Colangelo Subdivision (Featherbed)

SBL: 35.16-1-4
Location: Jacob Road
Contact: Site Design Consultants

Planning Board, 12-7-2020

Regarding the five acre conservation easement, the board decided that its only concern was that the subdivision plan designate the five acres as a conservation easement and that it could give final approval to the plan while who held the easement was worked out.   Mr. Tegeder advised the board that there were some final technical details that needed to b resolved before the board could vote on a final approval resolution.


Planning Board 11-23-2020

The applicant’s attorney advised the board that his client will no longer be seeking a tax deduction for the value of the conservation easement to be given to the Westchester Land Trust. He added, however, that while this eliminates the obstacle discussed at the previous meeting, there would still be a 4-6 month delay in the Trust finalizing the easement agreement.  What followed was a discussion over whether the approving resolution should include language that would give the town the easement in the event there was some delay with the Trust’s easement.  The final language was left up to the Planning Department to wok out.  The executive director of the Westchester Land Trust explained to the board that as the holder the conservation easement, its role was to enforce the conditions of the easement and that it remained the property owner’s responsibility to maintain the land. Councilman Lachterman added that in the event there was some problem with the easement going to the Trust, the town would not be interested in acquiring the land as part of the subdivision’s recreation fee. He also noted that the Trust would be a better steward of the land than the town.


In a related matter, that father of the adjoining property owner questioned the proximity of the trail to his son’s house. After the latest plan was reviewed, however, the parent was assured that the trail was between 75-100” from his son’s property, not the 10’ that he assumed.

Planning Board 10-26-2020

Mr. Tegeder suggested a realignment of a portion of the proposed trail, but the applicant advised the board that Walt Daniels was okay with the proposed location. The board was confused about the exact location of the trail and what appeared to be an abutting old farm road that would be used to access the agricultural parcels.  Mr. Tegeder was concerned that as originally proposed, the trail was very close to the abutting house, but the applicant said that the property owner had no issue with the propose trail.


The board asked the applicant to return with a color coded plan that showed the trail and the farm road.


The applicant explained that because of IRS regulations, there would have to be a “cooling off period” for the donation of the parcel to the Westchester Land Trust.  How that could or should be reflected in the approval resolution remains to be worked out.


Planning Board, 10-5-2020

The applicant was asking for final subdivision approval. The applicant also advised the board that a portion of the proposed trail through the property has been relocated in order to avoid trail users using the private road to the 6 lots.  The change needs to be reviewed by the Westchester Land Trust that will hold the conservation to the trail. The board also wanted input from Walt Daniels.


The applicant also has to work out the details with the Land Trust on the details of a separate 5 acre conservation easement to address the financial aspects of the donation.

Town Board, 7-14-2020

As a follow up to discussions related to the Colangelo (Featherbed) subdivision, the board referred out proposed amendments dealing with the installation and maintenance of low pressure sewer systems.  A hearing was set for August 4.

Town Board, 5-26-2020

Based on meetings with the county Department of Health, Mr. Quinn will work with the town attorney to prepare amendments to the town’s sewer code dealing with low pressure systems. There are still some unresolved issues.


As part of the discussion, it was understood that the amendments would also involve any future low pressure systems installed as part of the planned Hallocks Mill sewer extension project.

Town Board, 5-19-2020

Mr. Quinn advised the board that he has a meeting with the county Department of Health on Wednesday to review a draft of how the town’s sewer code would be amended to accommodate the subdivision’s low pressure sewer system.  Once the DOH has commented on the draft, he will return to the board for a discussion.

Town Board, 5-12-2020

Mr. Quinn advised the board that he hasn’t been able to touch base with the county Health Department about the town’s proposed solution to the low pressure sewer line. In the meantime, he is continuing to work with the town attorney and Planning Department on proposed amendments to the town’s sewer code to include provisions for low pressure lines.

Town Board, 5-5-2020

Mr. Riina advised the board that the developer would install emergency generators for each lot and that the on site low pressure system might not need a one day back up tank if there was an emergency generator. In the meantime, the town is reviewing possible amendments to the town’s Sewer Code based on language from the North Castle code  regulating low pressure systems.   Under the current plan, the town would be responsible for maintaining the sewer line in the private road, beginning at each property line.  In response to a question during Courtesy of the Floor about who would pay to repair the road in the event the town had to dig it up to facilitate a repair, Mr. Paganelli said that the town would get an easement for the road.  The applicant will discuss the revised plan with the county DOH.

