https://sleepyhollow.localarchives.org/files/original/11ab25cb94efc177ad95e7e78fcb29b9.pdf 17a5e23087eeb6e9c48a93b231109799 PDF Text Text RESOLUTION FOR CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHEREAS, on or about December 1, 2000, David Cartenuto (the "Applicant") submitted an application to the Village of Sleepy Hollow Planning Board (the "Planning Board") for site plan approval for the replacement of an existing masonary wall and construction of new retaining walls; and WHEREAS, at their December 21,2000 meeting the Planning Board did declare themselves to be the Lead Agency in this matter as per the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed and relied on the following materials: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Site Plan Application dated December 1,2000 Short Environmental Assessment Form dated December 1,2000 Site Plan Erosion Control Details, prepared by A.G. Paese, P.E. dated 11/28/00 Details Sheet, prepared by A.G. Paese, dated 11/28/00 Review memorandum from Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers dated November 3,2000. Review memorandum from Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers dated December 21,2000; and WHEREAS, in the course of its review and acting as Lead Agency, the Planning Board has made the following findings and caused, noted or conducted the following activities: 1. 2. 3. Received an application fee; Requested received and considered comments from the Village engineering consultants, Village Planner and Building Inspector about the proposed project; Received and reviewed a short environmental assessment form (EAF) in compliance with SEQRA dated December 1,2000; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after review offieldconditions, the EAF as well as other items noted above, the Planning Board has determined that the proposed action is a Type II action and no significant environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed action; and, be it further RESOLVED, that the said Application for site plan approval as shown on the site plan, dated 11/28/00 is hereby granted approval and 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, which endorsement shall permit filing in the Office of the Village Building Department for purposes of obtaining permit in accordance with this resolution and the building code requirement, provided, however, that the approval shall expire after one (1) year after the date of this resolution if the following modifications have not been �completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the Applicant has not obtained the required building permit(s) in accordance with the approval plan: 1. 2. 3. Provision of a completed Coastal Assessment Form. Final site plan including the design of proposed embankments and retaining walls shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Inspector and/or die Village Engineer including conformance to the Village Engineer's Comments in their 11/3/00 and 12/21/00 memorandum as appropriate. Prior to the signing of the site plan, all outstanding professional review fees, environmental changes and other Village Fees shall be paid to the Village, satisfactory to the Village Attorney. PLANNING BOARD VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Dated F:\M\M-720 Sleepy HoJlow\M-720 Sleepy HoUow\Resolutioos\M720.26-Res Conditional Site Plan Approval.wpd �VILLAGE OF SLEEPY HOLLOW PLANNING BOARD MEETING December 21, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Nicholas Robinson, Chairman at 8:00 p.m. Present Nicholas Robinson, Chairman Ed Napoleon Ed McCarthy David Perlmutter George Tanner Nicholas Cicchetti RP^P'vWgD .. JAtTl f )f\jftW\ W.AUI I *—«. Absent Dorota Szwem-Kopczynski <Jt*st + Also Present Dave Smith (Saccardi & SchirY/Village Planner) Ed Lammers (Murphy, Stecich & Powell/Village Attorney) Don Pennella (Charles A Manganaro/Village Engineer) Jim Margotta (Building Inspector) Anthony Del Vecchio (Recording Secretary) V/^/o/ Announcements: The Chair stated that agenda would be revised as follows. Agenda: a) b) c) d) e) 0 287 Corridor FEIS Kendal-on-Hudson MetriC om Communications David Cartenuto Scoping session on County House Road Minutes a) 287 corridor The Chair stated that the N YS Thruway Authority has taken over the 287 corridor. The State has a plan to perform an EIS for the 287 corridor, which runs from SufYern, NY to Rye, NY The Chai. stated that Dave Smith would send a request to the NYS Thruway Authority to have the Planning Board as an interested agency The Planning Board is concerned about how traffic will flow around the Village and the General Motors site �b) FEIS Kendal-on Hudson Dave Smith summarized the SEQRA process via a flowchart He summarized the process to date The Chair stated that there is