https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/d208d23145175be753973a05d6eba869.pdf c0cc7878dce05cdd7f905a1115849787 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING November 21, 2002 «FCFIVFn C U DEC ? 7 ?fUI7 The meeting was called to order at 8:04 pm by Nicholas Robinson, ChairmanVHJteASlfiiCLERK noted that a quorum was present. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Nicholas Cicchetti George Tanner Ed Napoleon Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Ed McCarthy Absent: David Perlmutter Also Present. Dave Smith (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Shailesh Naik (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 stated that the Omnipoint application has been adjourned to next meeting. He also stated that CFF Realty has also been adjourned since they are still on the Waterfront Advisory Committee's agenda for December. Agenda: I) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Karl Dibble Ichabod's Landing \ntonio Rodrigues Laurentino Rodrigues Nextel Monopole permit application status GEISAYireless Location Study Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Ed Napoleon seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 1) Karl Dibble This is a continuation from previous meetings. �Richard Blancato is representing this application along with the applicant Karl Dibble The Chair stated that the Board had received the revised drawings today. Richard Blancato stated that there were only two (2) revisions to the drawings. They are: 1) removal of blocks as per the Building Inspector 2) Additional six (6) trees for screening as per the Planning Board's recommendation. He stated that at the last meeting, a construction schedule was required. He stated that that schedule reflects completing all of the remedial work first. This would include removing the retaining walls and installing the site drainage within the first 30 days weather permitting. He stated that the Architectural Review Board cannot approve the application until the site plan is approved. He also stated that the site landscaping would be completed within 90 days. Lastly, he stated that the blacktopping of the property would be scheduled for September 2003 and the Certificate of Occupancy would be obtained approximately one (1) year from issuance of the building permit. George Tanner asked if there had been any further site work done since the last meeting. Richard Blancato responded no. George Tanner asked about the 40 foot section of blocks on the South side of the property Richard Blancato denied that any work was done on the property since the last meeting He stated that there is a pile of cobblestone on the property. The Chair referred to the Village Consultants for their input. Dave Smith stated that he had no comments. Shailesh Naik responded that he had no comments. Ed Lammers stated that a Certificate of Occupancy should be issued upon proof that all of the work is performed correctly. George Tanner asked if the applicant could secure a bond. Richard Blancato responded that securing a bond would take 90 days to complete. The Chair acknowledged the public. Don Catano (43 Lawrence Ave) spoke. He stated that a cement wall was recently built next to his house. He stated that he has damage to the foundation of his house. Richard Blancato responded that as per the applicant's engineer, the damage existed prior to the illegal site work performed by the applicant Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 2 �The Chair referred to the Village Attorney to read the proposed Resolution. Ed Lammers read the proposed Resolution for the record. Don Catano (43 Lawrence Ave) spoke. He stated that the applicant should not be allowed to use the office space as living space Richard Blancato agreed. Kay Catano (43 Lawrence Ave) stated that there are five (5) cars parked approximately four (4) feet from her window. She asked if the location of the cars would change as a result of the approval. There was an open discussion on the neighbors concerns with regards to the applicant's property. The Chair asked if the applicant had a current Certificate of Occupancy. Bob Stiloski responded yes. He stated that the applicant did not have a permit for the site work. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that he wants to make sure that all remedial work impacting the immediate neighbor's property is completed prior to proceeding with the next phase of the construction. Richard Blancato agreed. The Chair recommended a liquidated damages fund. Richard Blancato stated that the applicant cannot afford to put up a large sum of money based on the cost of the project. He stated that if the remedial work is not completed in 30 days, the applicant would place money into a fund in order to secure the completion of the remedial work. George Tanner responded that the proposal was not acceptable. The Chair referred to the Village Attorney and the applicant to work out the appropriate language for the Resolution. This was temporarily adjourned. 