https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/76882ff592b3c0a55ba657db23a6ae70.pdf c76ae2114d83c64c5113ec445dd13776 PDF Text Text 1 A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on July 16, 1998 at 8:00 p.m. in the Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591. Members Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Benito Martinez Nicholas Cicchetti David Perlmutter Betsy Sawyer Gaylin Ed Napoleon Absent: Edward McCarthy Also Present: James Margotta, Building Inspector Janet Gandolfo, Village Attorney Mark DeGennaro David B. Schiff Chairman declares the Public Hearing open. In the Matter of Hew York SMSA Limited Partnership. 701 North Broadway. Ms. Schneider addressed the Board as follows: Hello, Mr. Chairman. Good evening Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Leslie Schneider. I am a partner in the law firm of Schneider and Schneider. I am here for two wireless carriers. These two wireless carriers are seeking to provide wireless service in the Village of Sleepy Hollow, and what they are seeking to do is build a communication facility on 2,500 square feet of the 60 acre hospital property. They have spent alot of time placing this facility in essentially rows of trees on the hospital property to keep it away from the views. Your engineer and planner requested some additional information, range calculations, I believe at the last meeting. I was to comply with their requests. Some of the interesting things about this facility in particular is it's an unmanned facility. It doesn't require any traffic, no lights, any services. It only needs telephone and electricity to operate. It won't require any particular services or have any kind of nuisance factor to the community. �2 One of the things we did was do a balloon test. I know your planner had asked for a detailed visual analysis. We take the balloon to the exact height of the facility. The facility is proposed to be 110 foot monopole. A monopole is 36 inches at the base and tapers to 18 inches at the top. The antennas are small, only 43 inches long and only six and a half inches wide. I can walk you through the visual analysis. some photos. I also have We did agree with the Zoning Board at their meeting last night that we would do a balloon test just for them so they can drive around the area and see that it really has no impact and the visibility was veryf very limited. We would be happy to do that for the Planning Board on a day that is convenient for you before your next meeting as well. Ms. Schneider handed the Board copies of the analysis. A discussion ensued. Ms. Sawyer asked how high the water tank is. Mr. Johnson replied 29 feet. The water tank is about maybe 35 feet tall. The AT&T tower is 29 feet. Mr. Schiff inquired about the existing antenna and how high it is from the ground up. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Schiff was referring to the existing existing AT&T antenna. Mr. Schiff responded yes. Mr. Johnson replied 29 feet, from ground level it's 29 feet. It's shooting directly into the trees. Mr. Johnson went on to state that he has spoken with people from AT&T regarding that site. It's not a site that provides comprehensive coverage to the Village, meaning it's not a site which would allow them to cover all of Sleepy Hollow with one application. It primarily covers that little block there, Route 9 and 117. It doesn't extend all the way down 117, nor does it get sufficient coverage on all of 9. Ours will cover Old Bedford Road, Sleepy Hollow Road, Gory Brook Road, so it's a solution for the whole Village. Mr. Perlmutter enquired about using two 50-foot towers �3 elsewhere, would they get the same coverage. Ms. Schneider explained that you have to get above the tree line, so it's line of site technology. Bach site has to see each other. The trees in that area are quite mature, so that is one of the things that necessitated height. Mr. Johnson stated some of the trees there were as high as a 110 feet tall, so there are also trees out there that are 90 feet tall. Mr. Johnson further stated that one of the beauties of this application is we're located on somewhat of a slope, so 60, 70 feet away towards the edge of the parking lot where you could drive up and park, it's 212 feet in ground elevation. Where we're at it's 200 feet elevation, so a 80-foot tree out there will be closer to 92 feet when compared to the height of our antennas. A discussion ensued. Ms. Schneider stated that she has with her tonight her engineers who prepared the plan and frequency, that they would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Chairman asked when the balloon test is scheduled to be done for the Zoning Board. Ms. Schneider replied they were going to do the Zoning Board the Saturday before their meeting, and the best time to do it is early in the morning on the weekday so the wind is the least to make sure the balloon is exactly in the exact location. Ms. Schneider expressed that they would be happy to do it on a week morning before everyone goes to work and have it up there 6:00 to 8:00, or they can do it on a Saturday. Ms. Schneider inquired when the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for. Chairman responded that there is usually no meeting in August. Ms. Schneider