October 1, 2016
Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Rich Fon, Robert Garrigan
1. Biffer Enterprises
(See Planning Board, 9-17-2018.) As a result of the board’s site visit that was followed up with a meeting of a member of the board, Mr. Tegeder and the applicant’s architect, the architect prepared a plan that called for the removal of 3 sheds and an expansion of the building to provide storage space for the restaurant. However, both the applicant and the restaurant owner said they could not afford to construct the addition, leaving the removal of the sheds as the only option.
The applicant said she would remove the sheds in approximately two weeks and that during that period the restaurant owner will find a new location for his storage needs. The board will not okay the amended site plan until the illegal sheds are removed. The board repeated its position that while it was sympathetic to the owner’s needs, the owner was responsible for creating the problem in the first place by allowing the sheds to be placed on the site in violation of the existing approved site plan.
Complicating the issue is that the new diner will begin paying rent the next day and does not want to pay rent when he cannot get a CO. The board considered but rejected the possibly that the diner could apply for a temporary CO; Mr. Tegeder said that based on past experience, once a temporary CO was granted, it was difficult to pull it.
2. Popeyes, Staples Plaza
The board asked the applicant to make some changes in the traffic circulation pattern and to take a look at the proposed landscape plan so that it minimized the need for long term maintenance that could become a problem if not taken care of.
The applicant said that changes to the timing of the traffic light had been made at the time the gas station opened and that the applicant was not responsible for making any additional changes to the intersection.
A decision statement on the amended site plan is anticipated at the next meeting.
3. Unicorn Contracting, Kear St.
The item was removed from the agenda at the applicant’s request.
4. Perez subdivision, Gomer Street
The proposal is for a 12 lot subdivision on a 12.3 acre site in an R1-20 (half acre) zone). Mr. Kincart recused himself. The applicant was represented by Dan Ciarcia who reviewed an initial layout with access to Gomer Street, and connections to London Road and Cordial Road via existing easements. The Cordial Road easement that dates back to an old approved subdivision plan may not have sufficient width. The road pattern was dictated, to some extent, by a wetland in the center of the site.
The board asked Mr. Ciarcia to look at the possibility of a cluster subdivision that would facilitate a different road pattern.
5. Adrian Auto Body, Route 202
In an item not on the agenda, Dan Ciarcia advised the board the applicant is close to getting DEP sign off for a 900 square foot painting shop addition and may be returning to the board. Mr. Tegeder advised the board that he hadn’t seen any correspondence yet from the DEP.
6. Solar Law/Referral from Town Board
The board postponed a discussion on the content of the draft law pending site visits to a Clarkstown installation on a roughly 5 acre site that was an old landfill and a larger facility either currently in operation or still under construction in Orange County. Mr. LaScala repeated his concerns about who benefits financially from these installations.
7. Tree Law/Town Board referral
(Note: Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, is one of the co-authors of the proposed law and participated in the discussion.)
Mr. LaScala and Mr. Kincart expressed concern over the infringement of property rights; Mr. LaScala thought there should be no restriction on lots of one acre or less. He said that the law should include a provision requiring property owners to remove diseased trees so that their infestation cannot spread to nearby trees. Mr. Kincart and Mr. Tegeder objected to the provisions dealing with woodlands and Mr. Tegeder said the replanting provision in the mitigation section was unworkable. Mr. Fon was concerned that the law created an administrative burden on the town that would require a full time person to enforce.
Mr. Tegeder suggested that a tree permit not even be required, that the Planning Board was already considering trees as part of its regular review process and that SEQRA was adequate for protecting trees. He said the only reason the town adopted a tree law in 2011 was because there had been some clear cutting.
Mr. Fon suggested that the Town Board convene a meeting with the Planning Board, Conservation Board and Tree Commission to review the draft law; he didn’t see a need to rush ahead with the current draft.
Ms. Siegel responded to these comments (not summarized here) and said that Advocates for a Better Yorktown (ABY) the group that drafted the proposed law, welcomed input from the board and suggested changes that could address their concerns.
Mr. Tegeder will prepare a memo to be sent to the Town Board.