2) Ichabod's Landing The Chair stated that the public comment period ends on December 20, 2002. The Chair asked the Board if they had any changes to make to the draft Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 3 �There was no comment by the Board at this time. 3) Antonio Rodrigues Sean McCarthy is the project architect and is representing this application along with Antonio Rodrigues. Sean McCarthy referred to the Waterfront Advisory Committee's recent consistency findings. He stated that the concrete wall in the rear would have a stone veneer finish. He stated that the traffic consultant is in the process of generating a report of their study. He also stated that the DOT was contacted regarding the impacts to traffic and the intersection. Sean McCarthy stated that the Phase I environmental report is complete. He stated that there are no oil or gas tanks on site. He stated that the application would be before the Architectural Review Board on November 25,2002. He stated that the neighbor will have a five (5) foot buffer at the rear of the property. He also stated that he has met with Historic Hudson Valley reps. He stated that they were concerned with traffic and parking. Nicholas Cicchetti asked about garbage collection. Sean McCarthy discussed the garbage collection methods. The Chair stated that he wants the traffic report before scheduling the public hearing. Sean McCarthy responded that the traffic consultant would have the report completed soon. He stated that he did not know when to expect a response from DOT. Ed Napoleon made a motion to schedule a public hearing at the next meeting. He stated that the public hearing would be kept open until the traffic report is completed. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 4) Laurentino Rodrigues This is a continuation of a previous meeting. Vitali Santo is the project architect. He is representing this application along with Laurentino Rodrigues. Vitali Santo showed the rendering of the proposed structure. He reviewed the proposed site plan detailing the parking layout, etc. Planning Board Meeting, November 21,2002 4 �George Tanner asked about the number of bedrooms that the applicant is proposing Vitali Santo responded 12 bedrooms total in nine (9) apartments. Vitali Santo showed elevation drawings from Valley Street and Depeyster Street. The Chair asked if there was any off-site parking. Vitali Santo responded no. The Chair referred the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee and the Architectural Review Board for their review. 5) Nextel Cara Bonomolo is representing Nextel for this application. She spoke about the equipment of the proposed system She stated that the following documents have been submitted to the Board: 1) Site plan 2) Health & Safety report 3) Photos 4) Coverage maps There was an open discussion on the GEIS and the proposed moratorium. It was stated that the Village Trustees did not adopt the moratorium. George Tanner asked how many cellular carriers could fit on top of Village Hall. Dave Smith responded probably a total of three (3). Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to declare the Planning Board as the lead agency. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair referred the applicant to the Waterfront Advisory Committee and the Architectural Review Board for their review. 1) Karl Dibble (continued)Ed Lammers read the revisions to the Resolution. The Chair suggested language to force the applicant to place money into escrow. Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 5 �There was an open discussion on how to include adequate provisions to guarantee that the work will be done in an acceptable manner and time frame. Richard Blancato stated that the applicant would put up a $10,000 bond prior to obtaining a Building permit, he would come to each Planning Board meeting to update the Board on the progress of the project. He stated that he has a signed contract with a reputable contractor. He also stated that after 75 days, if the bond is not paid, the applicant will appear before the Board to see what action will be taken. More applicable language was added to the Resolution Ed Napoleon made a motion to approve the Resolution Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). The Chair stated that the Village Planner and Village Engineer would review the recently submitted revised plans. Ed Napoleon made a motion to refer the applicant to the Architectural Review Board. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). 6) Monopole Ed Lammers stated that he has compiled the data from applications and meeting minutes from previous applicants. He recommended that the Board hold a work session to discuss the monopole height with the monopole occupants. George Tanner asked if the monopole height could be measured. Ed Lammers stated that Verizon has requested that the monopole height be measured. It was agreed that a work session would be held 90 minutes prior to the next (December) meeting. 7) GEIS/Wireless Location Study The Chair referred to Dave Smith. Dave Smith spoke about Mike Musso's e-mail (see attached). It refers to Village owned and school owned property. He then referred to Mike Musso. Mike Musso spoke about the sites to be included in the initial study. He spoke about the Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 6 �draft report. The Chair stated that applicable language should be added to state that once an applicant has equipment that is obsolete, the applicant is required to remove the equipment at their expense. The Chair asked about other technology like flagpoles, Christmas trees, etc and their associated costs. Mike Musso responded that the cost of a 110-foot flagpole structure is about $60-75,000 The Chair noted receipt of some materials from Scenic Hudson. Mike Musso spoke about applicants re-applying in order to increase their capacity coverage. The Chair asked Mike Musso to predict the worse-case scenario. The Chair asked about the GM site. Mike Musso responded that recommendations would be included in the GEIS 8) Minutes The minutes from October 2002 will be reviewed at the next meeting. George Tanner made a motion to adjourn. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous (6-0). Adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, '.'/' "h (\ • . /' • Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, November 21, 2002 7 �Page 1 of2 Dave Smith From: Michael Musso <MMusso@lmseng.com> To: <dsmith@saccschiff.com> Cc: Terry Schneider <TSchneider@lmseng.