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