https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/81d149eadd5be6aafa0308afcb9fcf7c.pdf 0d411edf29fbe787bfc60a7246ee664f PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING May 1,2000 The meeting was called to order by Nicholas Robinson, Chair at 8:08 p.m. Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman George Tanner David Perlmutter Nicholas Cicchetti Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Absent Ed Napoleon Ed McCarthy Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Ed Lammers (Village Attorney) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Dave Smith (Village Planner) Don Penella (Village Engineer) Jerome Fine (Village Engineer) Announcements: Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski was announced as the newest member of the Planning Board. Ed Lammers swore her in. Agenda: The Chair presented the revised agenda. It will consist of the following: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Annual Organization Meeting - Election of Planning Board Chairman. Elizabeth Mascia Child Care Center Question on Waterfront property Omnipoint County House Road Historic Hudson Valley/Philipsburg Manor Upper Mills Pond Dredging Consideration of advice to Village Board of Trustees on Kendal Rezoning Proposal. h) Further consideration and adoption of Planning Board Procedures, i) Review of previous Planning Board Minutes, j) Other business David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous. �a) Annual Organization Meeting - Election of Planning Board Chairman A new Chairman needed to be selected. Nicholas Cicchetti nominated Nicholas Robinson. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous. b) Elizabeth Mascia Child Care Center Maureen Popalette spoke on behalf of the Elizabeth Mascia Child Care Center. She gave a brief overview of the application. This is a request to grant an area variance for a proposed day care center with no parking spaces where two (2)-parking spaces are required. Ed Lammers described the applicant's problem to the Planning Board based on the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on April 20,2000. The Chair stated that under the newly proposed rules, the Board would allow an applicant to represent a building owner with written permission. The Chair stated that the Planning Board would entertain and give any assistance once the Zoning Board of Appeals formally sends this matter to the Planning Board for its recommendations. George Tanner asked if this matter associated with Sue Apuzzo. The applicant responded yes. c) Question on Waterfront property A young woman wished to ask the Planning Board a question concerning the boundaries of what is considered waterfront property. The Chair referred the woman to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Dave Smith asked what type of business would be set up. The woman responded that it was a retail piano store. Dave Smith showed on a map of Sleepy Hollow, exactly where the Waterfront and Coastal Zone areas were. The woman was provided with Richard Weiss's phone number in order to ask advice about the waterfront district. d) Omnipoint This is a public scoping session for the proposed application. Planning Board Meeting, May 1,2000 �Dave Smith went through a review of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Dave Smith also gave a brief summary of the Omnipoint application to date. Dave Smith stated that the applicant should go through their scoping agenda. The Chair stated that Omnipoint is the third applicant to appear before the Planning Board. The Planning Board expressed the possible hazards resulting from the monopole to Phelps hospital. Since there has been no reaction from Omnipoint on these adverse effects of monopole, the Planning Board proceeded with the positive declaration. The Planning Board expressed to Phelps Hospital on any possible health hazards as a result of the monopole. Lawrence Prega (DMS Consulting Services) represented Omnipoint. Debbie Levinson is recording. It was agreed that a copy of the public record be sent to the Village for the record. Lawrence Prega gave a brief overview of the proposed use of the monopole by Omnipoint. Lawrence Prega stated that there are four (4) users of the monopole not three (3). Lawrence Prega stated that Omnipoint has a health and safety analysis from Bell Labs. He also stated that the cumulative effect on the monopole is below the FCC regulations. The Chair asked the Board if there were any questions. Nicholas Cicchetti stated that there does not appear to be any response from Omnipoint on resolving the aesthetic problem of camouflaging the additional equipment. He also added that it would be above the tree line. George Tanner asked if there were other sites considered for use. He also asked if other tiers down the pole could be used. Lawrence Prega responded that the application included coverage maps at 80 feet, the coverage is not good. The antenna must be above the tree line at 122 feet. George Tanner asked if the major area without service is outside of Sleepy Hollow. Lawrence Prega responded that the area of interest is the eastern part of Sleepy Hollow and some of the