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