Citizens for an Informed Yorktown



Planning Board

January 25, 2016


Attending:  John Savoca, John Kincart, Richard Fon, John Flynn


1. Staples Plaza

Most of the discussion involved the sign for the new Urgent Care building.  The Master Sign Plan for the shopping center sets maximum square footage for signs, plus maximum height and length that fits within the square footage requirement. The proposed Urgent Care sign would have exceeded those parameters because of the logo. The board decided not to consider the logo in calculating the sign dimensions, thereby okaying the sign.


Other minor text changes have been made to the Plan which the board anticipages accepting at its next meeting. The Plan authorizes the Building Inspector to approve future signs in the shopping center, except when they do not meet the parameters; then the request will be forwarded to the Planning Board.


2. Marathon Development, Kear Street

The applicant asked the board for a “warm and fuzzy” memo to the Zoning Board in support of the variance application for the front yard setback; in response to earlier Planning  Board discussions, the applicant moved the building closer to the street so now it needs a 10’ front yard variance.   Despite the misgivings of some board members about the overall size of the building, because they like the general plan, they agreed to provide the memo. It was understood, however, that even if the ZBA grants the variance, the Planning Board would not be locked into voting for the site plan.


In response to Mr. Flynn’s concerns at the previous meeting about the loading area and potential congesetion on Kear Street, the architect indicated that changes could be made in the rear of the building to allow for loading from the rear. While this might negatively impact on the retail stores (it would require a new door), it would resolve the loading issue.  No final decisions were made.


3. Triglia & Rezi, Baker Highway

The applicant’s engineer has prepared a SWPP (stormwater pollution prevention plan) that he explained will not create any additional runoff on existing properties. Mr. Barber said the plan was generally acceptable but  made some suggested changes. Under the plan, the applicant would make provision to widen Baker Highway but the road would remain an unpaved private road.


A “monkey wrench” was thrown into the discussion when  Mr. Tegeder advised the board that because the owner of several vacant parcels off Turus Lane (a private road that feeds into Baker Highway) has expressed interest in constructing at least house on the road, with the possibility that three or four additional houses could be built in the future, the board should look at the broader picture of the road network in the area before approving the Triglia 2 lot subdivision. While the board realized that this might hold up Mr. Triglia, it concerned that if it approved subdivisions on private roads on a piecemeal basis, it could end up with “a mess.”


When Mr. Triglia expressed concern that his subdivision would be held up (he said he already had buyers for the two houses), he was reminded that he created part of the problem himself by getting a building permit for one house, putting in a foundation,  and then applying for the subdivision.


The board will make a site visit to the location before proceeding.  One of the issues to be considered is whether the current residents of the area want their roads to remain private or have them brought up to town standards are become part of the town’s official road network.


4. JCPC Holding, Front Street

Mr. Ciarcia explained that based on some excavation, he determined that the drainage pipe from the site had been severed, apparently when some electrical wiring was installed.


As a follow up to the previous meeting, Mr. Ciarcia, Steve Marino, the applicant’s environmental consultant, and Bruce Barber reviewed the possibility of off site mitigation behind the UPS building. Mr. Barber advised the board that it was a good project for the East of Hudson Coalition to undertake but since the project would require review by DEC, it could take 2-3 years before any plans were improved. Instead, he suggested that the applicant consider other possible off site mitigation locations. He suggested a much smaller project to the rear of the town hall parking lot and Mr. Ciarcia suggested a project on DOT land in the vicinity of Patriot Garden.


While the environmental experts will continue to review potential off site mitigation sites, Mr. Tedger and Mr. Barber asked Mr. Ciarcia to consider tweaking the site plan to move the building and parking area so that a smaller portion of the wetland would have to be disturbed.  Mr. Marino will also be asked to do an analysis of the wetland’s functionality; Mr. Barber described its current function as mostly to retain stormwater and without any habitat issues. However, the present town code requires no net loss of wetlands when considering mitigation, regardless of functionality.  Mr. Ciarcia suggested that the no net loss provision was more suited to residential developments than commercial ones.


While the applicant considers tweaking the site plan, a public information hearing will be scheduled.


5. Envirogreen Associates, East Main Street, Mohegan Lake

In response to Planning Board and Planning Department comments, some slight modifications have been made in the plan, including changes to the rear parking lot to minimize the likelihood of the area being used as a cut thru.


Mr. Riina advised the board that before he proceeds to develop more detailed plans, he will reach out to the DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers to get feedback from them.  Because the wetland is a Type II wetland, the plan will need a longer and more comprehensive review.  The applicant was also advised that before meeting with the outside agencies, he should complete  a full EAF that reflects the latest plan revisions.


Mr. Capellini asked if anyone had considered the possibility of using the Ardizonne site for off site mitigation. There was no discussion on this issue.


6. Bonsignore-Ryer subdivision, Hunterbrook Road

(See Planning Board, 12-21-2015) The applicant submitted a revised plan that incorporated Mr. Barber’s earlier suggestions but some additional tweaking was suggested by Mr. Kincart.  The applicant needs to prepare a wetlands mitigation plan.


The board will reconvene the adjourned public hearing on February 8th. Although by law, the applicant does not have to send out public notices again, the board advised the applicant to do so, and he agreed.


7. Zoning Code change for C-4 zone (Verizon building on Route 202)

(See Town Board, 1-12-2016). Other than some grammatical changes in the proposed new zoning text, the board had no problem with the proposed amendment to the zoning code.  In response to Mr. Flynn’s question why the new provision would be limited to “existing buildings,” Mr. Tegeder explained that the goal was to retain the differences between commercial and industrial zones and be able to judge each application on a case by case basis. He noted that the industrial buildings along Front Street (the town’s industrial zone) had a different “look” than the commercial buildings along Route 202.

The board indicated that while, in the short term, it supported the zoning amendment to facilitate the leasing of the Verizon building, for the long term, it will suggest to the Town Board that it might want to consider establishing a special permit for this type of use in the C-4 zone.