Planning Board
November 18, 2019
Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Rich Fon, Aaron Bock, Robert Garrigan
REGULAR SESSION
1. Stahmer minor subdivision, Birdsall Dr.
(See Planning Board 2-26-2018.) The board approved a second 90-day extension. The plat has been signed and the applicant expects all needed sign offs in about two weeks.
2. Fusco minor subdivision, Stony Street
(See Planning Board, 5-20-2019.) The board approved the first 90-day extension. The applicant is working on the approval conditions.
3. Colangelo subdivision, Jacob Road
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.
4. Furci’s Restaurant, Underhill Avenue
The applicant already has a CO for the addition of 798 sf on the second floor but was belatedly advised that there might be a parking issue and he needed to get Planning Board approval for the expansion as restaurant use changes parking requirements. After Mr. Tegeder went through the parking history of the site and the change in the town’s parking requirements, the board was satisfied that the site had sufficient parking to accommodate the restaurant’s expansion and that Mr. Tegeder’s calculations showing that the site conforms to the current regulations would be added to the record. The board apologized to the applicant for the problem and Mr. Tegeder said he would work with the Building Department to iron out kinks in the communication system between the department and the Planning Board.
The board approved the amended site plan. The approving resolution includes the conditions that the applicant provide training to the town’s two fire departments, that its plans be peer reviewed in addition to any Yorktown Building Department review and that its plan conforms to the NYSERDA model law and the 2019 fire code supplement.
6. McDonald’s, Route 202
(See Planning Board 11-4-2019). The board approved the amended site plan and stormwater and wetlands permits.
WORK SESSION
7. Swope Trust/Griffin, East Main Street, Jefferson Valley
Before the applicant purchases the approximately 2 acre parcel that is entirely in a wetland or wetland buffer, he wanted to get a sense from the board if it would consider approving a plan for a 3,000 sf building, likely for storage use.
The site borders on Lake Osceola. Before giving an opinion, the board will do a site visit, with the Conservation Board.
The applicant presented updated plans that modify some landscaping to take into account concerns by the owners of the Hudson Valley Steakhouse across the road. The board was concerned that the site plan show how an abutting vacant property would have access to the road in the event the property owner wanted to develop the site.
A Public Informal Hearing was scheduled for December 16.
The applicant returned with a revised parking plan for 138 spaces that incorporates an underground automated 2-tier parking system, CityLift, under the building (see cityliftparking.com) plus surface parking in front of and in the back of the building. The system would require digging 15”-18” feet. The board seemed to like the system. At 138 spaces, the plan would need a 19% reduction from the required spaces. The basic site plan remained unchanged. The plan envisions a coffee shop/café-like use in the corner tower and an outdoor seating plaza in front that would be raised slightly from the parking lot.
Mr. Kincart said he liked the proposed building but repeated his earlier concern that he thought the building was too dense for the site. Mr. Bock expressed concern about the parking in front of the building which he said was not in line with the streetscape goal outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fon saw the plan’s traffic improvements, outlined in the mini master plan that included The Weyant plan as a benefit. In response to questions whether the plan could accommodate the traffic during peak hours, the applicant’s traffic consultant said that the proposed uses actually generated less traffic than the current all commercial use.