surrounding areas. Planning Board Meeting, May 1, 2000 �George Tanner asked if the area of interest was the 117 corridor. Lawrence Prega responded that Omnipoint is concerned with the 117 corridor. George Tanner asked if the applicant has gone to other municipalities that can possibly service the 177 corridor. Lawrence Prega responded that the Radio Frequency (RF) engineer was not here to answer that question. Dave Smith stated that if the applicant could use a lower height and go to another area to pick up the difference. Lawrence Prega stated that a municipality couldn't legislate that a signal can only cover that municipality. The Chair responded by saying that the environmental impacts that have to be examined by any municipality are based on the actual factual impact rather than the limitation of the boundaries of the jurisdiction. The Chair stated that the Board would require an examination of alternative sites for a monopole within the range of service of this application whether it's within or outside Sleepy Hollow. David Perlmutter asked for a clarification on public thoroughfare. Donna Marie Stipo stated that every roadway, cul-de-sac, etc qualifies as a public thoroughfare. David Perlmutter stated that the applicant performs this in the Fall and not in the Spring. Lawrence Prega stated that they were going to perform this soon after the scope comes out. He stated that he hoped the Board would not hold him up by waiting until the Fall to perform this. David Perlmutter stated that the applicant would have to convince the Board that it would look the same now as it will in the Fall. Lawrence Prega stated that they would address this topic in the EAF. Dave Smith stated that prior applicants went to Kykuit and ran a balloon test. The Chair stated that the monopole would be more visible with the foliage down than with the foliage up. Planning Board Meeting, May 1, 2000 �Lawrence Prega stated that the accelerator antenna has less mass than the conventional equipment. David Perlmutter asked if this would be visible from the Hudson River. Donna Marie Stipo responded that it was not known. Nicholas Cicchetti wanted an elaboration on a statement made in the application under aesthetics item #2. It states that the applicant will "design an installation that will achieve a coverage area while minimizing to the greatest extent possible the conditional visual impact to the surrounding community." Lawrence Prega stated that the applicant would take a look at this topic. The Chair asked if any other member of the Board had any items to be added to the scope. Dave Smith responded that based on a memo from the Village Planners office dated May 1, 2000, the recommendations were as follows: * % & p i tr i) The applicant performs a balloon test. 2) Provide an overlay of the coverage area. 3) The applicant should coordinate their application with the Kendall rezoning application in case any improvements to the area are to be made. 4) Camouflage the proposed antenna, 5) Follow Section 62.22.2 of the Village Code with regards to the goals and objectives. Jerome Fine stated that the elevation of the Rockefeller property is approximately 410 feet. This should be added to the possible scoping topics. Don Penella referred to a memo from his office dated November 18,1999. The Chair opened up the floor to public comments. There were none. The Chair stated that there was one more item from the prior application that should be noted. The on-ground impact was advised of the last applicant. The Chair stated that this item detailed that if another user applied to use this site for the same purpose, the Board would request that the next building be underground. This was put on the record during the last application. The Chair stated for the record, that the Board wanted evidence that the hospital has authorized the application. Lawrence Prega stated that Omnipoints equipment is significantly smaller than other users. Planning Board Meeting, May 1,2000 �The Chair stated that the Village Planner would take these comments and prepare a scoping statement that would be circulated to interested agencies. At the next meeting, the Board would adopt a scoping statement. Lawrence Prega requested an advance copy of the proposed scope. The Chair agreed. e) County House Road The Board reviewed the results from the Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting on April 5,2000. The Board had no comments. The applicant had no comments. Dave Smith reviewed the changes to the draft findings of fact. 1) On page #5, item #4 strike the last sentence. 2) On page #8, item #14, the Waterfront Advisory Committee's comments were incorprated. 3) On page #9, item #16, the Village Board noted recreation fee increase. The applicant was asked to consider to provide an increased amount of $1000/lot. The applicant agreed. The following statement will replace paragraph 16. "The applicant has agreed to improve the open space parcel with a scenic overlook, at its expense and in accordance with a plan approved by the Village Board of Trustees, prior to the dedication of said open space parcel and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The cost of said improvement shall be limited to $40,000 dollars. If the actual cost of such sum is less than $40,000, the excess shall be donated to the Village Recreational Fund for recreational purposes, pursuant to Section 19B-5 of the Village Code." The Chair asked if the public had any comments on the findings of fact. There were no comments. The Chair moved to the next item, which was the resolution for the preliminary subdivision plat approval. Dave Smith discussed the changes since the last meeting. 