Arrowhead Subdivision
SBL: 48.13-1-6.6
Location: Underhill Ave
Contact: Chris O’Keefe
Description: A 5-lot subdivision considered under flexibility standards on 45 acres in the R1-200 zone, which was approved by Planning Board Res #07-23 dated 10/15/07 requires individual lot site plans.
Planning Board, 4-11-2016
The board approved the site plan for the first lot, noting that if any changes are made once construction begins, the applicant will have to return to the board. Each subsequent lot will have to be approved by the board.
Town Board, April 5, 2016
The board accepted the donation of 15 acres that abut Turkey Mountain, including a portion of the existing blue trail.
Planning Boiard, 3-14-2016
The board approved the Phase II Plat and amended easement map. In response to a question from John Schroeder of the Yorktown Land Trust, it was explained that the amended plans did not change the earlier plan that included a donation to 10 acres to the town that abut Turkey Mountain. Five acres had previously been donated to the town.
The Town Board will have to accept the deed and conservation easement.
Planning Board, 2-22-2016
To accommodate the delay in filing the map, the board voted for the first 90 days extension.
Planning Board, 8-10-2015
The board reapproved the subdivision, paving the way for a single lot to be sold which, in turn, would resolve a pending foreclosure action.
Planning Board, 5-4-2015
The board approved a second 90 day extension. Mr. Tegeder advised the board that there were still some outstanding engineering concerns. Mr. O’Keefe was confident that everything could be cleared up within the next 90 days.
Planning Board, 3-11-2015
The board approved the first 90-day extension.
Mr. O’Keefe advised the board that as soon as the snow melts, he will be doing the final clean up and hoped that this would be his last time before the board. Mr. Tegeder reminded him to notify the DEP and the town as soon as he begins work.
Planning Board, 10-20-2014
The applicant made the changes requested by the board at the previous meeting and will now file a subdivision map.
Planning Board, 10-6-2014
The applicant said he was ready to file the subdivision map which would allow him to apply for a building permit, but the board had issues with the map and asked him to make changes and come back at a future meeting.
Planning Board, 8-11-2014
(The following is based on a summary provided by another person.) The applicant presented a revised map showing what has actually been built and Mr. Tegeder said he would review the map.
Planning Board, 7-14-2014
The strained relationship between the board and Mr. O’Keefe, the applicant, continued after Mr. Fon read a memo from the town’s environmental code inspector who had issued a stop work order because the applicant wasn’t complying with the conditions of prior approvals. In response, Mr. O’Keefe disputed what had happened and why the stop work order had been issued. Additionally, Mr. Tegeder informed the board that based on a site visit it appeared that the actual alignment of a road was different from what had been approved and that the as built drainage scheme also differed from the approved plan. In response, Mr. O’Keefe appeared surprised at the changes and said he thought everything was “okay.” Mr. Tegeder said that the applicant’s engineer needed to certify exactly what had been constructed. Mr. Tegeder also questioned the location of a planned drainage swale on one lot that he said was likely to be objectionable to the future property owner and would likely be filled in over time.
Mr. Fon said that after he had urged the applicant to meet with town staff to work out remaining site issues, it appeared that despite the meeting having taken place, the situation had gotten worse, not better, He advised Mr. O’Keefe to set up another meeting to work out the issues. The board also wanted to see a copy of the stop work order that had been issued.
Planning Board, 6-23-2014
In a discussion over procedure and process that became somewhat testy at times, the applicant was trying to push ahead with certain approvals so that he could get sales contracts signed, but the board remained firm that the applicant had to follow established procedures. Mr. Fon strongly advised the applicant to meet with town staff to iron out remaining issues. Approved in 2007, the 5-lot subdivision has a long history of changes to the original plan.
Planning Board, 5-5-2014
With a letter from the DEP saying the agency had no issues with the subdivision, the board reapproved the 5-lot subdivision.