a mitigant omission in the FEIS. He stated that the FEIS doesn't include the landscaping of Frederick Law Olmsted He also stated that Rockwood Hall landscaping should include a further assessment The EIS should be amended to include this concern The Planning Board agreed unanimously Dave Smith stated that he would send a letter to the Village Board of Trustees informing them of the Planning Board's concern. c) MetroCom Communications John Callahan is representing the applicant This is an extension of the pre-submission discussion on the application for a special permit John Callahan explained the entire process involving his company's wireless high speed Internet Ricochet system He stated that it involves a laptop receiving a signal through a shoebox device (pole-mounted) The shoebox device will receive a signal from a wired access point (antenna). John Callahan stated that the location of the wired access points would be 95 Beekman Avenue George Tanner asked the applicant why they chose 95 Beekman Avenue. John Callahan responded that MetroCom would address this in the formal application. George Tanner stated that Village Hall is the preferred location as per Village Code. John Callahan distributed a packet of information that included drawings that detailed the wired access points at 95 Beekman Avenue. John Callahan discussed the wired access point portion of the system. He stated that a total o( 16 antennas would be mounted just below the parapet. He stated that there would be 4 per side They would be painted to blend in with the building He also stated that the\ would be flush mounted to the roof John Callahan stated that the formal application would include an EIS, Health Study and photos for assessing the visual impact Planning Board Meeting, December 21, 2000 i �The Chair asked the applicant when would submit the formal application. John Callahan responded February 2001 Dave Smith asked why the applicant was not requesting both parts of the application on the same permit. John Callahan responded that the system could work without the shoebox devices. He also stated that the Village could grant a right of way agreement for the shoebox devices The Chair stated that the Planning Board follows SEQRA very closely. He recommended that the applicant review SEQRA to see if the applications are related. d) David Cartenuto Natelino Artelini is representing the application. Jim Margotta stated that the work was started without a permit. The Village thought that it was important to allow the contractor to finish the work and then apply for the proper approvals He stated that this is before the Planning Board for site plan approval. Don Pennella summarized the Engineering comments. The applicant stated that they would comply with all of the Village Engineer's comments. Dave Smith asked if the applicant needs to go before the Waterfront Advisory Committee. The Chair responded yes. David Perlmutter made a motion to make a negative declaration and refer this application to the Waterfront Advisory Committee. George Tanner seconded It was unanimous. The Chair stated that once the Waterfront Advisory Committee advice is received, the Planning Board would discuss further. e) County House Road Scoping Session DiscussionGeorge Tanner made a motion to enter executive session to discuss existing litigation. It was unanimous. The Planning Board entered executive session at 8:35pm. The Planning Board re-convened at 8:45pm. No action was taken. Dave Smith reviewed the amended scoping outline submitted by County House Road. He suggested comments to several topics (see attached). The Chair asked the Village Engineer if there were any comments on the scoping outline. Planning Board Meeting, December 21, 2000 3 �Don Pennella responded no. The Chair discussed the scoping process. The Chair stated that the scope should be broader than the area surrounding Wilson Park. It should include the surrounding areas that can be developed in the future. The Chair gave an example concerning the possible traffic problems that could arise. He also stated that alternates must be proposed. The Chair stated that a great deal of view shed analysis must be performed also. The Chair wants to give the other Planning Board members a chance to properly review and comment on Dave Smith's letter. Adam Weinstein (attorney representing the applicant) stated that the traffic impact from the Tarrytown portion should not be included. The Chair stated that it connected cumulative impacts that need to be addressed. There was an open discussion on the projected cumulative impact at the proposed site. f) Minutes The minutes from the September 2000 meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously as submitted. The minutes from the October 2000 meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously as submitted. The minutes from the November 2000 meeting were reviewed and approved unanimously as submitted. Adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to next meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Del Vecchio • Planning Board Meeting, December 21,2000 4 �iJNN-ild-JdWl 1J-S1 ^aHCUHhXU « 3<-rurr SaccardifirSchiff, Inc. December 21, 2000 p ur,mng mo O«v«opneni C*nsuH**s To: 245 Mtin Stre*'. MMIfoftS Nicholas Robinson, Chairman and Planning Board Members From: David B.Smith , T«:9H-"6 .35I2 •AX 9H-7B1 3759 ticcscHifta)&o.c«r Re: Comments on the Revised Scoping Outline County House Road i 3 fiOf t Sl'«*t cc: Joe) Sachs H * * KB* 11550 Ttf 516-48606 ' 0 FAX 516-486-OeiS The following are our comments on the Draft Scoping Outline submitted on behalf of County House Road LLC (the Applicant) and dated December 15,2000. The draft Scoping Outline has been revised to incorporate comment* raised at the public scoping session and during the formal comment period. Some of the comments contained herein reflect concerns raised by the Board. It ia important for the Board at this point in the process to be aware of the objectives of the scoping process. The scoping process has six main objectives: Identify the relevant environmental issues and provide the preparers with the specific issues to be addressed; Eliminate irrelevant issues and de-emphasize nonsignificant issues; Identity the extent and quality of information needed; Identify the range of reasonable alternatives to be diicusted; Identify potential areas of mitigation; and Identify available sources of information'. Mm j Siccif*. MCP David B.ScMf.AiCPP3 Syrette Oyrn, AiCP M W y L « ACP ArniPrcffi,,ASLA Marjone 3amu«», ACP p» IuvdB Sm.lKAICP Mafgirr.h Ufiia. AtCP eomta J Vor. Ohl#er, * < / Once adoptedt the scoping document will become the outline for the content of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hie SEQR Handbook goes on to note that a draft EIS does not need to be perfect The DEIS should contain a discussion of information, including significant impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures requested by the lead agency in a reasonable level of detail, The purpose of the public comment period is to allow all involved agencies and the public to review the draft EIS and comment on its inadequacies. These can usually be corrected in a final EIS2. Accordingly, the following comments are provided for the Board's consideration prior to adopting the formal scoping outline. una Demop'wni Comprerersive (tinning fle* Ertste ecgnomics Fnvjffxirr^cia. Studies H'.using CirrTijnrtv D#v»iWTienl ) The SEQR Handbook, NYSDEC. November 1992, pafe S3 J The SEQR Handbook, NYSDEC. November 1992, p*#« 70 �i J^^-10-2001 13:52 SPCCARDI & SCMIFF 914 761 3759 P. 03 jr*-- December 21.2000 ToNfcfaote Within the discussionfollowingthe Proposed Action heading if is suggested that the following > — y fff *»» ' i f fi^tfrf* action was previously before the Sleepy Hollow Planning Board for prefanmary subdivision approval. On May 1,2000, after an extensive review process the Planning Board issued a negative declaration based on the substantial infra •IBSME.I presented in an expanded Environmental Assessment Form. That decision was subsequently vacated in a September 26,2000 ruling by the New York Supreme Court The preliminary subdivision approval was vacated and encased with further instructionsfromthe court that no appro vaii would b« granted until an EIS has been preyaied by the Applicant for the entire 60 acres. Page 4 Item IV. A. 2.b. Add language to indicated that the Tarrytown lot count is based on exiting existing rules and regulations (e.g., wetlands, steep slopes, etc;) Page 5 Item B i b . Vegetation add me following text, including tree surveys and idcntiticasien of speennen trees. Page 5 hem B3JC Potential Impacts Blasting, add the following text:, including poiemial impacts to matuie trees and Andre Brook. Page 6 Item C3.f Storm Water Management, add the following text to the end of the - -and which conld potentially impact the Tarrytown Lakes Reservoir. Page 7 Item D.2.C (new section) New text inserted: Status of Wilson Park Drive once future dovejofinent is approved Page 8 Item E.2.D. Sanitary Sewer, modify the text u> add the foUowing after the word affected: by future potential development associated with the 48 acres owned by the Applicant. Page 8 Item F Zb. Cultural Resources, after Impact to Open Space add: ...including local trail systems. I look forward to discussing this matter further wim you and the Plarming Board. TOTAL P . 0 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-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_2000-12-21 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