1) Page #3, item #2, the same text from paragraph 16 would be inserted here as well. 2) The changes reflect the applicant's appearance before the Waterfront Advisory Committee. It was agreed that the following words would be inserted on page #3: "prior to the filing of the subdivision plat to the positive". Planning Board Meeting, May 1,2000 �George Tanner made a motion to adopt the finding of fact. David Perlmutter seconded. It was unanimous. David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the negative declaration and sub-division plat approval. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous. Q Historic Hudson Valley/Philipsburg Manor Upper Mills Pond Dredging The Board reviewed the results from the Waterfront Advisory Committee meeting on April 5, 2000. The Board had no comments. The applicant had no comments. Dave Smith commented on the findings of fact 1) Page #1, this is not the first time that the dredging has occurred. 2) Page #2, Waterfront Advisory Committee conclusion that the application is consistent with the LWRP. 3) Page #4, add language "the lead agency has considered the full EAF and consistency findings by the Waterfront Advisory Committee. 4) The applicant is required to get all permits from the Army Corps and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 5) Page #6, discussed the type of material being removed and its enhancement of the environment. The Chair stated that on page #5 in the paragraph that begins "Although some minor wetlands loss will occur the result of the proposed action," the following should be inserted "it will be temporary and". The Chair asked the Board if there were any other changes. There were none. Nicholas Cicchetti made a motion to adopt the findings of fact. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous. Dave Smith reviewed the changes on the resolution for the conditional site plan approval for the wetlands permit. He discussed the following: 1) The plan is consistent with the LWRP goals and policies. 2) The removal of contaminated sediment from the millpond and the loss of wetlands. George Tanner made a motion to adopt the draft resolution of conditional site plan approval. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous. g) Consideration of advice to Village Board of Trustees on Kendal Rezoning Proposal. Ed Lammers stated that this matter is before the Village Board of Trustees. Planning Board Meeting, May 1,2000 �Dave Smith stated that his office prepared two review memos on the Kendall application. He gave a brief summary of both memos. The Chair asked if the application has been referred to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Dave Smith responded that the consistency form has been forwarded to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair stated that since this application is in front of the Board of Trustees, the Planning Board's responsibilities are limited to commenting on the re-zoning matter. The Planing Board is only an involved agency as far as SEQRA referrals are concerned. Dave Smith stated that the Planning Board would need to provide the Village Board of Trustees with a recommendation on the re-zoning topic similar to the County House Road application. The Chair refrained on commenting on this matter since it is before the Village Board of Trustees. The Chair stated that there are only two moments when the Planning Board can comment. First, when a final draft impact statement is distributed for comment and second is prior to a Village Board of Trustees decision. Andy Tung and Davey Jones introduced themselves to the Planning Board. h) Further consideration and adoption of Planning Board Procedures. The Planning Board reviewed the Amendments to the Village Code to Establish Procedures for the Planning Board. The Chair asked if the Board had any further changes to make. George Tanner stated that in Section 62-2 the Deputy Chair should be deleted. Jim Margotta stated that in Section 62-7b(3), ten (10) days should be allowed for written notices instead of five (5) days. The Board agreed to change it to ten (10) days. There were no other comments. David Perlmutter made a motion to adopt the amendments and refer them to the Board of Trustees. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimous. i) Review of previous Planning Board Minutes. The minutes from the March 16, 2000 meeting were reviewed. Planning Board Meeting, May 1,2000 � 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-2000 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_2000-05-01 Subject The topic of the resource Planning Board Minutes & Resolutions-2000 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2000