https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/2a6e337b8c8ad41defc6e416f5b9bb57.pdf 29f8f90e06a3b8b078eb9012d04e140d PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING January 18, 2001 The meeting was called to order by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman at 8:00 p.m. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Ed Napoleon Ed McCarthy Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski George Tanner Absent: David Perlmutter Nicholas Cicchetti Also Present: Dave Schiff (Saccardi & Schiff/Village Planner) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Shailesh Naik (Charles A. Manganaro/Village Engineer) Anthony DelVecchio (Recording Secretary) Announcements: The Chair stated that agenda would be revised as follows: Agenda: a) b) c) d) Omnipoint Hamilton Designs Scoping session on County House Road Minutes a) OmnipointLarry Praga spoke about the balloon test reschedule. George Tanner recommended a 10-day leeway between the notice and the test. The Chair stated that the notice should be posted at the library, Village Hall, the post office, train station and at the Phelps Hospital cafeteria. The Chair asked when the test is scheduled for. Larry Praga responded February 17, 2001. •> �George Tanner asked if a balloon or a dummy antenna would be used. Larry Praga responded that a balloon would be used. He also stated that it would be a 3 dimensional structure. b) Hamilton Designs Robert Barstow is representing this application. He stated that he has received approvals from the Zoning Board and the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair asked if the Waterfront Advisory Committee has made a favorable recommendation. Robert Barstow responded yes. Robert Barstow submitted new Engineering drawings to the Planning Board and the Village Engineer. The Chair asked if there were any comments. Dave Schiff stated that the parking for compact cars is a concern. He stated that the spaces are configured for parallel parking. He stated that there should be only 3 spaces not 4 spaces for compact car parking. Robert Barstow responded that the new Engineered drawings reflected revisions to the compact car parking spaces. Shailesh Naik stated that he had some comments but wanted to review the new Engineering drawings first. Dave Schiff asked if there would be a fence at the property boundary. Robert Barstow responded no. Ed McCarthy made a motion to open the public hearing. Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski seconded. It was unanimous. Since there was no public comments, George Tanner made a motion to close the public hearing. Ed McCarthy seconded. It was unanimous. The Chair stated that the Village Engineer and Village Planner's comments based on the new submission should be resolved by the next meeting for final approval. Planning Board Meeting, January 18,2001 2 �The Board was polled and voted 3-2 to move ahead. The Chair stated that there would be no work sessions in February and March. The only meeting will be the regularly scheduled meeting. e) Minutes The minutes from the December 2000 meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously as submitted. Adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio Planning Board Meeting, January 18,2001 4 �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD Scoping Session For Cluster Subdivision on 11.9 Acres on County House Road, Applicant: County House Road LLC December 4,2000 8:00 p.m. Statement by the Planning Board Chairman The Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow is the Lead Agency for a proposed cluster subdivision on 11.9 of land on County House Road in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. The Applicant, County House Road LLC, seeks approval for a cluster subdivision for 11 lots, with infrastructure and utilities. The Applicant formally requested the Planning Board, at its meeting on November 16, 2000, to proceed with a full environmental impact assessment pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the Sleepy Hollow Village Code. The Planning Board has made a Positive Declaration and requires the Applicant to undertake a full Environmental Impact Statement for the Applicant's proposal. Public Notice to all interested and involved agencies, and to the public, has been provided for a public meeting on December 4, 2000, followed by a period of time during which the Board will receive written comments, regarding proposals for a decision of the Planning Board delineating the scope of the issues to be studied and set forth in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A draft scoping outline was circulated with the public notice. The Planning Board will receive comments and proposals for the scope of the EIS at this public scoping session, and will convene after December 14, 2000, to consider all comments made this evening and all written submissions, and to take a decision determining the scope of the EIS for the County House Road project. For purposes of this scoping session, it is useful to explain the objectives of this stage of the EIS process, when the lead agency must determine which issues are within the scope of the EIS for the specific project here. In additional to the SEQRA regulations on scoping, we are guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Westchester County, which has directed that the inquiry for scope must include analysis of the developments that the Applicant will proposes for lands owned in the Village of Tarrytown, adjacent to the 11.9 acres owned in the Village of Sleepy Hollow. The Planning Board invites comments on the appropriate Scope for the EIS. To be relevant to this Scoping Session, comments should address proposals for matters to be studied for the preparation of the EIS. Scoping is not about the ultimate decision on whether or not to permit the proposed development, but about what mattes this Planning I �Board must consider before it makes the decision whether or not to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, the proposed development. As guidance to those wishing to speak this evening, it is useful to explain what is involved in the decision to define the scope of an EIS. The scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an EIS. The scope may include the environmental information and data assembled for the extended "long-form" Environmental Assessment Form which the Applicant has previously submitted, and which can be updated as appropriate. It does not include the Findings of Fact upon which the previous Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Board was based. To determine the scope of this EIS, the Planning Board will consider (a) 3 types of actions, (b) 3 types of alternatives and (c) 3 types of impacts. In general, these components of the scope for the EIS include the following aspects: (a) Actions may be: (1) Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if (i) they automatically trigger other actions that may require and EIS, or (ii) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously, or (iii) are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification; (2) Cumulative Actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement; (3) Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed actions of the Planning Board, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography. The Planning Board has been directed by the Supreme Court to consider the similar actions that will be proposed by County House Road LLC in the Village of Tarrytown, and the scope therefore needs to assess the combined impacts of the similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such actions. (b) Alternatives, are the reasonable other options for the Planning Board's decision about the application, including (1) The "No action" alternatives, (2) Other reasonable courses of action, and (3) Mitigation Measures beyond those already contained in the proposed development application. Mitigation includes (I) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking the action or parts of it, (ii) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, (iii) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment, (iv) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of 2 �the action, and (iv) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, (c ) Impacts of the proposed development, which can be ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures and functioning of affected ecosystems, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct or indirect or cumulative, and can result from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects; more specifically: (1) Direct Impacts, caused by the action and occurring at the same time and place; (2) Indirect Impacts, caused by the action and occurring later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems, and (3) Cumulative Impacts, resulting from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency of government (e.g. New York State agencies or agencies of Westchester County or of the Village of Tarrytown) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. It will be most helpful to the Planning Board if the comments at the public hearing, and in any written submission over the next ten days, can focus upon and address the matters that are urged to be studied in the scope of the EIS in light of the considerations set forth above. December 4, 2000 Nicholas A. Robinson Chairman, Planning Board Village of Sleepy Hollow 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-2001 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_2001-01-18 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2001 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2001