Planning Board, 5-4-2020

Mr. Riina advised the board that changes would be needed in the town’s sewer code in order to accommodate the applicant’s plans for a low pressure sewer system that would involve the town assuming responsibility to maintain the low pressure line in the private road and the connection on Catherine Street to the existing manhole. He said that the emergency generator would likely to be sized to include the other electrical needs in each of the houses.  He said that one pump for all six lots was not technically feasible. The board had no issues with the plan and anticipates receiving the draft amendments to the sewer code before taking any additional actions.

Town Board, 4-28-2020

Background: After the Planning Board approved a preliminary 6 lot subdivision plan that included a hook up to the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer System, the applicant sought county Department of Health (DOH) for the sewer plan that included the installation of a low pressure sewer line that would connect to an existing manhole on Catherine Street, roughly where the Seabury Home is, plus the installation of a pumping system at each of the six lots. 


Mr. Riina, the project engineer, explained to the board that the DOH wants the town to own the 500’ line from the subdivision to the existing manhole and also be responsible for maintaining the line  that will be installed in the private road that will provide access to the six lots.  A second issue with the DOH requirements is who should pay for or provide emergency generators for the pumps.


The DOH requirements led to an extended discussion of  three possible options for meeting the DOH requirements and the extent to which the town should assume any of the responsibility, what the homeowners should be responsible for and who should pay for what. It was recognized that how the board handled the issue could/would set a precedent for how to roughly 90 low pressure sewer connections that will be required for the new Hallocks Mill sewer district would be handled.


Mr. Tegeder said that given the new DOH requirements for low pressure sewer lines, and its implications for the town, maybe six lots were not practical for the subdivision; maybe fewer lots should have been approved. In response, Mr. Riina said that sewers were essential as septic systems, even for 3 lots was not possible.


No decisions were made although there appeared to be a reluctance on the part of the board to assume some of the responsibility; Supervisor Slater said that the town should not be in the rooter router business.  Mr. Riina was advised to continue discussions with the DOH and the Planning Board and report back to the Town Board.

Planning Board, 11-18-2019

The board reapproved the subdivision. The applicant is working with the town and county on water and sewer connections.  In response to a question from Walt Daniels of the Advisory Committee on Open Space about the easement for the future trail, the applicant said that the exact trail easement will be delineated on the subdivision plan before the board votes on final approval.


Planning Board, 8-12-2019

The applicant is awaiting Board of Health approval and is in early stages of DEP approval. The board  approved a second 90-day extension.

Planning Board, 6-24-2019

The board approved the first 90 day extension. The applicant is still working with DEP and the county Department of Health.

Planning Board, 12-17-2018

The board approved the preliminary plat. The subdivision’s recreation requirement will be included in the final plat approval resolution.

Planning Board, 12-3-2018

The applicant advised the board that for tax and donation purposes, the Westchester Land Trust  cannot accept the 5 acre donation as long as the approving resolution states that it is part of the plan’s recreational fee requirement.   The “donation” aspect of the plan is important to the applicant’s overall financial plan.


As a compromise, the board agreed that all references to the recreational fee (the 5 acre donation, the trail, and the parking spaces) would be omitted from the preliminary plant approval so that the applicant can complete the donation to the Westchester Land Trust. Once that is done and the applicant returns to the board for final plat approval, the approving resolution can include the recreation fee requirement.

Planning Board, 11-19-2018

The applicant showed a revised plan that showed an easement for four unpaved parking spaces on the shoulder of the road for trail users. The board said it appreciated the change.  Still to be finalized is the 5 acre conservation easement to the Westchester Land Trust and the maintenance agreement for the trail.  It was agreed that these two documents would be needed at the time of final plat approval. 


Although the above discussion took place in a work session mode, the board returned to regular session mode and approved the preliminary plan.

Planning Board, 11-5-2018

The applicant showed the board a plan that included the proposed farm stand and parking and explained that it was working on a draft agreement with the town to provide access from the parking lot to the trail that will go through the property. Unlike the trail portion of the plan that would be a conservation easement, the access from the parking lot to the trail would be a 5 year license agreement that would have to be renewed every five years and which could be cancelled at any time by the applicant for cause; one of the possible “causes” cited were trail users creating a nuisance for the homeowners in the subdivision.


