https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1ddc5d279883c55d108d6b3436f23374.pdf 8442bb5ae35a874fcc9a7bb31f0aeea4 PDF Text Text '//&/o3 VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING December 19,2002 " ' RECEIVED ___ DEC ? 7 ?nn? The meeting was called to order at 8:00 pm by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman^ TheCtau;. noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner Ed Napoleon Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Ed McCarthy David Perlmutter Absent: None Also Present: Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Shailesh tyaik (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) Announcements: The Chair acknowledged a letter from the Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning. He stated that it would be discussed at the end of the meeting. Agenda: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) Omnipoint Laurentino Rodrigues Monopole permit application status Nextel Antonio Rodrigues Karl Dibble GEIS/Wireless Location Study Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning Other Business CFF Reality Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Perlmutter). p �1) OmnipointThe Chair acknowledged a letter from Omnipoint representatives (see attached). This was adjourned to the January 2003 meeting. 2) Laurentino Rodrigues The Chair stated that since there was no meeting of the Waterfront Advisory Committee, this item will be adjourned to the January 2003 meeting. 3) Monopole permit application status The Chair referred to the Village Engineer on the status of the monopole height survey. Shailesh Naik stated that the height of the monopole was 111 feet but the height of the top antenna was 117 feet. The Chair asked the Village Engineer issue a copy of the report to the Village Planner for the GEIS and the Village Attorney. The Chair stated that Village Code section 62.22.2 (g) (4) stated that a structural report of the monopole is to be submitted annually to the Planning Board. He stated that this report has not been received to date. Ed Lammers stated that he would contact the owner of the monopole as well as the owners of the communication facilities regarding the structural report. The Chair also stated that Village Code section 62.22.2 (o) states that a bond needs to be posted in case the structure needs to be removed. He stated that no bond has been posted to date. George Tanner made a motion to have the Village Attorney contact the owner of the monopole as well as the owners of the communication facilities concerning posting a bond. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (6-0) (Perlmutter). George Tanner asked if Verizon has posted a bond for the proposed equipment to be mounted on top of Village Hall. The Chair responded that the bond has already been posted. 4) Nestel Robert Gaudioso is the attorney representing the applicant. He spoke about the proposed equipment layout. He stated that he was seeking feedback from the Planning Board. Planning Board Meeting, December 19,2002 2 �The Chair stated that the Architectural Review Board wants the antennas to be camouflaged. Robert Gaudioso responded that he would have drawings generated and presented to the Board for the next meeting. The Chair polled the Board for comments. George Tanner asked if this was the latest technology available. Robert Gaudioso responded that Nextel's system is unique so it is hard to tell. The Chair acknowledged the Village Engineer's comments. Robert Gaudioso responded that the applicant will prepare a full response to the Village Engineer's questions as well as questions raised by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly. Robert Gaudioso asked if a public hearing could be scheduled for the next meeting. The Chair stated that the next Architectural Review Board meeting is scheduled for January 22, 2003. He stated that the public hearing would be scheduled once the applicant obtains the Architectural Review Board's approval. Robert Gaudioso requested if the public hearing could be scheduled and left open until the Architectural Review Board approval is obtained. The Board accepted Robert Gaudioso proposal. David Perlmutter made a motion to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting based on the applicants understanding that the public hearing would remain open until the Board is satisfied. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). 5) Antonio Rodrieues Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application along with Antonio Rodrigues. There was an open discussion on the public notice. The applicant prepared their own notice and properly distributed it to the neighbors. It was determined that the advertisement in the local newspaper was not performed but will be completed for the next Planning Board meeting. Sean McCarthy spoke about the Architectural Review Board's approval. He also spoke about the traffic consultant's report. The Chair spoke about having the DOT close Old Broadway due to the increased traffic Planning Board Meeting, December 19,2002 3 �as a result of the GM project as well as the current condition of this area with regards to traffic. He stated that this would eliminate most of the traffic concerns with this project as well as relieve the traffic flow in this area. Sean McCarthy responded that the building would have to be shifted to the South to accommodate the closing of Old Broadway. There was an open discussion on the flow of traffic on the site. The Chair opened the public hearing. Anthony Lanzi (lives adjacent to the property) spoke. He stated that he is concerned with the proposed traffic impact. He stated that he currently has problems getting in and out of his property and is concerned about the possible traffic impacts to the area as a result of this project. There was an open discussion about the traffic signals and the flow of traffic in the immediate area. It was determined that the entire area needs to be addressed. This was adjourned to the next meeting. 