Planning Board, 3-24-2014
Having resolved a bankruptcy situation, and with contracts for two lots signed, or soon to be signed, Mr. O’Keefe advised the board that he was ready to complete the remaining site improvements for this 5-lot subdivision originally approved in 2007 but which has failed to progress. He said he anticipated completing the infrastructure work within the next 3-4 weeks and would return to the board for final approvals. The board asked him to provide third party assurances that all environmental issues have been satisfactorily resolved and, for SEAQRA purposes, to verify that there have been no changes in environmental issues since the original approval.
Planning Board, 5-6-2013
Unanimously granted two separate 90 day extensions; the first to give the town more time to review certain documents and the second to allow the applicant time to come out of bankruptcy and sell the parcel.
Planning Board, 1-14-2013
After a closed executive session for “advice of counsel,” Planning Director Tegeder and Board members expressed their concern that conditions that were attached to the Board’sOctober, 2011 resolution had not been met. The applicant and his attorney, Al Capellini, thought that all the required documents regarding conservation easement and deeds had been submitted to the Town and that the problem might be one of a failure of communications. (Documents have to be filed with both the county and the town.)
Planning Board, 8/13/2012
The Board approved a one year extension while the applicant awaits DEP approval which Mr. Capellini said was “imminent.”The applicant has closed with the county which will be providing funds for the project through the affordable housing fund program.
Planning Board, 3/12/2012
Mr. O’Keefe advised the board that he would be meeting with the town’s environmental inspector next week to inspect his compliance with the issues raised in the town engineer’s November 2011 letter. He described the issues as “minor,” e.g., fixing a silt fence. He expects the town engineer to be able to sign off on the project after the inspection and that no construction will take place until the engineer has done so.He added that the grading issue discussed at the previous board meeting had been resolved and that the Planning Department considered the plan in conformance with the original site plan.
John Schroeder, speaking on behalf of the Yorktown Land Trust, asked the board if, as part of its approval, it could expedite the planned donation of a 15 acre portion of the site abutting the Turkey Mountain Nature Preserve to the Town. He explained that the park’s “blue trail” crossed over onto this private property and that the New York/New Jersey Trail Conference was planning to do some renovation work on the trail this spring and that it would be helpful if the town had title to the property by then. It was explained that because the donation was part Phase 2 of the subdivision and that the board was only discussing Phase 1 of the project, it was not appropriate to include any conditions relating to the donation to the current issue. The board advised Mr. Schroeder to work off line with Mr. O’Keefe to see what could be done to expedite the transfer of title.
In a 4-0 vote, with Mr, Flynn abstaining, the board approved the resolution of conformity for Phase 1.
Planning Board, 2/27/2012
In order to obtain a building permit, the property owner needs a resolution from the Planning Board stating that his current plan for the sale of the first lot for this 5-lot subdivision conforms to the approved 2007 plan.The board’s discussion focused on two areas of concern.
a) The applicant has not responded to the November, 2011 letter from the town engineer requesting documentation that the applicant has corrected deficiencies on the site. According to a memo from the engineer, the applicant has not returned phone calls or emails requesting the documentation. The applicant said that with the exception of lining a pond, no earth disturbance was being done over the winter on the site and that he wasn’t aware of any deficiencies but that he would have his engineer do a site visit and provide the necessary documentation.
b) While the applicant said that the plan for the first lot conformed to the original subdivision approval, PlanningDirector Tegeder said that there were some differences that needed to be reviewed, including a change in the roadway configuration and grading. As the item was a last minute addition to the board’s agenda, neither Mr. Tegeder or members of the board had had a chance to review the new plan.
While initially Mr. Kincart suggested that the board approve the plan subject to the applicant satisfying the engineer’s concerns, other board members said that they wanted Mr. Tegeder’s opinion on the changes to the plan and did not see any need to rush the approval.Mr. Fon noted that in October, 2011, the board had approved requested changes to the plan and that any delays were not due to the Town. The applicant explained that since October he had been working with other agencies to obtain other required approvals.