After the limitations of the license agreement were pointed out, including the fact that a license agreement did not run with the land and if terminated at a future date would leave no public access or parking for the trail users, and some back and forth between board members and the applicant, the latter agreed to provide a conservation easement that set aside four parking spaces for trail users.

Planning Board, 6-25-2018

The board reviewed the language of a draft resolution that established a 5.3 acre conservation easement to be held by the Westchester Land Trust and a 10’ wide donation of property to the town from Jacob Road running through the parcel and the Westchester Land Trust easement along the Hunterbrook unterbrookHunterbroofor a future trail connection. The applicant will be able to make minor adjustments to the exact location of the 10’ donation at the time of final subdivision approval.


Unresolved was a requirement that the preliminary plan show some parking for future trail users along Jacob Road. Mr. Kincart said that the board was not requiring  a paved or even gravel area and that parking on the existing grass would be fine; the issue was designating an area for parking. According to Mr. Riina, the project engineer, the applicant wanted to defer creating a parking area until he was ready to present a plan for phase 2 of the project that would include the barn and a farm stand along Jacob Road with parking. As the applicant was not present, Mr. Riina said he could not commit to placing any parking designation on the preliminary without the applicant’s approval.

Planning Board, 6-11-2018

The board reviewed the language of a draft resolution that established a 5.3 acre conservation easement to be held by the Westchester Land Trust and a 10’ wide donation of property to the town from Jacob Road running through the parcel and the Westchester Land Trust easement along the Hunterbrook unterbrookHunterbroofor a future trail connection. The applicant will be able to make minor adjustments to the exact location of the 10’ donation at the time of final subdivision approval.


Unresolved was a requirement that the preliminary plan show some parking for future trail users along Jacob Road. Mr. Kincart said that the board was not requiring  a paved or even gravel area and that parking on the existing grass would be fine; the issue was designating an area for parking. According to Mr. Riina, the project engineer, the applicant wanted to defer creating a parking area until he was ready to present a plan for phase 2 of the project that would include the barn and a farm stand along Jacob Road with parking. As the applicant was not present, Mr. Riina said he could not commit to placing any parking designation on the preliminary without the applicant’s approval.

Planning Board, 6-11-2018

The applicant advised the board that he has been working with the Westchester Land Trust and the Yorktown Land Trust on the easement for the trail. Before voting for preliminary approval, the board wants some additional information noted on the plan, including the approximate size of the easement. The applicant will return to the board later in the month.

Planning Board, 2-26-2018

The applicant showed a revised plan that dedicates a portion of the site abutting the Hunterbrook to the town that meets the recreation fee component, plus a path through the site from Jacob Road to the rear parcel that will be donated as an easement to the Westchester Land Trust.  The path will border the large parcel to be developed for a future agricultural use. Together, the two parcels total 5.6 acres. Mr. Tegeder advised the applicant that the board will need to hear from the Westchester Land Trust that it is agreeable to the plan. He also suggested that the easement be given jointly to the Westchester Trust and the Yorktown Land Trust in order to protect the town’s interest in the event the Westchester Trust ever withdraws from the region.


Planning Board, 1-8-2018

Mr. Colangelo expressed concern that the trail component not be included in any preliminary approval because the board had not yet received any feedback on the plan from the farmer who would be developing the agricultural portion of the site or the Westchester Land Trust that would hold a future conservation easement. He was also uncomfortable with the possibility of the board “double dipping” for the recreation fee when he came in for Phase 2 of his development plan. In response, Mr. Tegeder  (and Mr. Fon) assured him that the board had no intention of double dipping on the rec fee.


Mr. Tegeder also explained that the location of the proposed land donation for the future trail connection needed to be shown on the preliminary plan although it could be changed at a later date, adding that additional Phase 2 features, including accessory buildings, a barn, and a trail connection to Jacob Road, needed to be shown on the preliminary plan but could be changed at a future date.