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:36 PM Attach: GEISMATRIX2.xls Subject: Sleepy Hollow GEIS - LMS update This email serves as a status update to LMS' activities on the above-referenced project (GEIS). • 11/4 - Met with Dave Smith - developed list of 14 sites (preliminary list); reviewed and discussed screening criteria • 11/7 - revised draft screening matrix prepared (see attachment to this email) • 11/4 - present - LMS works on site access and file review scheduling (see below) • LMS conducted site recons today (11-19). I visited the Tarrytown school property (escorted by maintenance personnel this morning). See discussion below. Terry Schneider and I conducted additional recons this afternoon (focus on Beekman area). We plan on wrapping up our site visits tomorrow (11-20), including the reservoir property (will be escorted by DPW personnel). • LMS is developing quantitative "scoring" methodology so that the site criteria can be assessed and sites can be objectively evaluated against one another. We will adopt aspects of scoring rationales that are used for other types of environmental projects (including EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS)). Note that criteria and analysis methods will "evolve" with the study. • Terry conducted a file review this morning at Ed Lammer's office (obtained existing/permitted facility information). We have a FOIA request in to the Village of Tarrytown (so we can learn about cell sites in this neighboring Village), and we are following up with the appropriate contacts. • SI IPO reviews have been requested for all Village areas that contain one or more of the 14 sites. • General site mapping and photo compilations will start after our site visits are completed. • Report writing (methods; matrix description; findings; identification of sites to potentially consider further; conclusions) will begin this week. Thoughts on School property: NOTE that there is a school board meeting this Thursday 11-21, and they may want some preliminary feedback about our site visit. Some preliminary ideas are provided below (let me know if you need me to prepare something more formal for the School district for their 11-21 meeting, or if you or I should simply call the superintendent): 1. School owns quite a bit of property behind football field, enough to accompany a tower/pole and associated equipment. 2. topo seems very good, and a facility would likely provide coverage to much of the Route 9 and upper Beekman Ave area. Coverage must be assessed through computer models, as the topography throughout Sleepy Hollow is variable and can be deceiving. 3. However, tower would have to be constructed above tree line (minimum height estimated at 100 110 ft; maybe higher depending on number of co-locators), which would result in a visual impact (for, at a minimum, school facilities and nearby residential properties; also impact for lower Village "looking up" at school area). Ground-level equipment would also create a visual impact (especially this time of year when foliage is down). Consider also that access road for maintenance vehicles would have to be constructed (this would change some of the landscaped parts of the property). 4. Security - School apparently uses much of the back end of the property (i.e., landscaped areas are "well kept"). Track and field (cross-country) uses that portion of the property for meets. Wooded area would have to be officially "off limits" if a facility is constructed (not sure how this would impact the school...) Issue is also with kids in proximity to maintenance workers and their vehicles/equipment... 5. Safety - If this property is to be considered further, geotech analysis would have to be conducted to ensure that soils/rock can support the loads of a tower/monopole Fall zones would have to be verified, as well (considerations for fall zone - student activities, football field, residences). Proper off-set distances must be understood and maintained by school officials. 6. RF- a tower or monopole installation is anticipated to be below the current FCC maximum 11/19/2002 �Page 2 of2 permissible exposure. However, risk perception must be considered. Risk communication for wireless facilities can be very difficult (especially at a school). Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information for the 11-21 PB meeting. / assume that you will handle any status update/reporting at Thursday's Planning Board meeting. Please let me know if you would like LMS to participate, and I will coordinate. Note that I personally will not be able to make the Sleepy Hollow meeting on 11-21 due to a previous commitment in another municipality. Regards, Mike Michael P. Musso Sr. Project Engineer Lawler, Matusky ft Skelly Engineers LLP One Blue Hill Plaza Pearl River, NY 10965 phone: 845-735-8300 ext. 261 fax: 845-735-7466 e-mail: MMusso@lmseng.com website: www.lmseng.com 11/19/2002 �FOR ADJOINING • t.„..ltHT*l „ ess *t iS?i!i2S!L£JL ^WKRYTO^ AS Ll&r JffVim 4Y �RECEIVED DEC 2 3^09? VILLAGE CLERK VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION Adopted at the November 21,2002 Meeting of the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board RESOLUTION: » SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROPOSED: Reuse of Existing Building as a Residence and Construction of a New Two Story Building Containing a Garage and an Office on the First Floor and an Apartment on the Second Floor OWNER: Karl Dibble LOCATION: 315 North Broadway TAX MAP DESIGNATION: Section 15, Block 14, Lots 17A and 17B ZONING: C-l WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the following materials: 1. Site Plan Application dated on or about June 21,2000, signed by Sam Viera; 2. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated on or about June 21,2000, signed by Sam Viera; 3. Coastal Assessment Form, dated on or about June 21,2000, signed by Sam Viera; 4. Site Plan drawings dated June 20,2001 prepared by SFV Design Inc.; 5. Revised Site Plan drawings dated November 14,2000 prepared by SFV Design Inc.; 6. Revised Site Plan Drawings dated May 4,2001 prepared by Keane Coppelman Engineers, P C ; �7. Topography Map of the property prepared by Charles Riley, Land Surveyor last revised May 21, 2001; 8. Revised Site Plan Application dated October 15, 2002 signed by Karl Dibble; 9. Revised Site Plan Drawings dated October 5 and 12, 2001 prepared by Keane Coppelman Engineers, P.C.; 10. Erosion Control and Construction details prepared by Keane Coppelman Engineers, P.C. dated October 12, 2001; 11. Coastal Assessment form dated October 8, 2001; 12. Short and Long Form Environmental Assessment Form dated October 15, 2001; 13. Building Design Drawings dated March 28, 2002 prepared by SFV Design Inc.; 14. Revised Site Plan Drawings dated February 1, 2002 prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, Jr., P.E.; 15. Revised site plan details dated March 20, April 10, April 17, and July 8, 2002 prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, Jr., P.E.; 16. Review Memoranda from Saccardi and Schiff, Inc., Village Planners, dated July 13, 2000, July 25, 2000, July 16, 2001, November 8, 2001, March 15, 2002, April 11, 2002, and from Charles Manganaro Consulting Engineers, dated July 6, 2000, February 22, 2001, May 8, 2001, July 18, 200, November 14, 2001 and March 7, 2002; 17. Memorandum of James T. Margotta, Building Inspector dated August 8, 2000, February 21, 2002 and May 13, 2002; 18. Letters from Richard Blancato, attorney for the applicant, dated September 20, 2000 and September 20, 2001 and October 15, 2001; 19. Waterfront Consistency Findings, Waterfront Advisory Committee signed by Richard D. Weiss, Chairman; 20. Drainage Analysis dated April 4, 2002, prepared by Timothy L. Cronin, Jr. P.E.; �21. Memorandum from Robert Stiloski, Director of Fire and Life Safety, dated December 20, 2001; 22. Various correspondence from the public; and WHEREAS, the Proposal was discussed by the Planning Board duly scheduled public meetings held on April 19, 2001, June 21, 2001, July 19, 2001, August 27, 2001, September 20, 2001, November 15, 2001, January 17, 2002, February 21, 2002, March 21, 2002, April 18, 2002, May 16, 2002, June 20, 2002, July 18, 2002, September 19, 2002 and October 17, 2002; and WHEREAS, The Village of Sleepy Hollow Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) reviewed the subject application at their December 5, 2002 and May 2, 2002 meetings and found the application to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Villages Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing at their June 20, 2002 meeting, and all those wishing to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard; the Public Hearing was closed; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has performed work illegally at the site in violation of Village Code and the Applicant agrees to post a bond to the benefit of the Village of Sleepy Hollow to ensure that the site is remediated and that the work is performed in accordance with the approved site plan; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused noted or conducted the following activities: 1. Received and Application Fee; 2. Caused Field Inspections to be made of the property and surrounding areas; 3. Requested, received considered comments from the Village Planner, Village Engineering Consultants, Building Inspector and the Department of Fire Life Safety, Fire Department,; 4. Requested, received and reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and a Coastal Assessment Form; �5. After review of the field conditions, public comments, recommendations and the Short Environmental Assessment Form as well as other items noted above, has determined that the proposed action is an Unlisted Action not requiring environmental assessment or determinations of significance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the said application for site plan approval relative to the Reuse of Existing Building as a Residence and Construction of a New Two Story Building Containing a Garage and an Office on the First Floor and an Apartment on the Second Floor at 315 North Broadway, Sleepy Hollow, New York on the site plan dated May 4, 2001, revised May 21, 2001, revised October 12, 2001, revised February 1, 2002, April 10, 2002, July 8, 2002 and last revised November 16, 2002 is hereby granted approval and that the Applicant may obtain the endorsed approval of the Planning Board Chairman, on a copy of this resolution and upon the site plan drawings, as and when revised as necessary to show compliance with the following conditions, which endorsement shall permit filing in the Office of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining a building permit in accordance with this resolution and all building code requirements, provided, however, that this approval shall expire one year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications and conditions have not yet been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Applicant has not obtained the required building permit or permits for the construction in accordance with the approved plan(s): 1. On or before the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay the Village of Sleepy Hollow all application and review fees as required by the Village Code, as approved by the Village Attorney; 2. All remedial work, drainage work, curbing and work on walls shall commence within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a building permit and said work shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan within sixty (60) days of the issuance of