stated that the Zoning Board is September 16 and asked if they could do the test before then. Chairman asked if they would do the test on the 16th. �4 Ms. Schneider responded they are going to do it the Saturday before, which would be the 13th, that if there is a meeting before that, they will do it for the meeting. Chairman stated the the Planning Board meeting would be after that. A discussion ensued. Chairman stated that paragraph 11 of Ms. Schneider's long form stating there is no impact on aesthetic sources, they will need to have some type of formal statement that the National Trust for Greenrock and Historic Hudson Valley did not find this intrusive on them. Chairman went on to explain that that property was very sensitive to all visual impacts and the height is restricted. Ms. Schneider stated they also did look at the James House on the hospital, which is also listed, and they have a letter for the record which says a balloon test was taken and was not visible from that location. That is quite a distance away. Ms. Schneider handed the Board the abovementioned letter. Chairman asked if there were any further questions that the Board members had of a factual nature or any of the Village staff. A discussion ensued. Chairman asked if there were any other questions. There being no response, the Chairman closed the public meeting and stated that they would now go on to consider whether they want to be the lead agency of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA. Chairman stated it is the decision of this Board that we entertain a motion to declare ourselves lead agency for the SEQRA review in this application. Mr. Perlmutter made the motion. Mr. Napoleon seconds the motion. Chairman asked if there was any discussion on that. 4 �5 Motion carried unanimously. Chairman asked if the long form Environmental Impact Assessment should be discussed briefly to see whether people want any other information other than that which has been submitted and the points that the applicant has agreed to provide so far. Chairman expressed that there seems to be an indication regarding preservation interests, properties effected by the view, and secondly the hospital, the Health Impact Assessment. Chairman again asked if there is anything else anyone feels is needed to go through this long form briefly. Chairman stated he thinks they ought to look at it. Chairman indicated that the sponsor indicates total coverage area is a 1,500 square feet, all of the engineering so indicates no erosion problems. It indicates it is in a critical area, which is the costal zone, I assume. A discussion ensued. Chairman indicated that the lead agency responsibilities, page six, the beginning of the long form, indicates the only impact on the land is the building of 110 foot pole and antenna and the ground equipment for it. We have a site plan for it. It indicates no impact on water, body of water or ground water, drainage, no air impact. It indicates no impact on plants or animals, no agricultural impact. Chairman indicated that he thought the question on 11, impact on aesthetic sources, seems to be the one that concerns the Board this evening. Chairman stated that they have checked no impact. It may be appropriate for them to consider whether there is a need to mitigate any aesthetic impact and similarly subject to further documentation in question 12, the historic view shed. Chairman further states this area is not now open to public recreation. He supposes the building tower has some space impact, if doesn't impact on critical environmental areas. A discussion ensued. Chairman inquired of the Board if they have any questions �6 about long form EIF they would like to see addressed further, now that they have read through it, surveyed it briefly. Chairman explained to the Board, what we would be doing, assuming the further documentation is submitted at our next meeting, we'll be making a finding of no significant impact, unless we find a significant impact. If there is an impact, we would have to consider whether a conditional negative declaration would be adopted, making a finding that whatever mitigation has been agreed to by the applicant mitigates any adverse impact. Upon making that finding, we could then see appropriate notice to make the resolution on approving the decision at our following meeting. Since the balloon test won't be until September, unless you want one earlier, we can all go to the same balloon test and see it then, and then act on it on the September meeting. Mr. Perlmutter asked if they are talking about building senior housing on Phelps property. Chairman responded he thought the plan for that is down the hill. Mr. Perlmutter suggested they should look at the view from there and see how it effects it. Chairman asked if the Board should note they will be doing the balloon test on September 13 and it will be completed to this Board, current members would want to inspect the site, take a look that morning. Ms. Schneider stated it would be the 12th, that if it rains or if it's impossible, we can make it the 13th as the alternative, if that's okay. Mr. Cicchetti wanted to know what the hours were for the test. Ms. Schneider responded 9:00 to 12:00. Chairman asked regarding the balloon test, in addition to the