86/01 09/18/01 Village of Sleepy Hollow Resolution Approving Development Fee Agreement Kendal on Hudson WHEREAS, an application" for a Special Permit in regard to the construction of a continuing care retirement community ("CCRC") on the grounds of the Phelps Memorial Hospital has been made by Kendal on Hudson, a New York not-for-profit, corporation ('"Kendal") and Phelps Community Corporation, a New York npt-for-pro&t corporation ("Phelps*1) O'ointly the "Applicant"), to the Mayor and Board of Trustees (the-'Board") of the Village of Sleepy Hollow; and . _ . WHEREAS, the CCRC is proposed to be located on a leased parcel of land on the A grounds of Phelps located in the Village ofSleepy Hollpw.(tiie "Site"); and WHEREAS, Kenda] has requested relief from up front payment of the full amount of the various Professional Review and Consulting Fees prior to dbfairiing'contemplated' financing and • has also requested the Village, for good cause shown, to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 19B-8 of the Village Code (Local Law No. -2001) ?-snot requiring other fees relating to the planning, review and construction of the CCRC to be paid at the times required pursuant to the Village Code; and WHEREAS, Kendal has requested that all remaining required fees, other than the Professional Review and Consulting Fee, be paid at the Bond Closing and funding of same; and WHEREAS, Kendal as a duly qualified not-for-profit corporation exempt from real A ¥ property taxes, has agreed to make certain 'payments in lieu of taxes' ("PILOT") to the taxing jurisdictions; and �' 0 1 - 1 7 .-2UU2 imn tA\ ai»oJiX»»uou, WHEREAS, Kendal and the Village desire flexibility regarding the timing of payments and certainty regarding the amounts of the fees required to be paid by Kendal to the Village under the Village Code for the development of the CCJR.C (collectively, the 'Tees"); and WHEREAS, the timing of the payment will benefit (he Village's cashflow,and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the Board of Trustees hereby approve the Development Fee Agreement attached hereto'* and made a part of this Resolution, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEI), that the Mayor is authorized to execute, on behalf of the Village, a Development Fee Agreement in a form substantially similar to that which is attached hereto, provided that the amount of the payment set forth therein shall not be reduced. Moved:Trustee Rodriguez . a- '* ._.._ S«c"6t(ded: T Trustee-Stever _ . . . -jj. % 9600.O1/155588 VI 9/18/01 -2- , Voce: 6-0 �DEVELOPMENT FEE AGREEMENT KENDAL ON HUDSON THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made as of me IStbday of SeptcmbeigOOl, by and between KENDAL ON HUDSON, a not-for-profit corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, having an office at c/o The Kendal Corporation, P.O. Box 100, Kennelt Square, Pennsylvania 19348 ("Kendal"), and the VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW, NEW YORK (the "Village"), a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, having its principal office at 23 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591. WHEREAS, Kendal has submitted a petition to the Board of Trustees of the Village for amendments to the Village Zoning Ordinance (the 'Tetirion") to permit the development of a continuing care retirement community (the "CCRC") on the property of Phelps Community Corporation ("Phelps Memorial Hospital Center"), and has submitted an application to the Planning Board of the Village for site plan approval of the CCRC (the "Application"); and WHEREAS, the CCRC is proposed to be a '^project" (as that term is defined in New York General Municipal Law Article 18-A) of the County of Westchester Industrial Development Agency (the "Agency"); and WHEREAS, Kendal has requested rehef from payment of the full amount of the Professional Review and Consulting Fee (as defined in section 1 (a) below) prior to the Bond Closing (as defined in section 1 (b) below) and has also requested the ViUge, for good cause shown, to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 193-8 of the Village Code (Local Law No. 9600/01/156716 V'l 9/18/01 �r 0 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 0 2 12:18 FAX 914631144(13(12 vfcj « V -2001) in not requiring other fees relating to the planning, review'and construction of the CCRC to be paid at the times normally required pursuant to the Village Code; and. WHEREAS, Kendal has requested that all fees, other than the Professional Review and Consulting Fee, be paid at the Bond Closing, after all municipal approvals have been obtained; WHEREAS, Kendal and the Village desire flexibility regarding the timing of payments and certainty regarding the amounts of the fees required to be paid by Kendal to the Village under the Village Code for the development of the CCRC (collectively, the "Fees"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Professional Review and Consulting Fee. (a) Kendal shall pay to the Village all Professional Review and Consulting Fees incurred in connection with the CCRC. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Professional Review and Consulting Fee(s)" shall mean, without limitation: (a) professional and consulting fees under section 19B-4 of the Village Code; (b) escrow account fees for professional consultation under section 19B-6 of the Village Code; and (c) environmental quality review fees under section 19B-7 of the Village Code and/or under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. (b) Payment of any Professional Review and Consulting Fee arising prior to the closing on the sale of the bonds by the Agency to provide financing for the CCRC (ihe "Bond Closing") shall be made as they are incurred, up to the sum of 5100,000.00 (540,000.00 of which has already been paid). Any Professional Review and Consulting Fee in excess of $100,000.00 shall 9600/01/156716 VI 9/18/01 -2- �U 1 1 7 -IMIU;! 1 2 : J1) t.\X yiJOJllMiiJO^ be paid by Kendal at the Bond Closing. Any Professional Review and Consulting Fee incurred for modification review or for any other reason, after the Bond Closing shall be paid by Kendal pursuant to the Escrow Agreement In the event that Kendal does not proceed with the development of the CCRC for any reason, Kendal shall nevertheless be responsible for payment of all Professional Review and Consulting Fees which shall be paid within ten (10) days of written noticefromthe Village. If Kendal fails to make any payment due hersunder, after receipt of a written statement of charges, said payment shall be subject to a penalty equal to ten (10%) per annum of the delinquent amount. (c) Until such time as Professional Review and Consulting Fees totaling an aggregate of SI00,000.00 have been paid, Kendal agrees to maintain a minimum of $1,000.00 at all times in the escrow account with the Village established for the payment of such Fees pursuant to agreement with the Village dated as of June 10, 1999 (the "Escrow Agreement") and submitted as part of its Application. Section 2. Development Fee. Kendal shall pay to the Village a Development Fee in the total aggregate amount of $1,074,800.00. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Development Fee" shall mean any and all fees and costs payable to the Village under the Village Code with respect to the Petition, the Application and the development by Kendal of the CCRC up to the receipt of a final Certificate of Occupancy not otherwise specified in sections 1 and 3 of this Agreement, including, without limitation (a) Architectural Review Board fees under Chapter 6 of the Village Code; (b) building permit fees under section 19B-2 and Chapter 62 of the Village Code; (c) site plan application and review fees under section 19B-3 and Chapter 62 of th3 Village Code; (d) 9600/01/156716 Vi 9/18/01 -3- �electrical pennit fees under section 18-13 of the Village Code; (e) subdivision application and review fees, if any, (f) certificate of occupancy fees under Chapter 62 of the Village Code (g) plumbing and sprinkler pennit fees, if any; and (h) sewer and water connection fees under Chapter 45 of the Village Code. Section 3. Recreation Fee. Kendal shall pay to the Village a Recreation Fee in the total amount of $662,500.00. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Recreation Fee" shall mean, without limitation; (a) recreation fund fees under section 19B-5 of the Village Code; (b) fees in Leu of reservation of park land and open space under Chapter 62 of the Village Code; and (c) fees in lieu of park land under New York Village Law sections 7-725 and 7-730. Section 4. Payment Kendal shall pay the Development Fee and the Recreation Fee in the total sum of 51,737,300.00, to the Village on the date of the Bond Closing and funding of same but in no event later than 5 days after the Closing. In the event that Kendal shall default in payment hereunder, the outstanding balance shall be subject to a penalty equal to ten (10%) percent per annum of the delinquent amount. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in their respective names and on their behalf by their duly authorized officers, all as of the day and year first written above. VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW By: Philip E. Zegarelli, Mayor 9600/01/156716 V] 9/18/0! -4- �* « + <»1<'17. 2 0 0 2 1 2 : 4 6 KlA. «1 4t>Jil44U.HJ,: KEKDAL cm HUDSON By: 9600/01^56716 Vi 9/18/01 -5- � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-03-21 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/7e3f3f7a2c9058c44aec5517af3da624.pdf a1b6c08bc901f4b0a474fed9dde08b40 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING February 21,2002 J/\ , /^//O The meeting was called to order by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Ed McCarthy Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Ed Napoleon George Tanner MAR - 4 2002 VILLAGE CLERK Absent: David Perlmutter Nicholas Cicchetti Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Department of Fire and Life Safety) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti/ Village Engineer) Don Ruggerio (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Tom Pease (Lawler, McTusky & Shelly/Village RF Engineer) Announcements: The Chair stated that the George Raymond would be at the next meeting to discuss economic stabilization within the Village. Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) Michael Doorley Omnipoint Kendal-On-Hudson Verizon Karl Dibble Antonio Rodriguez Fremont Pond Dredging Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). ^ �a) Michael Doorlev Geraldine Tortanello is the attorney representing this application on behalf of Michael Doorley. She summarized the application to date. She stated that the planning firm of Ferrandino & Associates has performed an analysis of how the subdivision would impact Phillipse Manor. She stated that it is not inconsistent with the LWRP relative to policies 23, 25 and 25b. Vince Ferrandino summarized his analysis for the Board. It included simulating potential impacts to the surrounding properties and the view shed. He stated that policy #23 is not relevant. He stated that policies #25 and 25b are relevant but the application does not violate them. Geraldine Tortanello stated that this house is not part of the original development of Phillipse Manor. She stated that the sub-division proposes three lots with 75' frontage. She stated that the sub-division would place the existing house on a lot that is larger than what was part of the original development of Phillipse Manor. She stated that there are 344 homes in Phillipse Manor and 53% have houses of 75' of frontage. The Chair stated that as per the Waterfront Advisory Committee's findings, this property is considered to be critical to the Village. Geraldine Tortanello stated that the Waterfront Advisory Committee was not detailed in their findings. She stated that no place in the LWRP does in refer to this property as an area of great significance. There was an open discussion on whether or not to refer the application back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee with the Ferrandino & Associates report or go through a full EIS. Geraldine Tortanello requested to refer the application back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Board agreed to refer the applicant back to the Waterfront Advisory Committee for re-consideration. b) Qmnipoint Mike Peters is representing this application for Omnipoint along with Donna Marie Stipo (Omnipoint's planner) and Rich Conroy (Omnipoint's RF Engineer). Mike Peters reviewed the DEIS. He summarized the proposed antenna extension and its Planning Board Meeting, February 21,2002 2 �physical characteristics. He spoke on the benefits of the proposed stealth array. He submitted an affidavit listing the people who were noticed for this public hearing. The Chair stated that the public comment period would be kept open for 30 days. Rich Conroy (Omnipoint RF Engineer) gave an overview of his credentials. He gave a detailed summary of the RF analysis via an exhibit showing Omnipoint's coverage gaps and their need for coverage within the Village. He detailed 9 other locations where other antennas are operational. He showed an illustration at 80' above sea level. The existing users are: 1) Nextel - 86' 2) Verizon-100' 3) Sprint - 105' He provided an analysis of why Omnipoint's coverage area would not be sufficient to meet coverage needs at 80 feet. Rich Conroy showed his analysis at 122 feet. He stated that this is favorable to the alternatives. The Chair asked about the alternatives. Mike Peters responded that there are photo simulations in the DEIS that show the alternatives. The Chair referred to Appendix P, Figure 7. He stated that it should be mentioned as to why the alternatives are not viable. Rich Conroy showed a third illustration for a future application within the Village and its coverage map. This was labeled exhibit #1 (map 6). George Tanner asked what areas are important coverage areas to Omnipoint in regards to this application. Rich Conroy responded Routes 9 and 117. The Chair asked that the exhibits be left with the Village for the record. Rich Conroy discussed alternatives via Exhibit #2 using the Village pumping station at 122 feet. He stated that a new structure would be required. He discussed providing coverage via Route 117. His map (map #8) showed inadequate coverage at 122 feet. He also stated that a new structure would be required. He discussed providing coverage using Village Hall (map #9). He stated that the building was too low to provide adequate coverage. George Tanner asked what was the height of Village Hall. Rich Conroy responded 40 feet. Planning Board Meeting, February 21, 2002 3 �George Tanner referred to maps 8 & 9 and asked if they were both used, would it provide the same coverage as the Phelps monopole. Rich Conroy responded no. He stated that this proposal would lose coverage to the North. George Tanner stated that the applicant could use the Route 117rightof way and Village Hall proposals to provide coverage to the desired areas. Mike Peters responded that this is only an RF analysis. He stated that it might not be viable. Dave Smith asked if the pumping station at 80 feet and Village Hall proposal would suffice. Rich Conroy responded no. He stated that foliage would interfere. He stated that maps are an optimistic view of coverage. Dave Smith stated that the applicant should show the worst-case scenario under SEQRA. Rich Conroy discussed providing coverage via St Theresa's Church. His map (map #10) showed inadequate coverage. He discussed providing coverage via the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery. His map (map #11) showed coverage gaps to the North and he stated that this proposal would not be able to match up with future search rings. He discussed providing coverage via the old IBM Building. His map (map #12) showed adequate coverage to the North of the Village but inadequate coverage within the inner Village. He discussed providing coverage via the water tank. His map (map #13) showed adequate coverage to the North of the Village but inadequate coverage within the inner Village. He discussed providing coverage via using the Ambulance headquarters on Andrews Lane. His map (map #13) showed inadequate coverage within Omnipomt's desired area. Rich Conroy spoke about the stealth array antenna. He discussed repeater technology. He spoke on how RF and fiber-optic repeaters work. He briefly mentioned how these options are not viable for this application. He stated that it is addressed in the DEIS. Rich Conroy stated that a MPE (Maximum Permissible Emissions) study was performed. The Chair asked if the hospital submitted a letter stating that they agree with the report. Rich Conroy responded yes. The Chair asked if Omnipoint is planning to submit future applications to the Village. Mike Peters responded yes. He also stated that this information has been before the Board since the DEIS was presented in September 2001. Donna Marie Stipo started her presentation. She gave a history of the monopole. She Planning Board Meeting, February 21, 2002 4 �showed four (4) photos (exhibit #3) illustrating the visual analysis of the monopole. She pointed out the existing carriers and the potential impact of Omnipoint's proposed antenna. She showed nine (9) photos (exhibit #4). They included photos from various locations around the monopole showing pockets of visibility. She discussed the two balloon tests performed and the visual analysis from Kykuit. She showed eight (8) photos (exhibit #5). They included photos from Kykuit and the Hudson River. The Chair stated that this structure is the first structure to impede the view shed that the Rockefeller family has maintained for decades. Donna Marie Stipo discussed how the antenna array could be used to blend-in on other structures. George Tanner asked if the antenna could be disguised to look like a tree. Donna Marie Stipo responded no. She discussed alternative sites and alternative antenna structures. She also stated that it would not be feasible to construct a new monopole. Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski asked how much would it cost. Donna Marie Stipo responded about $150,000. Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski asked about the lease agreement with Phelps Hospital. Donna Marie Stipo responded that it was not made public. George Tanner asked if the monopole had any medical benefits. Donna Marie Stipo responded only in terms of communications. The Chair referred to Dave Smith for comments. Dave Smith responded that he would submit his comments in writing. He also stated that all questions must be answered by the applicant in writing. Lastly, he stated that he would address the Mayor and Village Administration's concerns. The Chair noted a letter from Lawler, McTusky and Shelly (Village RF Engineer). The Chair also noted a letter from Melvin Levinson dated February 19, 2002. The Chair opened the public hearing. Don Catano (45 Lawrence Ave) spoke. He stated that the hospital is not-for-profit. Jeffrey Ansavino (planner for Scenic Hudson) spoke. He stated that the monopole is substantially visible and is above the tree line. He stated that the expansion of the cell tower is inconsistent with the LWRP. He asked the Village to assess the cumulative impact of the entire tower. He wants the Village to have the applicant use smaller Planning Board Meeting, February 21, 2002 5 �methods in order to have the least impact to the Village's historic view shed. Don Swanzager (Sleepy Hollow Manor) spoke. He stated that he wants the Board to assess the cumulative impact. Kim Miller (Kykuit) spoke. She stated that she represents the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and they oppose the extension of the cell tower. She stated that it would increase the existing visual impact. She referred to her previous letter to the Board. The Chair asked if there were any other public comments. There were none. Mike Peters requested a copy of the letter from Kim Miller. The Chair responded that it is on file with the Building Inspector. Ed Napoleon made a motion to close the public hearing. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). The Chair stated that public comments could be received until 3/22/02. c) Kendal on Hudson The Chair stated that the wetlands permit would be discussed with Joel Sachs. Andy Tung discussed the storm water management system. He provided drainage and sewage details to the drawings. He discussed some of the landscape details and some of the erosion control procedures. He also discussed the signage to be used. Jerry Schwalbe illustrated how the existing culvert was clogged and how it caused problems to the Metro North railroad. The Chair stated that there is a problem with the 100-year flood concept. Jerry Schwalbe stated that two systems were designed. He discussed the proposed drainage and the overflow methods for any excess of the one-year storm. The Chair asked if Metro North has participated in the site plan review. Jerry Schwalbe responded that they anticipate receiving a letter of approval from Metro North in a few days. The Chair read the recreation fee resolution for the record. Al DelBello stated that all fees up to the Certificate of Occupancy have been covered. He stated that the fees paid were the maximum fees allowed under the Village Code. Planning Board Meeting, February 21,2002 6 �The Chairman responded except the fee associated with the Tree Commission. Al DelBello stated that he would like to discuss this item with Joel Sachs. Andy Tung stated that an application to the Tree Commission has been submitted. The Chair stated that pedestrian access to Rockwood Hall should be provided from the parking area to the park while under construction. Andy Tung responded that the hospital would provide safe access to the North parking lot on weekends for Rockwood Hall. There was an open discussion on the Resolution with regards to the Tree Commission. The Resolution was not signed. It will be addressed with Joel Sachs. George Tanner made a motion to close the public hearing on the site plan. Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). d) Verizon Wireless/SMS A Robert Gordioso is the attorney representing the applicant. He stated that they have appeared before the Architectural Review Board and the ARB had one comment. They requested that the flush mounted antennas be moved back inwards onto the Penthouse roof. He submitted a rendering to illustrate this. He also stated that he would be before the ARB again this month. Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski asked about the height of the antennas. Robert Gordioso detailed the antenna heights and locations. George Tanner asked if the antennas could be re-directed where the entire mechanism could be hidden. Robert Gordioso responded no. The Chair asked if the Board had any other comments. There were none. The Chair referred to the Village consultants for their input. Dave Smith stated that aesthetics are a concern. Tom Pease stated that the radiation levels are low and will not cause health risks. Yolanda Malory (95 Beekman Ave) spoke. She stated the following: 1) She was told the antennas would be below the parapet wall. 2) She stated that the landlord made tenants remove their TV antennas. Planning Board Meeting, February 21,2002 7 �3) She is concerned with other future carriers wanting to place antennas on the roof. 4) She is concerned with potential interference with other electronic devices. 5) She wanted to know the lease agreement with the landlord. Robert Gordioso responded that the lease agreement is fair market value. He also stated that the antenna would not cause interference with other electronic devices or televisions. He stated that aerial devices do not effect it. Don Catano (45 Lawrence Ave) spoke. He asked if there is any liability due the roof access. Robert Gordioso responded that the roof is always open. He stated that the antenna would be mounted 6' above the bulkhead and are not accessible. Ron Turnquist (Beekman Ave) asked if the applicant has considered using the garage facility. Robert Gordioso responded that the applicant has looked at using other buildings but this structure provides the desired coverage. Linda Leland (95 Beekman Ave) spoke. She stated that she does not want them all around the building. The Chair stated that this building is eligible for historic preservation. George Tanner asked if the antennas could be moved back inward on the roof. Robert Gordioso responded that coverage would be lost. The Chair asked if conditions could be place on the approval. Robert Gordioso responded if the conditions are reasonable. The Chair asked if the equipment is safe. Robert Gordioso responded that the equipment is secured, locked and monitored 24/7 by a central station company. Elaine Olivari (95 Beekman Ave) spoke. She requested additional information regarding the safety of cell towers. Robert Gordioso referred to the Village RF consultant. The Chair responded that the reports are on file. They would be provided upon request. Jeffrey Ansarvino (Scenic Hudson) spoke. He recommended three methods as alternatives to offset the visual impacts. Robert Gordioso addressed all three methods and spoke about why Verizon's desired coverage would not be achieved. Planning Board Meeting, February 21,2002 8 �Dave Smith stated that the Planning Board could send a recommendation to the ARB. The Board recommendation to the ARB would be to surface mount the antennas on the parapet wall and paint the antennas in limestone color to match. The Chair stated that the public hearing would be held open to the next meeting. e) Karl Dibble This is a continuation from a previous meeting. Richard Blancato is representing this application Karl Dibble and his engineer Tim Cronin. Richard Blancato stated that the drawings are completed and are under review by the Village consultants. Tim Cronin spoke briefly about the retaining walls in excess of 5 feet high (west side of property). He spoke about the existing trees. Although this is not a public hearing, the Chair allowed public comments. Don Catano (45 Lawrence Ave) spoke. He was concerned with the amount of trees that were removed from the property already. The Chair stated that the drawings need to be reviewed and approved by the Village consultants. Tim Cronin stated that he needs input from the Village consultants so that the drainage could be added as well as the proposed garage. This was adjourned to the March 21,2002 meeting. f) Antonio RodriguezRon Turnquist is the architect representing this application along with Antonio Rodriguez. Ron Turnquist submitted revised plans to the Planning Board. He stated that the drawings were revised as per Dave Smith's comments. He explained the minor comments for the Board. Ron Turnquist explained the revisions to the ingress/egress, plantings, etc. He also stated Planning Board Meeting, February 21,2002 9 �that the elevations are unchanged. He produced letters from Joe DeFeo and the Fire Chief approving the proposed project. Ron Turnquist spoke about warning lights and alarms for the parking gate. The Chair spoke about binding the two properties legally. Ed Lammers responded that this must be filed with the County. Dave Smith stated that the Board should schedule a public hearing for the site plan. Ed McCarthy made a motion to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting. Ed Napoleon approved. It was unanimous (5-0). g) Fremont Pond This will be discussed at the next meeting. h) Minutes The minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (5-0). Adjourned at 11:56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 'ijbte 7>J/fi«Ji»> Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, February 21, 2002 10 � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-02-21 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/15d46ee052881d560b7627d603b878c5.pdf bb23c23167d0343521b3581d6991b7ad PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING January 17,2002 rv-^*/ M / ^ ^ A ) / DA ^' 3r~{ * The meeting was called to order by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman at 8:00 p.m. The Chair noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman David Perlmutter Ed Napoleon George Tanner Absent: Ed McCarthy Nicholas Cicchetti Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Dan Pennella (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Department of Fire and Life Safety) Jerome Fine (J. Robert Folchetti/ Village Engineer) Don Ruggerio (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Announcements: The Chair stated that the minutes from the last few meetings should be added to the agenda. George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Michael Doorley Omnipoint Kendal-On-Hudson Verizon Karl Dibble Antonio Rodriguez Dolphin Fitness Minutes Other Business JAN * ^ ^ I I Z VILL.MV4(1 CLERK �a) Michael Doorlev As per Bob Stiloski, this was adjourned to next meeting. b) Omnipoint This is a continuation of the DEIS completeness review. Dave Smith stated that he received an alternative proposal for camouflaging the monopole as previously requested. The Chair asked Dave Smith if the DEIS is completed. Dave smith responded yes. David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the DEIS and circulate it to all interested agencies. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Dave Smith stated that the comment period for the public hearing must be held for 30 days or for 10 days after the public hearing. It was agreed that the public comment period would be held on 02/21/02 and the comment period would extend for 10 days after the public hearing. c) Kendal on Hudson The Chair stated that he received a letter from Scenic Hudson (attached). The Chair re-opened the public hearing. Miguel Jimenez of 135 Cortlandt Street spoke. He stated that the Village would be bearing a large burden if this project were approved. He stated that he opposes the project. Since there were no further public comments, the Chair addressed questions from the Board. The Chair stated that the Board has the following concerns: 1) Storm water management 2) Tree Ordinance 3) Access points to Rockefeller State Park 4) Blasting Protocol Planning Board Meeting, January 17, 2002 �5) 6) 7) 8) Source separation & recycling Sewage pumping facility Safe access to Rockwood Hall Parking deck lighting 1) Storm water management The Chair stated that the Board was concerned about the retention basins being able to hold and control storm water. Andy Tung summarized the storm water retention design. He stated that there is no other structure between Kendal and the Hudson River. The Chair asked about Metro North railroad. He reminded the applicant about the effects of Tropical Storm Floyd and its impact on the Metro North railroad. He stated that the applicant has not adequately addressed this issue. Andy Tung responded that there is an existing 20x20 culvert that will be able to handle the storm water runoff unless it becomes blocked-up. George Tanner asked if the applicant could come up with alternatives to anticipate potential problems. Andy Tung stated that he met with Metro North railroad. They stated that there is no maintenance performed on the culvert unless there is a problem. He stated that the water quality basins in Kendal would be maintained. The Chair asked if calculations have been done based on Tropical Storm Floyd. Andy Tung responded no. He stated that no area in Westchester County designs beyond the 100-year storm. The Chair responded that the applicant should design for Tropical Storm Floyd or design a hold back system. Don Ruggerio stated that there is no mention of storm water flow during construction. He also stated that there is no discussion to remove the dissolved contaminants from the water quality basins. Andy Tung discussed the storm septers that would remove sediments and solvents. He explained the process and submitted information to the Board. He stated that the drawings have been revised to reflect this new information. The Chair recognized the public. Jim Nazemetz (ARB Chairman) stated that the water level of the Hudson River at the time of Tropical Storm Floyd also played a role in the flood problems for Metro North. Planning Board Meeting, January 17,2002 3 �2) Tree Ordinance The Chair asked about the applicant's intent to comply with the Tree Ordinance. He asked the applicant to provide information on the amount of trees to be cut and about the amount of trees to be replaced. Andy Tung responded that they are in the process of applying to the Tree Commission. 3) Access points to Rockefeller State Park The Chair stated that two access points for Rockefeller State Park. He stated that the trail should be designed to end at Birch Close for possible future use. Andy Tung responded previous proposals for making such a connection. George Tanner asked what type of material would be used for the carriage path. Andy Tung responded that it would be a cinder-type material. George Tanner asked if it would be wheelchair accessible. Andy Tung responded that only the Kendal property would be wheelchair accessible. Dave Smith stated that the Hudson River overlook was a feature added by the Village Board of Trustees. 4) Blasting Protocol The Chair asked about the blasting protocol. Andy Tung responded that the blasting protocol would be specified in the erosion control drawings. 5) Recycling The Chair asked if there is a proposal to recycle and where would it take place. Andy Tung responded that recycling would take place in the loading dock area. 6) Sewage pumping facility The Chair asked if the sewage pumping facility should be reviewed now or during Planning Board Meeting, January 17, 2002 4 �construction. Jerome Fine responded that the package should be as complete as possible. It was determined that the pumping facility would be reviewed now. 7) Safe Access to Rockwood Hall The Chair stated that there should be some kind of condition to allow the public safe access to Rockwood Hall. He stated that this should also include parking. Andy Tung discussed the temporary parking lot and its access. He stated that the proposal has been discussed with the Parks Department. The Chair stated that on weekends, more than 20-30 cars are parked there. He asked what signage would be used. Andy Tung responded that he would address. 