the building permit (weather permitting); „ ffi'iy ^ ^ ^ ^ W c^^mJrs iv *UM*' f*^ 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant agrees to post a $10,000 bond to the benefit of the Village and the Village shall hold the $10,000 bond in an escrow account until all of the remedial work, drainage work, curbing and work on walls is completed as set forth in the final approved site plan. Upon completion of the work as set forth in paragraph 2 to the satisfaction of fe Village Engineer, the Village shall release the 10,000 bond to the applicant; ^J �4. If the aforementioned work set forth in paragraph 2 is not completed within said 60 day period, (weather permitting), the applicant agrees to have the Village Engineer determine the cost of completion of said work and the applicant agrees that he shall be liable for said amount as liquidated damages and the applicant shall deposit said amount with the Village within 10 days of Village's demand therefor and upon receipt of the money by the Village the Village may use the money to complete the aforementioned work; 5. If 75 days after the issuance of the building permit is issued the work set forth in paragraph 2 is not complete and the applicant has not paid the Village the cost to complete the work, then the Applicant is to appear before the Planning Board to determine what action is required. If the applicant fails to appear or if the applicant appears but refuses to complete the work set forth in paragraph 2 above, the Village may execute against the bond and use the proceeds of the bond to complete the aforementioned work; 6. The Applicant is to appear before the Planning Board at its February, 2003 Meeting, to advise the Board as to the status of the work set forth on the project; 7. All fencing, landscape grading and lighting shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan within ninety (90) days from the issuance of the building permit; 8. All planting of trees shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan on or before June 1, 2003; 9. The Applicant is to appear before the Planning Board at its June, 2003 Meeting, to advise the Board as to the status of the work set forth on the project; 10. All blacktopping shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan on or before September 1, 2003; 11. The entire project shall be completed in strict conformance with the approved site plan on or before November 15, 2003; 12. The existing structure shall be comprised of solely a two family residence on the second floor and office space on the first floor; �13. The rear structure shall be a two story structure which shall have an apartment on the second floor and an office and garage on the first floor; 14. Applicant is to remove all foreign material from the west side of the property and conform the grade to the approved plans; 15. The construction shall be in absolute conformance with the final approved drawings and site plans; 16. The construction shall be inspected by the Design Engineer or a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of New York who shall issue a report to the Village Building Department certifying that the project has been completed in strict accordance with the approved plans. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued without the submission of the aforementioned engineers report; 17. On or before the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall deposit $5,000 in a Village of Sleepy Hollow Escrow Account. If the applicant does not provide an Engineer's report as set forth in paragraph 16 above, on or before December 18, 2003 the Village may use the $5,000 to retain a n engineer and/or other consultants of their own choosing to inspect the property and ensure that the that the project has been completed in strict accordance with the approved plans. 18. The property is not to be used as a nursery unless a future application is filed and approval is obtained to operate a nursery from the Planning Board; 19. No signs are to be placed anywhere on the property unless approved by the Architectural Review Board; 20. No fertilizer is to be stored anywhere on the property; 21. The rear garage is not to be used as an automotive repair business; 22. No trucks and/or cars are to be stored on the property for more than 72 hours unless vehicle is owned and registered to the owner of the property or owned and registered to a tenant residing of the property pursuant to a valid lease and parked in an area designated on the approved site plan; 23. No boat, camper, camper trailer, motor home, trailer or recreation vehicle shall be stored on the property for more than 48 hours unless vehicle is owned and registered to the owner of the property or owned and registered �to a tenant residing on the property pursuant to a valid lease and parked in an area designated on the approved site plan and in area in that is in compliance with the Village Code; 24. Vehicles may only be parked in parking areas designated on the approved site plans; 25. Parking on the site may only be used for the on-site offices and the on-site residential uses; 26. No outdoor storage of material or equipment on the property; 27. The applicant shall post a performance bond to guarantee the construction of public infrastructure in an amount, and to the extent required, as determined by the Village Engineer. 28. The applicant is to comply with all rules and regulation of the Village of Sleepy Hollow as well as New York State including, but not limited to, height of the structures and setbacks with respect to the proposed structures. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW f , Chairman Date LAST REVISED 12-18-02 I I � 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_2002-11-21 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