The board’s attorney also explained that the proposed conservation easement or land donation adjacent to the stream was an issue between the board and the applicant and did not involve that Westchester Land Trust, even though the Trust might be the eventual holder of the easement. Mark Michaels, speaking for the Advisory Committee on Open Space, also made it clear that no one was asking the applicant to build the trail; just set aside land for its eventual construction by volunteers.


Mr. Riina advised the board that he needs preliminary approval before proceeding with the next steps in the application that involved outside agencies.


Mr. Fon suggested that Mr. Colangelo meet with the Planning Department to work out the details that are needed on the preliminary plan prior to the board’s approval.  He reiterated the board’s decision that it wanted the land donation in lieu of money. 

Planning Board, 12-18-2017

Members of the Advisory Board on Open Space (ACOS) met with the board to discuss the proposed trail link.  The group supports the donation of approximately 5 acres adjacent to the existing linear park  to satisfy the 10% open space in lieu of money recreation fee requirement. The group is also flexible on the location of a future trail route that would link up to Jacob Road. The applicant had no issue with this plan but wants an easement that would in the future allow it to construct a pump station so that water could be pumped up to irrigate the agricultural land. It was also suggested that a small additional piece of property be added to the donation to provide a better access to an adjoining site.


The remaining outstanding issue was the location of the future connection to Jacob Rd; without something in the preliminary approval, the board’s attorney said that simply a commitment from the applicant would not be enforceable. Mr. Tegeder said the preliminary map should include a location that could be changed once the applicant returned for final approval. The attorney will provide appropriate language for the next meeting.

Planning Board, 12-4-2017

During Courtesy of the Floor after the close of the Regular Session and prior to the start of the Work Session, both John Schroder, speaking for the Yorktown Land Trust and ACOS, the Advisory Committee on Open Space, and Susan Siegel (the observer writing this summary), speaking for the Yorktown Trail Town Committee, urged the board to include the trail link in the preliminary subdivision approval. Mr. Schroder explained that he was speaking during Courtesy in order to “plant the seed’ with the board as he would not be able to address the board during the work session.


 During the work session, most of the discussion focused on the trail issue. The applicant was concerned that he was being asked to pay both a recreation fee and donate land for the trail.   Mr. Fon noted that Rec Commission wanted the fee. However, in response to the earlier comments  by Mr. Schroeder and Ms. Siegel, the board appeared to agree that the trail was in furtherance of both the Comprehensive Plan and an earlier Planning Department plan for the Hunterbrook Linear Park and that the board should not let this opportunity slip by. It was suggested that a compromise might be able to be worked out that would address the needs of the Rec Comm, set aside land for the trail, and not constitute an undue burden on the applicant. Alternately, the approval resolution could be worded so that a final decision could be left to final approval.


In the meantime, the boad will seek clarification on whether setting aside land for the trail, either through a donation of land or an easement with public access meets the town’s requirement that any land donation be used for “active” recreation. (The point was made that hiking is “active.”)


The applicant will attend next week’s ACOS meeting to discuss the trail in greater detail.


In the meantime, the applicant asked the board for an approval resolution as soon as possible, explaining that it couldn’t proceed with getting it’s other approvals without first having preliminary approval from the town.  The  board’s attorney will begin work on a draft approval resolution.


Planning Board, 11-20-2017

(The CIY observer did not attend the meeting. See the official board minutes for a summary of the public hearing.)

Planning Board, 10-16-2017

The applicant reviewed the basic site plan, noting that the exact nature of the future use, expected to be agricultural,  of the sixth large lot remained uncertain. The plan does, however, include a barn on the lot that would be used for any future agricultural use. An area along Jacob Rd would also be used for a possible farm stand.


While the applicant has completed the SWPPP, it was noted that once the DEP reviews the plan, changes may have to be made.


John Schroder, speaking for the Yorktown Land Trust and Yorktown Trail Town Committee and Walt Daniels, speaking for the Advisory Committee on Open Space, supported the inclusion of a trail along the periphery of the site that would link to the existing Dineen Linear Park along the Hunterbrook.


A Cortlandt resident whose property abutted the site expressed concern about drainage onto his property and also noted that trees have been cut on the property for the past four weekends.  Commenting on the potential farm stand, he noted traffic issues at the intersection of Jacob and Catherine St.


Susan Siegel, the person writing this summar6y, asked about how the rain gardens behind five of the houses that are part of the stormwater plan would be maintained over time.