8) Parking Deck lighting Andy Tung discussed the parking deck and the recessed lighting. He explained the lighting design for the 2-level parking deck. He also detailed the lighting fixture to be used. George Tanner discussed belt-level illumination. Andy Tung responded that he would investigate. The Chair spoke about the development fee proposal. The Chair referred to a letter from Scenic Hudson (see attached). Andy Tung has no response to the letter. The Chair asked if the Board had any more questions. Since there were none, Ed Napoleon made a motion to keep the public hearing open and adjourn to the February 21, 2002 meeting. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). d) Verizon Wireless/SMSA Vincent Servino is the attorney representing this application. Ed Lammers stated that the ARB should provide input and the applicant should return to Planning Board Meeting, January 17, 2002 5 �the Planning Board and then back to the ARB for final approval. Ed Napoleon made a motion to set the public hearing for the February 2002 meeting. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Dave Smith stated that each member of the Van Tassel building should be notified not just the building owner. The Chair agreed that the applicant should provide a copy of the notice to the residents. Vincent Servino agreed to the request and stated that they would provide copies of the notice to all tenants via regular mail. Ed Lammers stated that the applicant should submit an affidavit of mailings as well. Vincent Servino agreed. e) Karl Dibble Karl Dibble is representing this application with his engineer Tim Cronin. Tim Cronin stated that the surveyor (Charles Riley) is in the process o f adding additional contour lines to the survey. The Chair stated that none of the work has been approved and the neighbors have drainage concerns. George Tanner asked when Tim Cronin was retained. Tim Cronin responded mid-December. George Tanner asked when the surveyor was retained. Tim Cronin responded a few years. He stated that the surveyor has been working with Karl Dibble for years. Tim Cronin stated that the walls are structurally sound. The Chair asked the Village Engineer for his comments. Dan Pennella stated that there are no structural calculations to justify the wall. Tim Cronin asked the Board for some guidance concerning how he should proceed. He stated that the Village Engineer has requested 1/10" scale drawings with contours including surrounding properties. The Chair stated that the applicant should be prepared how he intends to stabilize the area and address the concerns of his neighbors. He suggested that Tim Cronin try to meet with the Village Engineer to resolve some of the design concerns. Planning Board Meeting, January 17,2002 6 �Dan Pennella stated that if the wall is structurally sound, the height of the wall is up to the Village. Ed Lammers stated that the wall height is a zoning issue and should require a variance. The Chair stated that the area should be stabilized and the applicant should eliminate water infiltration to the adjacent properties. He also stated that the applicant should submit a proper site plan by next meeting or this matter will be referred to the State Supreme Court in White Plains. NY. This was adjourned to the February 21, 2002 meeting. 0 Antonio RodriguezThe Chair asked if the recreation fee was calculated. Bob Stiloski responded no. Dave Smith stated that he spoke to Joe DeFeo concerning the conversation with the applicant and the review of the street parking associated with this application. It was agreed that all costs would be borne by the applicant. g) Dolphin Fitness There was an open discussion on the status of Dolphin Fitness. No action was taken. h) Minutes The minutes for July 2001 were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous. (4-0). The minutes for October 2001 were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous. (4-0). The minutes for November 2001 were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted but remove the attachments. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous. (4-0). The minutes for the December work session 2001 were reviewed. David Perlmutter made a Planning Board Meeting, January 17,2002 7 �motion to approve the minutes as submitted. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous. (4-0). i) Other Business The Chair stated that he received a letter from George Raymond. He stated that the Board should invite him to the next meeting to talk to the Board concerning maintaining stabilization among all economic levels of the Village. There was an open discussion on revising the Village Code and a moratorium. The Board agreed that the Village Board of Trustees should be contacted. It was also agreed that there would be no work sessions until May 2002. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous (4-0). Adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, January 17,2002 8 �SCENIC HUDSON OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS CHAIR EMERITUS Mrs. Willis LM. Reese CHAIR Marjorie L. Hart VICE CHAIRS David H. Mortimer Frederick Osbom III Wheelock Whitney III January 17, 2002 TREASURER Anne E. Impellizzeri SECRETARY Nicholas Robinson, Chair Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10561 Re: Site Plan Review for Kendal-on-Hudson Continuing Care Retirement Community Dear Professor Robinson: We are writing regarding the Kendal on Hudson Continuing Care Retirement Community project now undergoing Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. As you are aware, Scenic Hudson staff reviewed the proposal and commented extensively during the SEQRA process and Special Use Permit review concerning the siting, heights and visual impacts of this project. In particular we raised concerns that at the proposed location, the project would result in significant visual impacts on the Rockwood Hall State Park, the James House and the Hudson River Scenic District. We recommended an alternative upland location and site plan that we believe could enable the project to be developed while eliminating these impacts, however, that alternative was not pursued. While the applicant has endeavored to address some of these impacts and proposed mitigation measures at the western site — such as reduced building heights, scale and massing of the facility - we remain concerned that the impacts on visual resources on Rockwood Hall State Park, the James House and views to and from theriverhave not been sufficiently mitigated. We recommend that the Planning Board ask the applicant to consider additional mitigation measures in this regard and that the Waterfront Advisory Committee reviews the mitigation measures for consistency with LWRP Coastal Policies 24 and 25. Rudolph S. Rauch III Phyllis Y.Atwater DavidJ.Brumfield David C. Clapp Christopher C- Davis William M. Evarts, Jr. Robert P. Freeman Anna Carlson Gannett Patrick J. Garvey Gary A. Glynn Morrison H . Heckscher Christine Lehner Hewitt Frank Martucci Anthony J. Moriello Leo C. O'Neill ElizabcdiB. pugh Frederic C. Rjdi John C. Wallner John H. Winkler John P. Wort Alexander E. Zagoreos HONORARY DIRECTORS Robert H. Boyle Anne P. Cabot Nash Castro William H. Ewen Benjamin Harrison Frankel George W. Gowen Barnabas McHenry Mrs. Frederick H. Osborn, Jr. Laurance Rockefeller David Sive Mrs. Thomas M. Waller PRESIDENT E. O. Sullivan SCENIC H U D S O N , INC. 9 Vassar Street Poughkeepsie, NY 11601-3096 Phone 845.473.4440 Fax 845.473.2648 email: info@5ccnichudson.0rg www.scenichuC150n.org �A Professor Nicholas Robinson January 17,2002 Page 2 I have attached copies of our August 21 st , 2001 comment letter to the Village Board, which identified our concerns. We hope that the review process that is underway will provide an additional opportunity to consider further mitigation of the visual impacts of the project. Sincerely, Deborah Meyer DeWan Director Riverfront Communities Program enclosure cc: Richard Weiss, Waterfront Advisory Committee Mayor Philip Zegarelli Westchester Planning Board New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Management New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Waddell Stillman, Historic Hudson Valley Edna Sussman, Federated Conservationists of Westchester County DMD/ahr �SCENIC HUDSON 9 VASSAR STREET • POUGHKEEPSIE. NY 12601 • (845) 473-4440 • FAX (845) 473-2648 EMAIL: info@scenichudson.org • WWW: scenichudson.org ' August 21,2001 The Honorable Philip E Zegarelli and Board of Trustees Village of Sleepy Hollow 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10561 Re: Special Use Permit for Kendal on Hudson Continuing Care Retirement Community Dear Mayor Zegarelli and Village Trustees, As you know, Scenic Hudson commented throughout the SEQRA process on the Kendal on Hudson Continuing Care Retirement Community project. During that process, we expressed concerns about the visual impacts of the project on the Rockwood Hall State Park, the James House, and the Hudson River scenic district. We have never been opposed to the project, but throughout the process we strongly advocated for an alternative site that would significantly reduce or even eliminate these impacts. In that regard, we recommended an alternative location on an eastern portion of the Phelps Hospital property that we believe would accommodate the proposed use and eliminate the need to build west of the James House in proximity to Rockwood Hall State Park Preserve. Scenic Hudson was pleased to see revised plans that include lower building heights (maximum of five stories) and a reduced size of the project (16 fewer units), which has broken up the massing of the building and improved views of the River from the James House. However, our concerns remain about the impact of building in this location on Rockwood Hall State Park, the James House and the views to and from the Hudson River. We also remain concerned about the consistency of this project with the LWRP Policy 23, and Coastal Policies 24 and 25. While improvements have been made to the project at the site west of the James House that reduce heights and scale, Scenic Hudson continues to believe that an upland site, nestled in the vicinity of Robins Nest, is preferable to the applicant's preferred location. Although the Findings have been adopted, we understand thatfinalapproval of the Kendal project requires additional permits and approvals during which there will be public input and review, including: a Special Use Permit, subject of tonight's Public Hearing; Site Plan Review by the Village Planning Board; and review by the Architectural Review Board. As you consider the Special Use Permit and additional actions during this process, we request that you undertake a thorough and careful analysis �of the impacts of the revised plan and look more closely at the impacts of this plan to Rockwood Hall State Park, James House and the Hudson River Scenic District. It is Scenic Hudson's view that each step of this process is vitally important for the project to be carefully reviewed and the public provided with opportunities to comment This ensures that any project resultingfromthat process will minimize impacts to significant natural, scenic, and historic public resources. Respectfully, Deborah MeyerDeWan^ director Riverfront Communities Program cc: Richard Weiss, Waterfront Advisory Committee Nicholas Robinson, Village Planning Board Westchester County Planning Board New York State Department of State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Ned Sullivan, Scenic Hudson Waddell Stillman, Historic Hudson Valley �14-12-9 (l/87)-9c SEQR 617.21 Appendix G State Environmental Quality Review Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and Notice of SEQR Hearing Lead Agency: Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board Address: Project Number Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Date: January 17.2002 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Comments on the Draft EIS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until at least 10 days after the close of the public hearing. A public hearing on the Draft EIS will be held on February 21.2002 at 8:00 PM at Village Hall 28 Beekman Avenue. Sleepy Hollow. New York. Name of Action: Special Permit Application for a wireless communications facility on the grounds of the Phelps Memorial Hospital, Sleepy Hollow, New York. Description of Action: Installation of a public utility wireless facility by Omnipoint Communications, Inc. on an existing monopole tower located on the grounds of the Phelps Memorial Hospital. The proposed action calls for a ±15 foot extension to the existing pole and related equipment installed at the base of the monopole. The proposed action currently calls for a variance from the zoning code related to the height of the proposed monopole extension, issuance of a special permit and site plan approvals and aesthetic review. Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county.) Phelps Memorial Hospital Center, 701 North Broadway, Sleepy Hollow, Westchester County, New York �Notice of Completion of Draft EIS/Notice of Hearing A. Page 2 Potential Environmental Impacts: "the impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area as designated pursuant to subdivision 617.14(g)" The proposed action is located within the Hudson River and shoreline CEA and adjacent to Rockwood Hall State Park and is potentially visible to both areas. B. " the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character;" The proposed action calls for the extension of an existing telecommunications monopole to an elevation of ±122 feet The proposed project is within the Phelps Memorial Hospital Scenic Subunit as described in the Village's LWRP. The Phelps property is located adjacent to Rockwood Hall State Park and the Hudson River. C. "creation of a hazard to human health" The addition of another telecommunications facility onto the existing monopole presents issues of cumulative impact which require further investigation. A Copy of the Draft EIS may be obtained from: Contact Person: Robert Stiloski, Department of Fire and Life Safety Address: Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y. 10591 Telephone Number: (914) 366-5101 A Copy of this Notice and the Draft EIS Sent to: •Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 •Appropriate Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Conservation •Office of the Chief Executive Officer of the political subdivision in which the action will be principally located. •All other involved agencies (if any) •Persons requesting Draft EIS �c:\vwpvrin60Moffiw\91721-G.FHM • • Hon. PtUip Zcgarclli, Mayor Village Hall 28 Beefenan Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Mr. Nicholas Robinson, Planning Board Chairman Village Hall 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Ms. RuthL. Pierpont, Director NYState Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Taconic Region Empire State Plaza Albany, NY 12238 Mr. Janes Nazemetz Board of Architectural Review Village Hall 28 Bookman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Mr. Richard Weiss Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Commission Village Hall 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 John Middlebrooks, Manager Rockefeller State Park Preserve 25 Sleepy HoUow Road Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Brian Murphy, Village Counsel 14 Norm Broadway Tarrytown, NY 10591 Westchester County Planning Board 432 County Office Building 148 Martine Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Business Environmental Publications (Notice Only) FAX-518-371-7419 Angela Everett, Village Clerk Village Hall 28 Beekman Avenue Sleepy HoUow, NY 1059F Erin Crotty, Commissioner NYSDEC 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233-0001 MarcMoran NYSDEC, Region 3 NYS Department of Environmental Conservation 21 South Putt Comers Road New Paltz, NY 12561-1696 Keith Safien, President Phelps Community Corporation 701 North Broadway Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 Michael Peters (on behalf of the Applicant) Lebouef, Lamb, Greene, & MacRae 99 Washington Street Suite 2020 Albany, New York 12210-2820 � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-01-17 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1ddc5d279883c55d108d6b3436f23374.pdf 8442bb5ae35a874fcc9a7bb31f0aeea4 PDF Text Text '//&/o3 VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING December 19,2002 " ' RECEIVED ___ DEC ? 7 ?nn? The meeting was called to order at 8:00 pm by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman^ TheCtau;. noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner Ed Napoleon Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Ed McCarthy David Perlmutter Absent: None Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Shailesh tyaik (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Mike Musso (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly/Village RF Engineer) Announcements: The Chair acknowledged a letter from the Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning. He stated that it would be discussed at the end of the meeting. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Omnipoint Laurentino Rodrigues Monopole permit application status Nextel Antonio Rodrigues Karl Dibble GEIS/Wireless Location Study Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning Other Business CFF Reality Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Perlmutter). p �1) OmnipointThe Chair acknowledged a letter from Omnipoint representatives (see attached). This was adjourned to the January 2003 meeting. 2) Laurentino Rodrigues The Chair stated that since there was no meeting of the Waterfront Advisory Committee, this item will be adjourned to the January 2003 meeting. 3) Monopole permit application status The Chair referred to the Village Engineer on the status of the monopole height survey. Shailesh Naik stated that the height of the monopole was 111 feet but the height of the top antenna was 117 feet. The Chair asked the Village Engineer issue a copy of the report to the Village Planner for the GEIS and the Village Attorney. The Chair stated that Village Code section 62.22.2 (g) (4) stated that a structural report of the monopole is to be submitted annually to the Planning Board. He stated that this report has not been received to date. Ed Lammers stated that he would contact the owner of the monopole as well as the owners of the communication facilities regarding the structural report. The Chair also stated that Village Code section 62.22.2 (o) states that a bond needs to be posted in case the structure needs to be removed. He stated that no bond has been posted to date. George Tanner made a motion to have the Village Attorney contact the owner of the monopole as well as the owners of the communication facilities concerning posting a bond. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Perlmutter). George Tanner asked if Verizon has posted a bond for the proposed equipment to be mounted on top of Village Hall. The Chair responded that the bond has already been posted. 4) Nestel Robert Gaudioso is the attorney representing the applicant. He spoke about the proposed equipment layout. He stated that he was seeking feedback from the Planning Board. Planning Board Meeting, December 19,2002 2 �The Chair stated that the Architectural Review Board wants the antennas to be camouflaged. Robert Gaudioso responded that he would have drawings generated and presented to the Board for the next meeting. The Chair polled the Board for comments. George Tanner asked if this was the latest technology available. Robert Gaudioso responded that Nextel's system is unique so it is hard to tell. The Chair acknowledged the Village Engineer's comments. Robert Gaudioso responded that the applicant will prepare a full response to the Village Engineer's questions as well as questions raised by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly. Robert Gaudioso asked if a public hearing could be scheduled for the next meeting. The Chair stated that the next Architectural Review Board meeting is scheduled for January 22, 2003. He stated that the public hearing would be scheduled once the applicant obtains the Architectural Review Board's approval. Robert Gaudioso requested if the public hearing could be scheduled and left open until the Architectural Review Board approval is obtained. The Board accepted Robert Gaudioso proposal. David Perlmutter made a motion to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting based on the applicants understanding that the public hearing would remain open until the Board is satisfied. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). 5) Antonio Rodrieues Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application along with Antonio Rodrigues. There was an open discussion on the public notice. The applicant prepared their own notice and properly distributed it to the neighbors. It was determined that the advertisement in the local newspaper was not performed but will be completed for the next Planning Board meeting. Sean McCarthy spoke about the Architectural Review Board's approval. He also spoke about the traffic consultant's report. The Chair spoke about having the DOT close Old Broadway due to the increased traffic Planning Board Meeting, December 19,2002 3 �as a result of the GM project as well as the current condition of this area with regards to traffic. He stated that this would eliminate most of the traffic concerns with this project as well as relieve the traffic flow in this area. Sean McCarthy responded that the building would have to be shifted to the South to accommodate the closing of Old Broadway. There was an open discussion on the flow of traffic on the site. The Chair opened the public hearing. Anthony Lanzi (lives adjacent to the property) spoke. He stated that he is concerned with the proposed traffic impact. He stated that he currently has problems getting in and out of his property and is concerned about the possible traffic impacts to the area as a result of this project. There was an open discussion about the traffic signals and the flow of traffic in the immediate area. It was determined that the entire area needs to be addressed. