https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/43b0d3bea666f467b4d4c783c207f026.pdf a4580514d4e965f567a4a62db8ace91a PDF Text Text A regular meeting of the Planning Board was held on April 16,1998 at 8;00 VU in Village Hall, 28 Beekman Avenue, Sleepy Hollow, New York 10591 Ivliiv.berc Present: 2\Tiehoiac Robinson, Chairman Edward Napoleon Nicholas Cicchetii Benito Martinez David Perlmutter Edward McCarthy Betsy Sawyer Gaylin Also Presenc: Jame* Margotta, Building Inspector Janet Gandoifo, Village Attorney Janet Gandoifo swore in the Chairman and the three new Planning Board members. In the matter of Maria Graca, 143 New Broadway Applicant nor a representative was present. She will be advised that she is now required to re-notice the Public Hearing with a new date.. There was no objection by the Board. So ordered by the Chairman. In the matter of Antonio Rodriguez, 358 North Broadivay (continuation) The applicant was present and represented by his attorney, John Hughes. The proposed plan was submitted to be read into the record. Louis Contadino, the project architect, gave an overview of the project to bring the new Board members up to date. Mr. Cicchetti asked if the passageway beside the building would be large enough for a car to go through. Mr. Contadino explained there was no room for vehicle or pedestrian traffic to pass there. The earth will be held back by the back wall. The Chairman asked how the retail stores would get their stock in and out, if there would be a loading dock or something similar. Mr. Contadino stated that he believed that was one of the variances granted. Mr. Hughes expressed the fact that the Zoning Board waived that variance attributable to two factors: 1) The general tightness of the spot. 2) The type of uses uhich are envisioned, which are office and retail, which would not involve a heavy type of delivery, (eg. Real estate, insurance, a bank, as opposed to a grocer}' store) M Perlmulter stated that a grocery store could rent it under the zoning. Mr. Margotta explained tha: they would need a variance. Mr. Perlmutter questioned why they would need a variance. Mi Margotta explained that we have a code that requires that if you 're within 200 feet of an«. iher grocery store, liquor store or any food service store, you require a variance i Mr. Perlmutter stated that a hardware itou could rent it. Mr. Margotta agreed. Mr. Perlmutter expressed ihat there has bo«.». lengthy discussion. This building went up in the middle of the night, and there has been Significant discussion about the builder setting the �building back another ten feet. The builder refuses to set it back another ten feet. Mr, Hughes explained the reason for that is historically and for purposes of zoning and planning. 1) We did receive a variance for the building to be set back ten feetfromthe property line and we spent two or three mouths obtaining the variance. 2)We have not heard any Planning reason relating to the heath, welfare and safety of the residents of the community why this building wouldn't be just tine where it is right now. Mr. Perlmutter asked about the building being ugly and massive as a reason. Mr. Hughes disagreed and stated that they view that as a decision for the Architectural Review Board to possibly consider, that he doesn't feel that ugly and massive is an issue for the Planning Board to consider. Mr. Hughes stated that they view the building as being very beautiful. Mr. Perlmutter asked how many feet was lost in the front. Mr. Hughes stated the building is 80 feet wide by 20 foot deep, so that's 1600 square feet on the both floors. Mr. Perlmutter asked how many feet was added. Mr. Contadino stated a bit more. Mr. Perlmutter asked precisely how many more. Mr. Contadino replied maybe 2400. Mr. Margotta points out that all of that complies with the zoning and that the building as it is now is not oversized as compared to the size of the property they have and that it meets with the zoning ordinance and that the Zoning Board did give them compliance, Mr. Perlmutter stated that this is not binding on the Planning Board, then asked Ms. Gandolfo if it is binding or not Ms. Gandolfo pointed out that a variance is different than a site plan review. The Planning Board has the jurisdiction and authority over the entire site plan review, so if mere rue reasons that pertain to the health, welfare, et cetera, of the site where the Planning Board doesn't necessarily agree with the Zoning Board, no, the Zoning Board's decisions are not binding, but the Planning Board does have to put forth references why they would not accept