Because of an issue with the required public notification, the hearing was adjourned to November 20.

Planning Board, 9-25-2017

The board set an October 16 public hearing on the project.  No changes to the plan have been made since the last meeting.  Because some abutting residents in Cortlandt complained that they never received the notice about the first hearing, on the suggestion of assistant planner Robyn Steinberg, the board agreed to have the applicant send notices by first class mail (the new requirement) and also certified mail, although without the requirement for a return receipt.

Planning Board, 8-14-2017

Hunterbrook Linear Park:  John Schroeder, speaking on behalf of the Yorktown Land Trust, the Open Space Committee and the Yorktown Trail Town Committee, explained that because the current members of the board were not on the board in the 1990s, he wanted to reacquaint them with the 1992 Hunterbrook Linear Park Study that had been developed by the Planning Department and which had the support of the then Town Board, Planning Board and Recreation Commission. Explaining that over the years as subdivisions in the area had been approved, some land had been set aside for the park, he called attention to how the Colangelo property currently before the board fit into the overall plan.  He added that he had been in touch with the owner of the Colangelo propert6y about the potential for a trail that would link up to the existing trail network.  He also gave each board member of a copy of the Yorktown Land Trust’s The Yorktown Walkbook.  The board thanked Mr. Schroeder for this presentation.

Planning Board, 7-10-2017

The applicant’s environmental consultant requested permission to remove 435 trees, identified as sweet (or black) birch that he said were dying or dead as a result of a fungus and could not be saved. He said a site visit by the town’s code inspector had confirmed the condition; this was confirmed by a memo from the town engineer. The trees to be removed constitute about 1/3 of the 1,500 trees on the site. The trees will be cut in 4’ lengths and burnt off site; they will be stockpiled on site until removed.


The board approved the removal and Mr. Fon said the Tree Commission would be notified.

Town Board, 4-18-2017

The board opened and closed a public hearing on the proposed sewer district extension for the proposed 6 lot Featherbed (Colangelo) subdivision on Jacob Road.  There were no public comments. The board approved the request which will now be sent to the county for approval into the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District.

Planning Board, 2-13-2017

On a referral from the Town Board, the board said it had no issue with the request for the property to be included in the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District.


The applicant advised the board that since it could take up to a year to get the sewer district approval from the county, in the meantime, he wanted to create a “flower farm” on approximately 2 acres in the general area where the houses would eventually be built and which the applicant had previously cleared without a permit. Although not too many details about the farm were discussed, the applicant said it would be operated by a university and that student interns would do the farming. He wants the operation to begin this spring.  A plan showing the trees that would have to be removed to make way for the farm was shown but the number of trees to be removed was not disclosed.


For the flower farm, the applicant would need a stormwater permit and a tree permit. Mr. Barber advised that if some of the work was phased, the applicant might be able to come in under the disturbed land threshold that would require a DEP stormwater permit.


Also briefly discussed was whether the parcel would come into the county’s agricultural district program. Mr. Barber explained that applications to become an agricultural district are reviewed and approved by the county every seven years and he didn’t know what year of the cycle the program was in.

Planning Board, 1-9-2017

The applicant made a presentation of the plan. (See below for details.)


Patrick Cumisky, speaking for the Recreation Commission, said his group opposed the proposed trail connection and dog park. He said the Commission preferred that the applicant’s recreation requirement be used to upgrade other town recreational facilities.


A second public comment came from a neighboring property owner who said he was speaking on behalf of several area residents.  The resident said he was not opposed to the subdivision plan; his issue was the tree cutting that had been and was continuing to take place on the property without a permit on some weekends. He said it was ironic that the presentation highlighted the applicant’s concern about preserving trees when in the past an estimated 200 trees were removed without a permit.  He said he had brought the issue to the attention of town officials but had gotten a run around. In response, the applicant’s environmental consultant said that the prior tree cutting had been done before he came aboard. The resident also challenged the consultant’s statement that the trees being cut down now were all dead or diseased.


The resident also asked about what type of farming was envisioned for the large lot. In response the consultant said that the current thinking was small plots for what he called “neophyte farmers” who want to experiment with whether they wanted to farm and if so, what crops.  


