December 17, 2018
Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Rich Fon, Robert Garrigan
1. Lowe’s subdivision
Without any discussion,the board approved the subdivision plan.
2. Colangelo subdivision, Jacob Road
The board approved the preliminary plat. The subdivision’s recreation requirement will be included in the final plat approval resolution.
3. Bonsignore subdivision, Hunterbrook Road
(See Planning Board 12/3/2018.) The board was concerned about the appearance of two retaining walls and requested the applicant to provide more details for possible finishes that would be “more appropriate” for the neighborhood. The board wanted some finish applied to an industrial looking cement block wall that has already been constructed. It was not clear if or how the applicant addressed issues raised in the earlier memo from the town engineer. The applicant advised the board that he wants to move forward with the construction as he has a buyer but acknowledged that the delay was caused by his changing the original plan and that he was not being held up by the board.
4. Spinelli subdivision, Buckhorn Street
The applicant was not present,. The item was not discussed.
5. 2040 Greenwood Street (Envirogreen Associates)
The board expressed concern about the aesthetics of having the plan’s retention pond in front of the proposed new building; the plan calls for a void between Greenwood Street and the pond. The applicant explained that the location of the pond was relocated from the side of the parcel to the front of the site when the former site was ruled out because of its hydrology. Noting that retention ponds are typically not very attractive, the board asked to applicant to return with a plan for how it could potentially landscape the area between the street and the pond.
In response to the concern of ACOS (Advisory Committee on Open Space), the applicant was also asked to look at the landscaping and potential removal of trees in the rear of the site abutting the North County Trailway.
The Conservation Board has reviewed the mitigation plan for the incursion into the wetland buffer. The applicant has also met with ABACA which said it preferred a tan building as opposed to green which the applicant thought would blend in more with the site.
The applicant was asked to respond to comments from a letter from neighbors.
6. Andersons subdivision, Route 129 (Croton Lake Road)
(See Planning Board 6-11-2018.) Based on a preliminary tree survey, Mr. Ciarcia advised the board that about 50+ trees will have to be cut down. The number includes about 10 that are dead or dying and four that are 24” or greater in diameter. It was noted that the heavily wooded site has been neglected and includes invasives. Mr. Tegeder noted that some additional trees close to where grading is proposed might also be endangered. After eliminating the feasibility of any significant replanting as part of a mitigation plan because of the existing canopy, the board briefly discussed the possibility of removing invasives or having the owner do a forest management plan. The applicant will meet with the Tree Conservation Advisory Commission to discuss a mitigation plan. Mr. Fon suggested that the tree issue be discussed as an example with the joint committee currently reviewing a proposed new tree law.
The board asked the applicant to provide some more details about a possible mitigation plan for the 6,000-7,000 sf disturbance into the wetland buffer before meeting with the Conservation Board.
In response to a comment in an earlier memo from the town engineer, the board discussed the extent to which, when it approves a subdivision plan that includes the construction a new house or houses, it also approves the siting and orientation of the house/houses and what the threshold for returning to the board for an amended plan was if the applicant changed anything in the original approval resolution. Mr. Tegeder advised the board that it has been Yorktown’s practice not to approve a “blank slate” for all subdivision approvals. As an example, he noted the board’s preference that when feasible, not to have garages face the front of the parcel.