the Zoning Board's decision., and it has to be reasonable and a record has to be made why the Planning Board would not accept the Zoning Board's decision. The Chairman questioned the fact that there was a request for the other building, which is in abeyance at present, there were some approvals that were lapsed and there was a request for a continuance, and this board has decided not to act on that yet. Mr. Hughes stated that there is some confusion. The plan was called Phillips Plaza and it was approved by resolution of this board on February 16U1. Under the code, those resolutions expire one year if a building permit was not applied for and acted upon, and that time period went by. The reason it went b> was because Mi* Hughes' client is a very busy person and also this building burned, which sidetracked him from pursuing the Phillips Plaza. They had requested an extension to that resolution at the November meeting and there is somewhat of a bit of confusion as to what that outcome was. Mr. Hughes stated that they are here tonight to first ask that this building be approved, and that's the primary issue before the Board tonight in terms of a continuance of the Public Hearing, and perhaps a secondary, to ask that the Phillips Plaza be extended, which is a matter of routine nature in the Village of Sleepy Hollow The Chairman explained the reason he asked about Phillips Plaza is because clearly these two h:i\e sonic relationship between them. �I'he Chairman asked if there was access from the north side of the building, the parking lots, through the access for Phillips Plaza. Mr. Contadino concurred. The Chairman referred to the plans and asked if the access occurs at one point or on Old Broadway. Mr. Contadino stated that there is one curb cut here and one on Old Broadway. The Chairman inquires if those two curb cuts were part of the traffic study. The reply was that the worst case scenario they would assume, everyone would enter or exit on Gordon Avenue., which loads up Gordon Avenue to see if traffic operating conditions are available. 1 lie Chairman asked where would the relationship to the curb cut be to Uncle Jerry's curb cut now. and where is it proposed that it be. Ms. Gandolfo stated that that building is coming down. The chairman expressed that he has knowledge of tiiat, but they arc saying they are going to keep the same driveway. Mr. Contadino stated this is nondescript and that so far '.he seven cai s can park very much the way people are parking. I he Chairman asked if Pliillips Plaza is gomg to be retail or other use Mr. Contadino explained that it will be mixed uses also. Ms. Gandolfo stated that Phillips Plaza is a mixed u-ic ieti.nl. The Chairman asked Mr Hughes what timetable he is looking for in terms of moving forward and stated that the DOT will take their time to review this. Mr. Hughes stated that they cannot go to any other agency without the approval of this Board, and of course the ne^essaiy condition is the approval of any other agencies, but the Planning Board is definitely fust There is no sense in going to any other agencies absent the approval of this Buaici. and that that's what they would like to do. Mr. Hughes stated he doesn't know how long he wiii need because he has no idea how long it will take to get the approval of the other agencies The Cliainnan addressed the board, asking if mere were any other questions from the Planning Board for the consultants mat were present or anyonefromthe Village staff. Mr. Margctta stated with regard to the engineering study, n was reviewed by Manganaro, but unfoitunateiy the men who reviewed it were not here. The fire suppression system, •.{'jiijcitic water, sewage, are ali more than adequate and they present no problem. "x he Ciiainiian asked if the engineers iooked at the lateral support in the retaining walls all .".long the side Mr. Hughes replied yes. The Chairman asked if there is a report to that affect that was previously submitted. Mr. Hughes replied'yes and presented a letterfromMr. Gus Agostino Casey. The letter was ,..om:t:ed ^::d the ii:ah parugiaph was> read to the Board. The Chu.niiviii requested a report on the lateral support on the hillside and asked if the .