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 6) Karl Dibble The Chair asked the Village Attorney for an update. Ed Lammers stated that the Architectural Review Board asked the applicant to return to their next meeting with the project architect. George Tanner asked if Karl Dibble has submitted a copy of the signed contract from his contractor. Ed Lammers responded no. He stated that he would contact Karl Dibble's attorney. The language in the Resolution was reviewed. There was an open discussion on the location of the commercial vehicles on the property. It was agreed that until the site plan is approved, there is nothing that can be enforced with respect to the location of the vehicles. The Board edited items #2 and #29 to reflect Board comments. The Chair signed the Resolution. Planning board Meeting, December 19,2002 4 �7) GEISAV ireless Location Study The Chair referred to Dave Smith. Dave Smith stated that Mike Musso had prepared a report for the Board. Mike Musso distributed information on the preliminary study. He reviewed the twelve sites that are proposed in the study. The Chair spoke about including other tall structures. He also spoke about the ridge line at the cemetery as well as the Kendal-on-Hudson property as sites to be considered. There was an open discussion on other sites to be evaluated. The Chair stated that under SEQRA, the GEIS was not limited by the Village boundaries. Mike Musso referred to the two-page table. He spoke about the school property and their decision not to be included in the GEIS. The Chair stated that once the GEIS was received, it would be reviewed and a public hearing would be scheduled. 8) Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning Survey The Chair acknowledged receipt of a surveyfromThe Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning. They are requesting some informationfromthe Village concerning affordable housing and affordable housing plans. The Chair stated that the Village will respond to the survey. 9) Other Business The Chair acknowledged receipt of two (2) notices of intent to act as lead agency from the Village Board of Trustees. The Chair asked if the Planning Board had any objections. Since there were none, the Chair stated that a notice would be sent to the Village Trustees stating that the Board has no objections. 10) CFF Reality Victor Solarik is the project architect and is representing the applicant. He spoke about some of the minor changes as per the Architectural Review Board. He also briefly Planning Board Meeting, December 19,2002 5 �described the proposed changes to the building. David Perimutter asked about the number of employees at the site. Victor Solarik responded that there would be around four (4) employees in the first floor area including the showroom. George Tanner asked about the number of parking spaces the applicant is proposing. Victor Solarik responded 17. Bob Stiloski stated that 11 are required. The Chair recommended that the applicant speak to Historic Hudson Valley concerning the traffic flows in the area. Victor Solarik responded that the traffic impact is negligible. He stated that he will find out the traffic information at the applicant's Elmsford office and report back to the Planning Board as to the possible impacts to the area. The Board decided to wait until the Waterfront Advisory Committee's consistency findings are complete before scheduling a public hearing. 11) Minutes The minutes from October 2002 were reviewed. George Tanner made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. David Perimutter seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). The minutes from November will be reviewed at the next meeting. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Tfel Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, December 19,2002 6 �;FROM LEBOEUF. LAMB. GREENE&MACRAE. L. L. P. (THU)12. 19' 02 17:21/ST. 1 7 : 20/NO. 4800000053 P 2 L E B O E U F , LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE L.L.R A UMrTED LIABIUTY PARTNERSHIP INCLUOING PROTC53IONAL CORPORATION a 99 NEW YORK W A S H I N G T O N . QC. WASHINGTON AVENUE SUITE ALBANY A L B A N Y . NY BOSTON DENVER 2020 LONOON IA LONOOrt-BASCD MULTINATIONAL PAITNCRSHtP I 12210-2820 (5 I 8 ) 6 2 0 - 0 0 0 0 HARRISBURG PARIS BRUSSELS JOHANNESBURG « PTr> LTO FACSIMILE. (5 I 8 ) 0 3 6 - 9 0 I O H A R T F O RD MOSCOW HOUSTON slACKSONVILt E RIYAOH lArniiATto o r n c c i LOS ANGELES TASHKENT NEWARK BISHKEK PITTSBURGH SALT LAKE CITY ALMATY SAN BEIJING FRANCISCO December 19,2002 Mr. David B. Smith Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. 245 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 Re: Omnipoint Communications, Inc.'s Application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 95 Beekman Avenue; Omnipoint Communications, Inc.'s Application for an Extension of the Wireless Monopole at Phelps Memorial Hospital Dear Dave: Pursuant to your discussion this afternoon, we are providing this letter as an update regarding the above-referenced applications for Omnipoint Communications, Inc. ("Omnipoint"). We would appreciate your providing the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board ("Planning Board") with a copy of this letter and a report on the status of the applications as outlined herein at tonight's Planning Board meeting. Omnipoint continues to investigate Village Hall as a possible alternative to its proposed site at 95 Beekman Avenue. Omnipoint recently informed us that the lease agreement has been forwarded to the Village Administrator and that Omnipoint is waiting to hearfromthe Village regarding the lease terms. Thus, we respectfully request that the Planning Board put over Omnipoint's application for 95 Beekman Avenue until the next Planning Board meeting. Regarding Omnipoint's application for facilities to be located at Phelps Memorial Hospital, an check in the amount of $2,500 to replenish the escrow account was forwarded and should have been received by the Village of Sleepy Hollow. We will therefore be moving forward with finalizing the Final Environmental Impact Statement related to the proposed facilities. �*^RpU LEBOEUF. LAMB. GREENE&MACRAE. L. L. P. (THU) 1 2. 19*02 17:21/ST. 1 7 : 20/NO. 4800000053 P Mr. David B. Smith December 19,2002 Page 2 # We thank you and the Planning Board for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, (£*%$ Noelle M. Kinsch cc: Mr. Michael Murphy Michael Peters, Esq. • % AL-78980.1 3 � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-12-19 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002 https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d208d23145175be753973a05d6eba869.pdf c0cc7878dce05cdd7f905a1115849787 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING November 21, 2002 «FCFIVFn C U DEC ? 7 ?fUI7 The meeting was called to order at 8:04 pm by Nicholas Robinson, ChairmanVHJteASlfiiCLERK noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner Ed Napoleon Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Ed McCarthy Absent: David Perlmutter Also Present. Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Shailesh Naik (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Bob Stiloski (Director, Department of Fire and Life Safety) Mike Musso (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly/Village RF Engineer) Announcements: The Chair stated that the Omnipoint application has been adjourned to next meeting. He also stated that CFF Realty has also been adjourned since they are still on the Waterfront Advisory Committee's agenda for December. Agenda: I) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Karl Dibble Ichabod's Landing \ntonio Rodrigues Laurentino Rodrigues Nextel Monopole permit application status GEISAYireless Location Study Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 1) Karl Dibble This is a continuation from previous meetings. �Richard Blancato is representing this application along with the applicant Karl Dibble The Chair stated that the Board had received the revised drawings today. Richard Blancato stated that there were only two (2) revisions to the drawings. They are: 1) removal of blocks as per the Building Inspector 2) Additional six (6) trees for screening as per the Planning Board's recommendation. He stated that at the last meeting, a construction schedule was required. He stated that that schedule reflects completing all of the remedial work first. This would include removing the retaining walls and installing the site drainage within the first 30 days weather permitting. He stated that the Architectural Review Board cannot approve the application until the site plan is approved. He also stated that the site landscaping would be completed within 90 days. Lastly, he stated that the blacktopping of the property would be scheduled for September 2003 and the Certificate of Occupancy would be obtained approximately one (1) year from issuance of the building permit. George Tanner asked if there had been any further site work done since the last meeting. Richard Blancato responded no. George Tanner asked about the 40 foot section of blocks on the South side of the property Richard Blancato denied that any work was done on the property since the last meeting He stated that there is a pile of cobblestone on the property. The Chair referred to the Village Consultants for their input. Dave Smith stated that he had no comments. Shailesh Naik responded that he had no comments. Ed Lammers stated that a Certificate of Occupancy should be issued upon proof that all of the work is performed correctly. George Tanner asked if the applicant could secure a bond. Richard Blancato responded that securing a bond would take 90 days to complete. The Chair acknowledged the public. Don Catano (43 Lawrence Ave) spoke. He stated that a cement wall was recently built next to his house. He stated that he has damage to the foundation of his house. Richard Blancato responded that as per the applicant's engineer, the damage existed prior to the illegal site work performed by the applicant Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 2 �The Chair referred to the Village Attorney to read the proposed Resolution. Ed Lammers read the proposed Resolution for the record. Don Catano (43 Lawrence Ave) spoke. He stated that the applicant should not be allowed to use the office space as living space Richard Blancato agreed. Kay Catano (43 Lawrence Ave) stated that there are five (5) cars parked approximately four (4) feet from her window. She asked if the location of the cars would change as a result of the approval. There was an open discussion on the neighbors concerns with regards to the applicant's property. The Chair asked if the applicant had a current Certificate of Occupancy. Bob Stiloski responded yes. He stated that the applicant did not have a permit for the site work. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that he wants to make sure that all remedial work impacting the immediate neighbor's property is completed prior to proceeding with the next phase of the construction. Richard Blancato agreed. The Chair recommended a liquidated damages fund. Richard Blancato stated that the applicant cannot afford to put up a large sum of money based on the cost of the project. He stated that if the remedial work is not completed in 30 days, the applicant would place money into a fund in order to secure the completion of the remedial work. George Tanner responded that the proposal was not acceptable. The Chair referred to the Village Attorney and the applicant to work out the appropriate language for the Resolution. This was temporarily adjourned. 