visit by the Board, will Ms. Schneider be submitting any kind of documentation to the record. Ms. Schneider stated they would document it again, the �7 additional places that he indicated, to further identify its visibility. Chairman asked if there is any further discussion at this time on the application. Chairman stated we agree to take it on at our meeting on September 17. Ms. Schneider indicated the Zoning Board would meet on the 17th and asked if it was possible to have the Planning Board meeting before the Zoning Board meeting. Chairman stated that the Zoning Board is just a use variance, so if you have the use approved, you have to go through the environmental• Ms. Schneider stated that the only thing is they would have to wait, that since they're going to coordinate the view, you would have to do that before they take the final, the final action. If at all feasible to do it earlier, even if you wanted to do it the week earlier, we'll have another balloon test for you. It would help us with time. There really is a need for services because there is really no service. Mr. Cicchetti stated on this map here, you have a listing here of the owners of record of adjacent property. There are a number of names of the people who live on Hemlock, Birch Close, Terrace Close. Down below there, are their names listed here? Because they are getting special notification from you. Ms. Schneider responded yes, we need 33 people for this Public Hearing. Mr. Margotta stated they were all sent registered return receipt. Ms. Schneider responded we submitted that to the Building Department as evidence. Mr. Cicchetti stated the reason I ask the question is because I know a number of people that want to be present at this public meeting, but because of the decision made by the Zoning Board last night I consider there was no forthcoming till that decision is made. �8 Mr. Cicchetti asked if they are going to continue this Public Hearing of the Planning Board. Chairman responded that was the proposal, yes. Ms. Sawyer expressed that we should continue. Ms. Schneider stated two or three people came to the Public Hearing last night. Chairman stated that we have had no communication from the Sleepy Hollow Homeowners Association Mr. Margotta stated that they were here last night. Ms. Schneider stated he wanted to just make sure that he could not see it and he was appreciative that we would do further testing. Chairman asked if he is coming to the balloon test. Ms. Schneider replied yes. A discussion ensued. Other business. Chairman stated we have had minutes of prior meetings distributed to us. I think we have no other applications on this evening. Is that correct? So we can take the minutes and see whether any members have recommendations to the minutes. Chairman stated he also had a question regarding the outstanding fees that were due to the Village by various applicants in the past. Are they still outstanding Ms. Gandolfo stated we're in the process of collecting them, that Antonio's has been paid, all with the exception of the recreation fee. Miguel Jiminez is all paid up to date Mr. Perlmutter asked why aren't we collecting direct fees Ms. Gandolfo asked what Mr. Perlmutter meant by why aren't we. Mr. Perlmutter stated Ms. Gandolfo said we're paid except for the rec fees. �9 Ms. Gandolfo stated there is also an issue to the rec fees as to the applicants want to have that. Miguel asked for a waiver, he went on to the Board of Trustees last week, they turned him down. Antonio is going to be doing the same, approaching the Board of Trustees, and when they make the decision I am assuming they are going to deal with all of this across the board in the same manner, then he will pay. They are entitled to the opportunity to go to the Board of Trustees for a waiver. A discussion ensued. Approval of minutes Chairman asked if everyone had a chance to look at the minutes of the June meeting and if there are any changes anyone wishes to make. Chairman: Any changes anyone wants to make? Ms. Sawyer made a motion to accept the minutes. Mr. Napoleon seconds the motion. Motion carried. Other business (continued) Chairman asked on Ms. Graca's application, if the Board needed any changes to that. Mr. Schiff responded no. A discussion ensued. Chairman stated the resolution has beend distributed to the Board and asked if there is any discussion regarding the resolution or any other points; and if not, all those in favor of the resolution signify by saying aye. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman asked if there was any other business to come before the Board. Chairman stated he assumed the Board would want to continue their tradition of not meeting in August. �10 Ms. Sawyer agreed. Chairman stated we will have our next meeting in September. Chairman stated there being no other business, we stand adjourned. Thank you very much. Respectfully Submitted, Ly&ia Irizarry Recording Secretary �20 July 1998 To: Planning Board From: James Margotta There will be no Planning Board meeting in August. � 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-1998 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_1998-07-16 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-1998 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1998