Planning Board
1/27/2020
Attending: John Kincart, Robert Garrigan, William LaScala, Rich Fon, Aaron Bock
REGULAR SESSION
1. Fusco minor subdivision, Stony Street
(See Planning Board 5-20-2019.) The board approved a second 90 day extension.
2. Fiore minor subdivision, Carr Court
(See Planning Board 5-20-2019.) The board approved a second 90 day extension.
3. Gallinelli minor subdivision, Quinlan Street
(See Planning Board 6-24-2019.) Mr. Riina explained that the assessor wanted a minor change in the plat and that once this change is made, the Health Department will reissue its approval.
4. IBM helipad/special use permit
The board renewed the permit, adding language that the facility could service up to 24 flights a year, but no more than six per month. The current limit is 18 flights per year. In 2019, there were no complaints about the 9 flights that took place.
5. CVS, Crompond Road, Adjourned public hearing
In response to comments at the previous hearing, the applicant has substituted a different and shorter tree species along Route 202. The number and spacing of the trees will remain the same. The applicant is proposing a 15’ high pylon sign along Route 202 and a monument sign on Old Compond Road. The board asked if the height of the monument sign could be lower.
The hearing was closed. The Planning Department will tweak a draft approving resolution for a possible vote at the board’s next meeting.
6. Atlantic Appliance, Maple Hill Street/Public Informational Hearing
Mr. Bock advised the board that although he is the owner of the adjacent office building, he felt he could be impartial when reviewing the plan.
The applicant reviewed the site plan and proposed stormwater plan that includes cleaning up the existing wetland at corner of Veterans Road and Greenwood Street. The applicant noted that he purchased the abutting property to the rear of the Maple Hill Street parcel in order to accommodate the project’s stormwater plan. The only public comment dealt with the issue of whether to restrict the tractor trailer trucks that will be delivering inventory to the warehouse to exit onto Veterans Road from Maple Hill St. The applicant explained that as the trailer trucks would use Route 35 from I-684, they were likely to use the Maple Hill exit rather than Veterans Road. It was also noted that other commercial establishments in Yorktown have tractor trailer deliveries and that the town has not had a problem with them.
In response to board questions about landscaping along Maple Hill Street, the applicant stated that the frontage closest to the post office would have a retaining wall and that the remainder of the frontage would have a grassed area. The side of the building facing Maple Hill Street will have a paved area for outdoor display, e.g., grills.
The hearing was closed and a follow up hearing on the site plan may be scheduled in February.
WORK SESSION
7. 387 Granite Springs Road
(See Planning Board 12-16-2019.) The applicant was advised that he needed a wetlands permit and he was walked through the process. The discussion focused on the location of the proposed house on the parcel and the extent to which the house would encroach on the wetland buffer.
8. Nestle Waters, Crompond Road
The applicant, a distributor of bottled water, has leased the former Verizon building for use as a warehouse. No major changes are planned for the building, except that an interior loading dock will replace the existing exterior facility. The driveway on the west side of the property will be used for the tractor trailer trucks that deliver the bottles in the overnight hours. A driveway at the eastern side of the site will be used by the smaller delivery trucks that will leave the site in the early morning hours. There will be a separate driveway access for the public.
The applicant has already repaved the parking lot and installed a chain link fence around the property and has obtained a demolition permit from the Building Department to make interior changes to the building. Faced with the fact that these changes have already been made, the Planning Board felt somewhat constrained about its ability to review other site plan issues that normally would be considered prior to any changes being made to the site when the use of the building changed. On behalf of the applicant, Mr. Riina said that the changes to the site were applicant driven. In response to question from Mr. Bock about runoff from the site’s parking lot, Mr. Riina explained that the site drains to Route 202, not the wetland in the rear of the parcel, and that if more oil separators were needed, they would be installed.
The board plans a site visit. Mr. Tegeder also raised the issue of landscaping and the need for a lighting plan.
On a referral from the Town Board, the Planning Board had no issue with the change from an all rental to a condo project.
It was noted that the change in ownership would not involve any changes in the site plan and that the assessed value of the project would not change.
10. Shallow Creek/Par 3, Route 6
Mr. Tegeder advised the board that no one knew what was happening at the site and that the Planning Board should be involved in the project. After some discussion, the applicant was advised that before proceeding, the Planning Board would require a site plan, tree restoration plan, stormwater and erosion plans and a parking plan. It was noted that the town engineer would be contacting the DEC to determine whether a DEC wetlands permit was also needed. The board’s attorney advised the applicant that based on its lease from the town, it was the applicant’s responsibility to prepare all these documents and obtain the required permits.
The applicant advised the board that it had obtained Health Department approval for its septic system but that it was open to connecting to the town’s sewer system sometime in the future. Several possible connection routes were identified.
Mr. Tegeder noted that the applicant had some February obligations and that the approval process, based on the receipt of the required documents, would need to be fast tracked.
Councilman Lachterman, who participated in the discussion, acknowledged that the documents and permits being requested by the board should have been submitted earlier and acknowledged that the project had not been proceeding the right way, i.e., following the established approval process. A member of the Rec Commission asked for guidance on where the process had gone wrong in order to learn from what had happened so as not to repeat the same problems for future projects, such as improvements to the Holland Sporting Club. The simple response from Mr. Tegeder was that any project that involved a parking plan required Planning Board review and approval.