An abutting property owner in Cortlandt questioned whether he and his Cortlandt neighbors had been properly noticed about the hearing.  In response, Mr. Tegeder said that the applicant had met the town’s requirement that the applicant show a receipt that a certified letter  had been sent but that the town did not require a signed return receipt. Al Capellini, the applicant’s attorney, added that there was no public notice requirement for the earlier Town Board public hearing on the applicant’s request to use the town’s flexibility standards.


The hearing was closed

Planning Board, 12-19-2016

The applicant requested the board’s agreement with a plan to move a portion the road 25-30 feet into the wetland buffer in order to save two trees. He also wants to modify a stormwater plan so that a portion of any excess flow goes into the existing wetland with the balance being diverted down the slope at the rear of the property.  The board had no problem with the road issue but said that more technical information was needed on the best possible balance on the stormwater issue.

Town Board, 11-15-2016

The board opened and closed a public hearing on the use of the Flexibility Standards and voted to authorize the Planning Board to process the subdivision using the flexibility standards.  During the hearing, the applicant explained the advantages of using the flexibility standards (see below). There were no comments from the public.

Town Board, 10-25-2016

The applicant explained why he was seeking Town Board authorization to use flexibility, repeating many of the points he had made at the Planning Board meeting (see below).  Attorney Al Capellini showed the board a photo of the property, circa 1926 when it was used for farming and there were no trees on the site, adding that all the existing trees were second growth.


The applicant advised the board of his long range plans to farm the undeveloped 47 acres that will be part of one lot but said he had no immediate farming plans. He added, however, that he would prepare a narrative describing the proposed future use and that he would seek of the guidance of the County Agricultural District staff and the Watershed Council in developing the plan.  He said he also had prepared a Forest Management Plan.


Supervisor Grace expressed no interest in the proposed dog park, and it was noted that the applicant would need a special permit from the Zoning Board for the proposed farm stand.  Mr. Tegeder added that the barn, shown on the concept plan, would not be part of the subdivision plan.


The board had no issues with the proposed use of flexibility and voted to advertise a public hearing for November 15th.

Planning Board, 9-26-2016

Reviewing the conventional layout, the applicant advised the board that he had made some slight changes to the house location on two lots. The rest of the conventional plan, used to determine lot count, was the same. He also said that contrary to his statement at the previous meeting, the site was not in the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District but that he would be applying to come into the district. The applicant showed a plan that included the 6 proposed houses, farm stand, trail, dog park and the remaining undeveloped portion of the site.


The applicant went through a comparison of the conventional and flexibility layouts, pointing out that the latter would result in 25% less disturbance, less imperious surface, smaller houses and the potential removal of only 607 trees compared to 766 trees in the conventional layout; he said that every effort would be made to save as many trees as possible.


Mr. Tegeder noted that the goal of the flexibility provisions was to develop a plan that was more sensitive to the land. He said that the current plan met that goal.


Bruce Barber asked the applicant to prepare a plan that showed the existing barn on both the conventional and flexibility plans so that the board would be comparing apples to apples.  He also advised the board to consider the future uses of the remaining portion of the site that has slopes in excess of 20%, poor soils, wetlands, is heavily treed and is close to the Hunter Brook trout stream.  He explained that if and when that portion of the site becomes an agricultural district, as such, it would be exempt for all town land use regulations and the board would not get a second chance to review any future plan for the site. The applicant said that at the present time it had no plans for the rear portion of the site. Mr. Barber noted, and the board agreed, that the proposed 6 houses are being situated on the more relatively level portion of the site.


The Planning Department will prepare a recommendation to the Town Board supporting flexibility and the Planning Board will conduct a site visit.

Planning Board, 9-12-2016

In a change of plans, the applicant is now proposing only 6 lots plus a farm stand on Jacob Road and a trail behind the houses leading to the Hunter Brook with the possibility of a dog park.  The applicant is still seeking approval from the Town Board to use the town’s flexibility standards that would allow him to shrink the size of the individual lots and permit a narrower private road. The future of the remaining portion of the site is undetermined  with the possibility remaining that it could be used for agricultural purposes, either for individual gardens for the homeowners or used by abutting Hemlock Hill Farms to raise corn an hay for the farm’s cattle.


