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