https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/1c8ebaf7835c48ace9c01e843c74c4e4.pdf 243d3c96f76e8cfc2c557a1058232315 PDF Text Text VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PL ANNMG BOARD MEETING May IS, 2000 • The meeting was called to order by Nicholas Robinson, Chair at 8:02 pjn* Present: Nicholas Robinson, Chairman George Tanner Ed Napoleon Nicholas Ciechetti Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski Absent David Perlmutter Ed McCarthy Also Present: James Margotta (Building Inspector) Ed Lammers (Village Attorney) Anthony DelVecchio (Stenographer) Dave Smith (Village Planner) Don Penella (Village Engineer) Announcements: None. mtk Agenda: The Chair presented the revised agenda. It will consist of the following: a) b) c) d) 140 Valley Street 174 Valley Street/Elizabeth Mascia Child Care Center Omnipoint Consideration of advice to Village Board of Trustees ©a Kendal Reaoning Proposal e) Consideration of advice to Village Board of Trustees on Fee restructuring 1) Review of previous Planning Board Minutes George Tanner made a motion to adopt the revised agenda. Mcholas Ciechetti seconded. It was unanimous. A copy of the scope was provided to Omnipoint a) 140 Valley StreetSam Vieira represented the application. The application detailed the change of OccupancyfromCommercial to Residential. This was presented to the Board via a Site Plan. �Sam Vieira proposed to complete this conversion in two (2) phases. These phases were discussed in detail to the Board. He gave an overview of the layout including existing commercial office space and proposed residential conversion. Sam Vieira stated that if this structure was a new building, it would require 27 spaces. It currently has 19 spaces. For the proposed space it would require 20 spaces. All parking currently exists and the building is already sprinklered. The Chair asked if the Board had any questions for the applicant. George Tanner inquired about the applicant's status with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Sam Vieira responded that the Zoning Board wants the Planning Boards recommendations. The Chair asked if all of the apartments (4) on the 2nd floor and (2) on the 1st floor would meet code. Sam Vieira responded yes. George Tanner asked about the square footage for each apartment. Sam Vieira responded 750-800 square feet for a one-bedroom apartment. The Chair asked Jim Margotta about the current zoning. Jim Margotta responded that it was mixed. The Chair stated that the applicant needs a variance on the parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms. Sam Vieira responded yes. The Chair asked the Board if there were any questions for the Board. There were none. Dave Smith stated that if the curb cut is removed in front of the property, this will add the one space that is missing. The Chair stated that the Planning Board would look favorably on this adapted use of the building. The Chair also stated that the Planning Board will await a formal notice from the Zoning Board of Appeals. A letter will be sent indicating the Planning Boards approval of the proposed use. Planning Board Meeting, May 18, 2000 2 �Sam Vieira asked if the Planning Board would require Site Plan approval. The Chair responded that the applicant might need to go before the Waterfront Advisory Committee. Jim Margotta asked for a letter on the proposed changes and Coastal form from the applicant. b) 174 Valley Street / Elizabeth Mascia Child Care CenterSam Vieira represented the applicant. He gave a brief overview of the current Zoning Board of Appeals application. The Chair asked how many parking spots are currently available. Sam Vieira responded that there are no parking spaces available. The Chair asked how many employees drive to work. Sam Vieira responded that not many employees drive to work based on the fact that most employees in this profession don't own cars due to the low salary. The Chair asked if there was any street parking available. Sam Vieira responded that there is no direct street parking available. The Chair stated that the Planning Board would wait for a formal notice from the Zoning Board of Appeals. c) Omnipoint The Chair stated that the draft scope had been circulated. The Chair stated that a letter from Keene & Bean had been received concerning alternatives to this site. The Chair also stated that a letter from the Scenic Hudson Regional Planner had been received. This letter included scoping comments on the Omnipoint application and was read aloud by the Chair. The Chair thanked the applicant for submitting a copy of the transcript of the scoping discussion. The Chair asked if the applicant had any comments. Planning Board Meeting, May 18, 2000 3 �Judson Seaburt (representing the applicant) stated that a draft copy of the