Prior to going to the Town Board, the Planning Board needs to confirm the number of lots that can be subdivided under a conventional layout. However, there was disagreement over what additional information was needed or required by town code in order for the board needed to validate that after environmental constraints were taken into account, the property could be subdivided into  6 lots.


Bruce Barber, the town’s environmental consultant, said that given the site’s slopes in excess of 20% and the presence of rock out croppings, more information was needed; Planning Director John Tegeder said  he needed documentation that the parcel was in the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District and would be serviced by sewers, not septic systems that could require more land per lot.  In response, the applicant’s engineer stated that his client did not want to spend the additional money to provide the information requested by Mr. Barber and that the parcel was located in the county sewer district. The board’s counsel said that the language of the flexibility provisions did not require the additional information that Mr. Barber felt was necessary. The board then advised the applicant  that before sending a resolution  to the Town Board requesting permission to review the application under flexibility, the applicant needed to provide documentation that the parcel was in the county sewer district.


It was also noted that if and when the Planning “Board approves  the subdivision for up to 6 possible single family homes, the remaining portion of the 53 acre site could be further subdivided.

Planning Board, 12-21-2015

The applicant advised the board that he is dropping his plans for a farm use for a portion of the site due to what he called the onerous requirements of the Tree Ordinance that requires an inventory of all the trees that would have to be removed.  The plan will continue to include 6 houses and a solar array. (Note: it was not clear if the plan continued to include a trail and/or a dog park.)


The proposed plan will need Town Board approval for the use flexibility standards to address lot size and frontage issues. The board supports the use of flexibility.


Tree Ordinance issue: The applicant indicated that based on a preliminary survey of the portion of the site that would be disturbed by the 6 residential units, he estimated 1,100 trees would have to be tagged as to location, type,  size and condition, and that this number could reach 1,500.  He said the Ordinance made no allowance for dead or diseased trees.  It was noted that while the Land Development Regulations require all trees 8“ DBH or greater to be inventoried, the Tree Ordinance, which takes precedence, has a 6” requirement.  In response to a question from the applicant whether the 8” provision was ever required for a large parcel, Mr. Tegeder said yes, for the 100 acre Stateland property.   Mr. Fon noted that the cost of the tree survey could cost most than the cost of one of the houses.


It was the applicant’s opinion that the tree inventory requirement should be related to the use the property would be put to, e.g., that if the land was to be used for crops, the inventory should not be required. It was pointed that the Tree Ordinance does include a provision exempting agricultural uses from the inventory requirement. It was also pointed out that if the property owner had a Forest Management Plan, the property would be exempt from the requirements of the Ordinance for 10 or 15 years (it was not clear what the time limit was.)


Bruce Barber suggested that the wording of the ordinance could be looked at more carefully, e.g., whether the survey requirement included invasive species, and whether the requirement could be scaled  back to possibly include only the limits of disturbance as opposed to the entire site.


The board will send a memo to the Town Board indicating its support for flexibility. The applicant was advised to take up the Tree Ordinance requirements with the Town Board.

Planning Board, 11-23-2015

A more formal, detailed site plan was presented, showing the 6 lots allowable under a conventional site plan.  The site and size of the proposed solar array was shown.  Mr. Capellini suggested that since the solar array would be used to power the proposed development, it should be considered an accessory use and therefore not require a special use permit.  The Planning Board told him to consult with Building Inspector Winter about that.  The subdivision will tie into the sewers on Catherine Street as septic systems were found to be not feasible.  The site’s entry statement will be some sort of towers, not the silos as originally envisioned.  There will be a public trailway leading to the Hunter Brook Greenway and also a public dog park.  The trailway will not require tree removal.  


Mr. Tegeder asked about tree removal on the property. Mr. Colangelo said that he had cleared 2 ac. as part of the proposed agricultural operation on the site.  After the fact, he went to the Town Board for a tree removal permit.  All that activity has been stopped and the area restored to the satisfaction of Bruce Barber, Town Environmental Officer, according to Mr. Colangelo.  Mr. Colangelo said more recent tree cutting on the site was just removing trees downed during Superstorm Sandy.  Mr. Tegeder pointed out that the project would require a tree survey and that removing trees before that’s done would make it difficult for the Planning Board to determine what mitigation should be required.  Mr. Colangelo said he has a forester marking trees on the site, but wasn’t clear whether this was for a tree survey or to mark trees for harvest.  Mr. Colangelo thought the tree survey could be done once the site plan had been approved, and seemed surprised when informed that it was a requirement of the tree permit necessary for approval.  Mr. Fon encouraged Mr. Colangelo to consult with his professionals, Mr. Capellini and Mr. Riina, as well as Bruce Barber and Town Engineer Sharon Robinson, about the laws and regulations governing site plan approval and for guidance in presenting plans to the Planning Board.