•^inccAi L.k\ J iJoked .it that aspwCt. Mr Hughes replied that Agostiuo Engineering has �already designed the retaining wall and believes they have given it to Manganaro for their review. Mr. Hughes stated as far a4s he knows, they found it to be satisfactory. Ms.Gandolfo advised that it is always a condition in any plan that the event wall building plans be submitted to the engineers and must be approved by the engineers before the work is commenced, that would be a condition or resolution always. Hiey did submit to Manganaro. Mr. Schmidt commented on the cycle of the rights at the location. The Chairman asked how the cycle of the traffic lights affects the traffic offof Historic Hudson Valley that would trigger changes in the intersection. Mr. Schmidt explained there is a maximum green tune for Pocantico Street of 55 seconds, a maximum green time for Phillipsburg Manor of 10 to 15 seconds, and the remainder of the time is given to Broadway. that in fact this phase doesn't come on unless there is a car there, so basically the length doesn't change, just how much time is apportioned. The Chairman asked about the Coastal Assessment Form. The Board reviewed the EIS with Mr. Hughes, which was incorporated or attached as part of the site plan. The Board asked if there were existing storm drains. Mr. Hughes replied that there are. Mr. Cicchelti stated that the grates below the trees which are lined to the curb, on the October 16^ letterfromMr. Schmidt they wanted the plan to indicate that those grates were being placed under those. Mr. Contadino replied that the latest drawings should have that indicated on them, they did both design or select light fixture* as well as the grates for the sidewalk. The Chairman asked iffromMr. Schmidt's point of view the form is complete regarding the lead agency. Mr. Schmidt replied that the EIS was submitted and has been revised pursuant to the criticisms he received. The Chairman asked Mr. Schmidt to comment on the completeness of the EIS Form. Mr. Schmidt reviewed the EIS Form with the Board. The Chairman asked Mr. Rodriguez if he had any comments or questions. Mr. Rodriguez replied no. The Chairman requested public comment or questions and pointed out there were no other members of the public present. The Chairman asked Mr. Hughes if he had any other comments. Mr. Hughes stated no, that he believed their submission was about complete at this time, with a few minor housekeeping details, and stated it is of course subject, as always in a resolution, that the Building Department will review this and the Village Engineer will review it in more detail. Naturally the Architectural Review Board will review the character of the building from an aesthetic and architectural point of view. �Mr. Hughes asks, with those normal conditions, for the Board's determination that the submission is complete and for approval so they can move on. A motion was mads to close the public hearing, motion carried. A discussion ensued. Motion granted unanimously. Motion made by Mr. Cicchetci to grant approval, seconded by Ms. Sawyer. All voted unanimously in favor. Motion granted. Floor open to discussion for Planning Board Members to discuss how they should proceed at this time regarding a full EIS. Mr. Perhnutter made a motion to reaffirm that the Planning Board is lead agency and to make that declaration, seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Motion granted unanimously. Discussion ensued regarding whether to make a positive declaration. Motion made by Mr. Perl/muter to go ahead in terms of SICAto accept the EIS with negative declaration on the conditions that the Board will then discuss, so it would be a conditional negative declaration, and then approval would be based on that condition, seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Motion granted. Discussion ensued regarding the driveway on Gordon Avenue. Motion made by Mr. Perhnutter to cut the driveway on Gordon avenue back an additional five feet., in addition to the .10 feet the SBA allowed, seconded by Ms. Sawyer. Motion failed. Discussion ensued regarding accepting the EIS as complete, Motion made by Mr. Napoleon to accept the EIS as complete for negative declaration, seconded by Mr. McCarthy. Motion granted. Discussion ensued regarding renewal of Phillips Pla2a. Motion made by Mr. Perlnumer to not approve the renewal of Phillips Plaza, and the application has to come back to the Board as a new application, seconded by Mr. Napoleon. Motion granted unanimously. There being no further business, Mr. Cicchetti ma*.'* a motion to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Board, seconded by Ms. Sawyer, RespediiiHy $u bmitfed, �&jppr> r v 19 May 1998 To: Planning Board From: James Margotta THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MAY 21, 1998 HAS BEEN CANCELLED FOR IHE FOLLOWING REASONS: (SEE ATTACHED) Eric, � 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_1998-04-16 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