6) Karl Dibble The Chair asked the Village Attorney for an update. Ed Lammers stated that the Architectural Review Board asked the applicant to return to their next meeting with the project architect. George Tanner asked if Karl Dibble has submitted a copy of the signed contract from his contractor. Ed Lammers responded no. He stated that he would contact Karl Dibble's attorney. The language in the Resolution was reviewed. There was an open discussion on the location of the commercial vehicles on the property. It was agreed that until the site plan is approved, there is nothing that can be enforced with respect to the location of the vehicles. The Board edited items #2 and #29 to reflect Board comments. The Chair signed the Resolution. Planning board Meeting, December 19,2002 4 �7) GEISAV ireless Location Study The Chair referred to Dave Smith. Dave Smith stated that Mike Musso had prepared a report for the Board. Mike Musso distributed information on the preliminary study. He reviewed the twelve sites that are proposed in the study. The Chair spoke about including other tall structures. He also spoke about the ridge line at the cemetery as well as the Kendal-on-Hudson property as sites to be considered. There was an open discussion on other sites to be evaluated. The Chair stated that under SEQRA, the GEIS was not limited by the Village boundaries. Mike Musso referred to the two-page table. He spoke about the school property and their decision not to be included in the GEIS. The Chair stated that once the GEIS was received, it would be reviewed and a public hearing would be scheduled. 8) Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning Survey The Chair acknowledged receipt of a surveyfromThe Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning. They are requesting some informationfromthe Village concerning affordable housing and affordable housing plans. The Chair stated that the Village will respond to the survey. 9) Other Business The Chair acknowledged receipt of two (2) notices of intent to act as lead agency from the Village Board of Trustees. The Chair asked if the Planning Board had any objections. Since there were none, the Chair stated that a notice would be sent to the Village Trustees stating that the Board has no objections. 10) CFF Reality Victor Solarik is the project architect and is representing the applicant. He spoke about some of the minor changes as per the Architectural Review Board. He also briefly Planning Board Meeting, December 19,2002 5 �described the proposed changes to the building. David Perimutter asked about the number of employees at the site. Victor Solarik responded that there would be around four (4) employees in the first floor area including the showroom. George Tanner asked about the number of parking spaces the applicant is proposing. Victor Solarik responded 17. Bob Stiloski stated that 11 are required. The Chair recommended that the applicant speak to Historic Hudson Valley concerning the traffic flows in the area. Victor Solarik responded that the traffic impact is negligible. He stated that he will find out the traffic information at the applicant's Elmsford office and report back to the Planning Board as to the possible impacts to the area. The Board decided to wait until the Waterfront Advisory Committee's consistency findings are complete before scheduling a public hearing. 11) Minutes The minutes from October 2002 were reviewed. George Tanner made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. David Perimutter seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). The minutes from November will be reviewed at the next meeting. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (7-0). Adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Tfel Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, December 19,2002 6 �;FROM LEBOEUF. LAMB. GREENE&MACRAE. L. L. P. (THU)12. 19' 02 17:21/ST. 1 7 : 20/NO. 4800000053 P 2 L E B O E U F , LAMB, GREENE & MACRAE L.L.R A UMrTED LIABIUTY PARTNERSHIP INCLUOING PROTC53IONAL CORPORATION a 99 NEW YORK W A S H I N G T O N . QC. WASHINGTON AVENUE SUITE ALBANY A L B A N Y . NY BOSTON DENVER 2020 LONOON IA LONOOrt-BASCD MULTINATIONAL PAITNCRSHtP I 12210-2820 (5 I 8 ) 6 2 0 - 0 0 0 0 HARRISBURG PARIS BRUSSELS JOHANNESBURG « PTr> LTO FACSIMILE. (5 I 8 ) 0 3 6 - 9 0 I O H A R T F O RD MOSCOW HOUSTON slACKSONVILt E RIYAOH lArniiATto o r n c c i LOS ANGELES TASHKENT NEWARK BISHKEK PITTSBURGH SALT LAKE CITY ALMATY SAN BEIJING FRANCISCO December 19,2002 Mr. David B. Smith Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. 245 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 Re: Omnipoint Communications, Inc.'s Application for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 95 Beekman Avenue; Omnipoint Communications, Inc.'s Application for an Extension of the Wireless Monopole at Phelps Memorial Hospital Dear Dave: Pursuant to your discussion this afternoon, we are providing this letter as an update regarding the above-referenced applications for Omnipoint Communications, Inc. ("Omnipoint"). We would appreciate your providing the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board ("Planning Board") with a copy of this letter and a report on the status of the applications as outlined herein at tonight's Planning Board meeting. Omnipoint continues to investigate Village Hall as a possible alternative to its proposed site at 95 Beekman Avenue. Omnipoint recently informed us that the lease agreement has been forwarded to the Village Administrator and that Omnipoint is waiting to hearfromthe Village regarding the lease terms. Thus, we respectfully request that the Planning Board put over Omnipoint's application for 95 Beekman Avenue until the next Planning Board meeting. Regarding Omnipoint's application for facilities to be located at Phelps Memorial Hospital, an check in the amount of $2,500 to replenish the escrow account was forwarded and should have been received by the Village of Sleepy Hollow. We will therefore be moving forward with finalizing the Final Environmental Impact Statement related to the proposed facilities. �*^RpU LEBOEUF. LAMB. GREENE&MACRAE. L. L. P. (THU) 1 2. 19*02 17:21/ST. 1 7 : 20/NO. 4800000053 P Mr. David B. Smith December 19,2002 Page 2 # We thank you and the Planning Board for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, (£*%$ Noelle M. Kinsch cc: Mr. Michael Murphy Michael Peters, Esq. • % AL-78980.1 3 � 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_2002-12-19 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