Planning Board, 8-24-2015

This 53.5 ac. site was last farmed in the 1970s as the Constable Farm.  It contains no structures and slopes downward to the southeast toward Hunter Brook.  The applicant showed a 6 lot conventional site plan to establish the capacity of the site.  The Planning Board was also shown a business plan for the project, titled “Hunter Brook Ranch”. 


The proposal is for a mixture of open space, agricultural land and residences.   A private, common, cul-de-sac driveway is proposed off Jacob Rd.  Two silos, housing electric car recharging stations, are envisioned as an entry statement at this point.  Four single family residences on 1+ ac. lots are proposed for the left side of the driveway.  Each lot will also have an accessory structure with the possibility for “generational housing” in the future.  A farm stand, specializing in local produce, will be located along Jacob Rd with its own entrance off Jacob.  A hiking trail will run behind the residential lots from the farm stand to Hunter Brook and connecting with the Westchester Trail System.  There is a small, seasonal (according to the applicant) wetland on the right side of the common driveway, proposed as an “educational platform”.    A large farmhouse will be sited at the end of the cul-de-sac.  The applicant sees this as his extended family’s compound, but not anyone’s permanent residence.  The 5th lot encompasses the rest of the site and will include the large farmhouse, 4 agricultural parcels designated A- B-C- D, a barn, a 30,000ft solar array, a dog park at the property’s south end and open space on the east side where it slopes to Hunter Brook.  Grazing beef cattle is the proposed farm use, but this is not definite.


The project will require site plan approval from the Planning Board, Town Board approval for clustering and ZBA approval for the agricultural use.  The land currently is taxed as agricultural, although it is not in an agricultural district.  The intent is to include it in an agricultural district.


The applicant John Coangelo said the project will emphasize sustainability and energy conservation in design, material and methods of construction.  He also recognized that his concept was not typical of proposals coming before the Planning Board, so expected a lot of questions.


Mr. Kincart pointed out issues of a neighborhood association to manage the common areas of the site if the houses are sold to private owners, which could get very complicated given the diversity of land uses.  Mr. Coangelo said he would prefer to retain ownership and rent out the houses.


Mr. Savoca asked about parking.  There should be enough parking for the farm stand, the hiking trail and the dog park at the farm stand on Jacob Rd.  If not, an agreement might be reached with the nursing home across Jacob to accommodate any overflow.


The Planning Board pointed out that 30,000ft is a very large solar array, and it was not drawn to scale on the plans.  The array’s design is still preliminary.


Mr. Flynn asked about the degree of clearing necessary for the farm use and how this would affect run-off.   Stormwater   analyses haven’t been done yet, and the Agriculture Council would be consulted.  Mr. Coangelo pointed out that the area had been farmed until about 35 years ago so the site has 25+ year old trees.


The business plan showed proposed houses of an older, farmhouse style architecture, which pleased the Planning Board as consistent with the Town’s motto of “Progress with Preservation”.


The Planning Board was generally positive toward both the project and its presentation.


Planning Board, 2-11-2015

The board reviewed a pre-preliminary plan to subdivide the24+ acre parcel into three lots; two of which would be exclusively for houses while the third lot would include a house and the remaining area which would be used for farming.  The farming area would be divided up into seven 4+ acre lots to be cleared and converted for farm use on a phased basis.  The type of farming has not been determined. The owner would likely apply for the parcel to become an “agricultural district” which has tax and land use implications.


The applicant is asking for permission to develop the site using the “large lot clustering” provision in the zoning code; this will require Town Board approval.  If developed under conventional zoning, the parcel, located in a

R-160 zone (4 acre zoning) could result in six building lots.


The parcel is located at the end of Catherine Street at Jacob Road.


The board considered this a “creative” use of the land that would not overburden the area and will send a letter to the Town Board in support of the clustering option.