2) Ichabod's Landing The Chair stated that the public comment period ends on December 20, 2002. The Chair asked the Board if they had any changes to make to the draft Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 3 �There was no comment by the Board at this time. 3) Antonio Rodrigues Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application along with Antonio Rodrigues. Sean McCarthy referred to the Waterfront Advisory Committee's recent consistency findings. He stated that the concrete wall in the rear would have a stone veneer finish. He stated that the traffic consultant is in the process of generating a report of their study. He also stated that the DOT was contacted regarding the impacts to traffic and the intersection. Sean McCarthy stated that the Phase I environmental report is complete. He stated that there are no oil or gas tanks on site. He stated that the application would be before the Architectural Review Board on November 25,2002. He stated that the neighbor will have a five (5) foot buffer at the rear of the property. He also stated that he has met with Historic Hudson Valley reps. He stated that they were concerned with traffic and parking. Nicholas Cicchetti asked about garbage collection. Sean McCarthy discussed the garbage collection methods. The Chair stated that he wants the traffic report before scheduling the public hearing. Sean McCarthy responded that the traffic consultant would have the report completed soon. He stated that he did not know when to expect a response from DOT. Ed Napoleon made a motion to schedule a public hearing at the next meeting. He stated that the public hearing would be kept open until the traffic report is completed. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 4) Laurentino Rodrigues This is a continuation of a previous meeting. Vitali Santo is the project architect. He is representing this application along with Laurentino Rodrigues. Vitali Santo showed the rendering of the proposed structure. He reviewed the proposed site plan detailing the parking layout, etc. Planning Board Meeting, November 21,2002 4 �George Tanner asked about the number of bedrooms that the applicant is proposing Vitali Santo responded 12 bedrooms total in nine (9) apartments. Vitali Santo showed elevation drawings from Valley Street and Depeyster Street. The Chair asked if there was any off-site parking. Vitali Santo responded no. The Chair referred the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee and the Architectural Review Board for their review. 5) Nextel Cara Bonomolo is representing Nextel for this application. She spoke about the equipment of the proposed system She stated that the following documents have been submitted to the Board: 1) Site plan 2) Health & Safety report 3) Photos 4) Coverage maps There was an open discussion on the GEIS and the proposed moratorium. It was stated that the Village Trustees did not adopt the moratorium. George Tanner asked how many cellular carriers could fit on top of Village Hall. Dave Smith responded probably a total of three (3). Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to declare the Planning Board as the lead agency. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair referred the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee and the Architectural Review Board for their review. 1) Karl Dibble (continued)Ed Lammers read the revisions to the Resolution. The Chair suggested language to force the applicant to place money into escrow. Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 5 �There was an open discussion on how to include adequate provisions to guarantee that the work will be done in an acceptable manner and time frame. Richard Blancato stated that the applicant would put up a $10,000 bond prior to obtaining a Building permit, he would come to each Planning Board meeting to update the Board on the progress of the project. He stated that he has a signed contract with a reputable contractor. He also stated that after 75 days, if the bond is not paid, the applicant will appear before the Board to see what action will be taken. More applicable language was added to the Resolution Ed Napoleon made a motion to approve the Resolution Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that the Village Planner and Village Engineer would review the recently submitted revised plans. Ed Napoleon made a motion to refer the applicant to the Architectural Review Board. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 6) Monopole Ed Lammers stated that he has compiled the data from applications and meeting minutes from previous applicants. He recommended that the Board hold a work session to discuss the monopole height with the monopole occupants. George Tanner asked if the monopole height could be measured. Ed Lammers stated that Verizon has requested that the monopole height be measured. It was agreed that a work session would be held 90 minutes prior to the next (December) meeting. 7) GEIS/Wireless Location Study The Chair referred to Dave Smith. Dave Smith spoke about Mike Musso's e-mail (see attached). It refers to Village owned and school owned property. He then referred to Mike Musso. Mike Musso spoke about the sites to be included in the initial study. He spoke about the Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 6 �draft report. The Chair stated that applicable language should be added to state that once an applicant has equipment that is obsolete, the applicant is required to remove the equipment at their expense. The Chair asked about other technology like flagpoles, Christmas trees, etc and their associated costs. Mike Musso responded that the cost of a 110-foot flagpole structure is about $60-75,000 The Chair noted receipt of some materials from Scenic Hudson. Mike Musso spoke about applicants re-applying in order to increase their capacity coverage. The Chair asked Mike Musso to predict the worse-case scenario. The Chair asked about the GM site. Mike Musso responded that recommendations would be included in the GEIS 8) Minutes The minutes from October 2002 will be reviewed at the next meeting. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, '.'/' "h (\ • . /' • Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 7 �Page 1 of2 Dave Smith From: Michael Musso <MMusso@lmseng.com> To: <dsmith@saccschiff.com> Cc: Terry Schneider <TSchneider@lmseng.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:36 PM Attach: GEISMATRIX2.xls Subject: Sleepy Hollow GEIS - LMS update This email serves as a status update to LMS' activities on the above-referenced project (GEIS). • 11/4 - Met with Dave Smith - developed list of 14 sites (preliminary list); reviewed and discussed screening criteria • 11/7 - revised draft screening matrix prepared (see attachment to this email) • 11/4 - present - LMS works on site access and file review scheduling (see below) • LMS conducted site recons today (11-19). I visited the Tarrytown school property (escorted by maintenance personnel this morning). See discussion below. Terry Schneider and I conducted additional recons this afternoon (focus on Beekman area). We plan on wrapping up our site visits tomorrow (11-20), including the reservoir property (will be escorted by DPW personnel). • LMS is developing quantitative "scoring" methodology so that the site criteria can be assessed and sites can be objectively evaluated against one another. We will adopt aspects of scoring rationales that are used for other types of environmental projects (including EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS)). Note that criteria and analysis methods will "evolve" with the study. • Terry conducted a file review this morning at Ed Lammer's office (obtained existing/permitted facility information). We have a FOIA request in to the Village of Tarrytown (so we can learn about cell sites in this neighboring Village), and we are following up with the appropriate contacts. • SI IPO reviews have been requested for all Village areas that contain one or more of the 14 sites. • General site mapping and photo compilations will start after our site visits are completed. • Report writing (methods; matrix description; findings; identification of sites to potentially consider further; conclusions) will begin this week. Thoughts on School property: NOTE that there is a school board meeting this Thursday 11-21, and they may want some preliminary feedback about our site visit. Some preliminary ideas are provided below (let me know if you need me to prepare something more formal for the School district for their 11-21 meeting, or if you or I should simply call the superintendent): 1. School owns quite a bit of property behind football field, enough to accompany a tower/pole and associated equipment. 2. topo seems very good, and a facility would likely provide coverage to much of the Route 9 and upper Beekman Ave area. Coverage must be assessed through computer models, as the topography throughout Sleepy Hollow is variable and can be deceiving. 3. However, tower would have to be constructed above tree line (minimum height estimated at 100 110 ft; maybe higher depending on number of co-locators), which would result in a visual impact (for, at a minimum, school facilities and nearby residential properties; also impact for lower Village "looking up" at school area). Ground-level equipment would also create a visual impact (especially this time of year when foliage is down). Consider also that access road for maintenance vehicles would have to be constructed (this would change some of the landscaped parts of the property). 4. Security - School apparently uses much of the back end of the property (i.e., landscaped areas are "well kept"). Track and field (cross-country) uses that portion of the property for meets. Wooded area would have to be officially "off limits" if a facility is constructed (not sure how this would impact the school...) Issue is also with kids in proximity to maintenance workers and their vehicles/equipment... 5. Safety - If this property is to be considered further, geotech analysis would have to be conducted to ensure that soils/rock can support the loads of a tower/monopole Fall zones would have to be verified, as well (considerations for fall zone - student activities, football field, residences). Proper off-set distances must be understood and maintained by school officials. 6. RF- a tower or monopole installation is anticipated to be below the current FCC maximum 11/19/2002 �Page 2 of2 permissible exposure. However, risk perception must be considered. Risk communication for wireless facilities can be very difficult (especially at a school). Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information for the 11-21 PB meeting. / assume that you will handle any status update/reporting at Thursday's Planning Board meeting. Please let me know if you would like LMS to participate, and I will coordinate. Note that I personally will not be able to make the Sleepy Hollow meeting on 11-21 due to a previous commitment in another municipality. Regards, Mike Michael P. Musso Sr. Project Engineer Lawler, Matusky ft Skelly Engineers LLP One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River, NY 10965 phone: 845-735-8300 ext. 261 fax: 845-735-7466 e-mail: MMusso@lmseng.com website: www.lmseng.com 11/19/2002 �FOR ADJOINING • t.„..ltHT*l „ ess *t iS?i!i2S!L£JL ^WKRYTO^ AS Ll&r JffVim 4Y �RECEIVED DEC 2 3^09? VILLAGE CLERK VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION Adopted at the November 21,2002 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board RESOLUTION: » SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED: Reuse of Existing Building as a Residence and Construction of a New Two Story Building Containing a Garage and an Office on the First Floor and an Apartment on the Second Floor OWNER: Karl Dibble LOCATION: 315 North Broadway TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 15, Block 14, Lots 17A and 17B ZONING: C-l WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the following materials: 1. Site Plan Application dated on or about June 21,2000, signed by Sam Viera; 2. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated on or about June 21,2000, signed by Sam Viera; 3. Coastal Assessment Form, dated on or about June 21,2000, signed by Sam Viera; 4. Site Plan drawings dated June 20,2001 prepared by SFV Design Inc.; 5. Revised Site Plan drawings dated November 14,2000 prepared by SFV Design Inc.; 6. Revised Site Plan Drawings dated May 4,2001 prepared by Keane Coppelman Engineers, P C ; �7. Topography Map of the property prepared by Charles Riley, Land Surveyor last revised May 21, 2001; 8. Revised Site Plan Application dated October 15, 2002 signed by Karl Dibble; 9. Revised Site Plan Drawings dated October 5 and 12, 2001 prepared by Keane Coppelman Engineers, P.C.; 10. Erosion Control and Construction details prepared by Keane Coppelman Engineers, P.C. dated October 12, 2001; 11. Coastal Assessment form dated October 8, 2001; 12. Short and Long Form Environmental Assessment Form dated October 15, 2001; 13. Building Design Drawings dated March 28, 2002 prepared by SFV Design Inc.; 14. Revised Site Plan Drawings dated February 1, 2002 prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, Jr., P.E.; 15. Revised site plan details dated March 20, April 10, April 17, and July 8, 2002 prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, Jr., P.E.; 16. Review Memoranda from Saccardi and Schiff, Inc., Village Planners, dated July 13, 2000, July 25, 2000, July 16, 2001, November 8, 2001, March 15, 2002, April 11, 2002, and from Charles Manganaro Consulting Engineers, dated July 6, 2000, February 22, 2001, May 8, 2001, July 18, 200, November 14, 2001 and March 7, 2002; 17. Memorandum of James T. Margotta, Building Inspector dated August 8, 2000, February 21, 2002 and May 13, 2002; 18. Letters from Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicant, dated September 20, 2000 and September 20, 2001 and October 15, 2001; 19. Waterfront Consistency Findings, Waterfront Advisory Committee signed by Richard D. Weiss, Chairman; 20. Drainage Analysis dated April 4, 2002, prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, Jr. P.E.; �21. Memorandum from Robert Stiloski, Director of Fire and Life Safety, dated December 20, 2001; 22. Various correspondence from the public; and WHEREAS, the Proposal was discussed by the Planning Board duly scheduled public meetings held on April 19, 2001, June 21, 2001, July 19, 2001, August 27, 2001, September 20, 2001, November 15, 2001, January 17, 2002, February 21, 2002, March 21, 2002, April 18, 2002, May 16, 2002, June 20, 2002, July 18, 2002, September 19, 2002 and October 17, 2002; and WHEREAS, The Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) reviewed the subject application at their December 5, 2002 and May 2, 2002 meetings and found the application to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Villages Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing at their June 20, 2002 meeting, and all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; the Public Hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has performed work illegally at the site in violation of Village Code and the Applicant agrees to post a bond to the benefit of the Village of Sleepy Hollow to ensure that the site is remediated and that the work is performed in accordance with the approved site plan; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Received and Application Fee; 2. Caused Field Inspections to be made of the property and surrounding areas; 3. Requested, received considered comments from the Village Planner, Village Engineering Consultants, Building Inspector and the Department of Fire Life Safety, Fire Department,; 4. Requested, received and reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and a Coastal Assessment Form; �5. After review of the field conditions, public comments, recommendations and the Short Environmental Assessment Form as well as other items noted above, has determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action not requiring environmental assessment or determinations of significance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for site plan approval relative to the Reuse of Existing Building as a Residence and Construction of a New Two Story Building Containing a Garage and an Office on the First Floor and an Apartment on the Second Floor at 315 North Broadway, Sleepy Hollow, New York on the site plan dated May 4, 2001, revised May 21, 2001, revised October 12, 2001, revised February 1, 2002, April 10, 2002, July 8, 2002 and last revised November 16, 2002 is hereby granted approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman, on a copy of this resolution and upon the site plan drawings, as and when revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, which endorsement shall permit filing in the Office of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, provided, however, that this approval shall expire one year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not yet been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Applicant has not obtained the required building permit or permits for the construction in accordance with the approved plan(s): 1. On or before the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay the Village of Sleepy Hollow all application and review fees as required by the Village Code, as approved by the Village Attorney; 2. All remedial work, drainage work, curbing and work on walls shall commence within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a building permit and said work shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the building permit (weather permitting); „ ffi'iy ^ ^ ^ ^ W c^^mJrs iv *UM*' f*^ 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant agrees to post a $10,000 bond to the benefit of the Village and the Village shall hold the $10,000 bond in an escrow account until all of the remedial work, drainage work, curbing and work on walls is completed as set forth in the final approved site plan. Upon completion of the work as set forth in paragraph 2 to the satisfaction of fe Village Engineer, the Village shall release the 10,000 bond to the applicant; ^J �4. If the aforementioned work set forth in paragraph 2 is not completed within said 60 day period, (weather permitting), the applicant agrees to have the Village Engineer determine the cost of completion of said work and the applicant agrees that he shall be liable for said amount as liquidated damages and the applicant shall deposit said amount with the Village within 10 days of Village's demand therefor and upon receipt of the money by the Village the Village may use the money to complete the aforementioned work; 5. If 75 days after the issuance of the building permit is issued the work set forth in paragraph 2 is not complete and the applicant has not paid the Village the cost to complete the work, then the Applicant is to appear before the Planning Board to determine what action is required. If the applicant fails to appear or if the applicant appears but refuses to complete the work set forth in paragraph 2 above, the Village may execute against the bond and use the proceeds of the bond to complete the aforementioned work; 6. The Applicant is to appear before the Planning Board at its February, 2003 Meeting, to advise the Board as to the status of the work set forth on the project; 7. All fencing, landscape grading and lighting shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan within ninety (90) days from the issuance of the building permit; 8. All planting of trees shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan on or before June 1, 2003; 9. The Applicant is to appear before the Planning Board at its June, 2003 Meeting, to advise the Board as to the status of the work set forth on the project; 10. All blacktopping shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan on or before September 1, 2003; 11. The entire project shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan on or before November 15, 2003; 12. The existing structure shall be comprised of solely a two family residence on the second floor and office space on the first floor; �13. The rear structure shall be a two story structure which shall have an apartment on the second floor and an office and garage on the first floor; 14. Applicant is to remove all foreign material from the west side of the property and conform the grade to the approved plans; 15. The construction shall be in absolute conformance with the final approved drawings and site plans; 16. The construction shall be inspected by the Design Engineer or a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of New York who shall issue a report to the Village Building Department certifying that the project has been completed in strict accordance with the approved plans. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued without the submission of the aforementioned engineers report; 17. On or before the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall deposit $5,000 in a Village of Sleepy Hollow Escrow Account. If the applicant does not provide an Engineer's report as set forth in paragraph 16 above, on or before December 18, 2003 the Village may use the $5,000 to retain a n engineer and/or other consultants of their own choosing to inspect the property and ensure that the that the project has been completed in strict accordance with the approved plans. 18. The property is not to be used as a nursery unless a future application is filed and approval is obtained to operate a nursery from the Planning Board; 19. No signs are to be placed anywhere on the property unless approved by the Architectural Review Board; 20. No fertilizer is to be stored anywhere on the property; 21. The rear garage is not to be used as an automotive repair business; 22. No trucks and/or cars are to be stored on the property for more than 72 hours unless vehicle is owned and registered to the owner of the property or owned and registered to a tenant residing of the property pursuant to a valid lease and parked in an area designated on the approved site plan; 23. No boat, camper, camper trailer, motor home, trailer or recreation vehicle shall be stored on the property for more than 48 hours unless vehicle is owned and registered to the owner of the property or owned and registered �to a tenant residing on the property pursuant to a valid lease and parked in an area designated on the approved site plan and in area in that is in compliance with the Village Code; 24. Vehicles may only be parked in parking areas designated on the approved site plans; 25. Parking on the site may only be used for the on-site offices and the on-site residential uses; 26. No outdoor storage of material or equipment on the property; 27. The applicant shall post a performance bond to guarantee the construction of public infrastructure in an amount, and to the extent required, as determined by the Village Engineer. 28. The applicant is to comply with all rules and regulation of the Village of Sleepy Hollow as well as New York State including, but not limited to, height of the structures and setbacks with respect to the proposed structures. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW f , Chairman Date LAST REVISED 12-18-02 I I � 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 Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-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_PLAN_2002-11-21 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2002 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2002