scope was provided this evening. He also stated that the draft scope encompasses reasonable alternatives. The Chair stated that a letter submitted to the Board needed to be clarified. Omnipoint is not the property owner. Phelps Memorial is the property owner. Omnipoint is only leasing this site. The Chair asked if the Board had any comments at this time. There were none. The Chair reviewed the contents of the draft statement aloud. The Chair also stated that the Village Code states that monopole alternatives must be looked at. Dave Smith inquired about photo simulation. George Tanner stated that the photos should be taken without the foliage to indicate the visual impact. This was added to the draft scope. The Chair asked if the applicant had any objections to looking at other alternatives outside the village. Judson Seaburt responded that from a technical standpoint one of the methods (near Rt. 117) might not cover the area immediately south. The Chair asked that if the visual impact cannot be mitigated and the application is denied, where would Omnipoint try to place a monopole. Dave Smith stated that coverage could be provided at two (2) different heights on the monopole. Where could Omnipoint make up the coverage gap? Judson Seaburt stated that there might not be another location. He also stated that three (3) criteria need to be met: 1) RF needs 2) Leasable property 3) Underlying land issues. The Chair stated that the applicant needs to be serious about this application. The Chair stated that the following needs to be added to page 8: "at a minimum four (4) other reasonable alternatives." Nicholas Cicchetti asked if the applicant could booster the signal at a lower point on the monopole. Planning Board Meeting, May 18, 2000 �Based on Nicholas Cicchetti's statement, the Chair added the following for paragraph (d): "the applicant should show alternate technical means to meet objectives." The Chair stated that the following needs to be added on page 5: "The nature of the lease and the terms of the property interest." The Chair also stated that the applicant needs to demonstrate FCC authorization. George Tanner asked if the applicant had provided enough escrow funds. Jim Margotta stated that he would find out. The Chair asked if there were any further comments from the Board. There were none. George Tanner made a motion to adopt the final scope statement. Ed Napoleon seconded. The Chair asked if the applicant had any questions or comments. The applicant stated that they had none. It was unanimously approved. d) Consideration of advice to Village Board of Trustees on Kendal Rezoning Proposal Dave Smith stated that the final draft statement would be ready in July for the Planning Boards comments. The Chair stated that since the applicant knows what is in the draft EIS, the Board would invite the applicant in for the June meeting to present the draft to the Board. e) Consideration of advice to Village Board of Trustees on Fee restructuringThere was a continuation of the open discussion of the Village fee restructuring recommendations. Ed Lammers gave a brief summary of the past discussions. He also stated that if the Board of Trustees was just changing the numbers associated with a fee, it could be passed by resolution. If the Board of Trustees were changing the method of calculating a fee, it would have to be done by enacting new Village law. There was an open discussion on the proposed Village fee proposal with regards to revising the fee schedule as a resolution or as new legislation. Ed Lammers recommended that the fee schedule be revised as a resolution and not as new legislation since new legislation would take 2-3 months to approve. Planning Board Meeting, May 18, 2000 5 �The Chair stated that the increase in the fee structure in only to cover the costs of performing adequate reviews. There was an open discussion on escrow accounts. There was an open discussion on the proposed memo to the Village Board and the methods and amounts of the recommended increases. Ed Napoleon made a motion to adopt the revisions and refer to the Village Board of Trustees. George Tanner seconded. It was unanimous. f) Review of previous Planning Board MinutesThe minutes from the May 1, 2000 meeting were reviewed. The following changes were made: On page 2 item (b) change "Popalette" to Barbalette". On page 3 (and throughout the Omnipoint topic) change "Lawrence Prega" to "Lawrence Praga". On page 4 change "177 corridor" to "117" corridor. Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Nicholas Cicchetti seconded. It was unanimously approved. Adjourned at 9:57 p.m. to next meeting. Planning Board Meeting, May 18, 2000 6 � 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_2000-05-18 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