Citizens for an Informed Yorktown


Planning Board

December 7, 2015


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




1. Creative Living (Navajo Fields)

While still waiting for a DEC wetlands permit for the dome and closing out some unresolved town issues, including compliance with previous Planning Board resolutions and Town Board wetlands permits, the applicant, C. J. Diven, is requesting a second 1-year extension.  Mr. Tegeder advised the board that the applicant has been holding events on a portion of the site (the former horse paddocks) and using access to Route 6N that two previous board resolutions specifically said were not to be used.   


Citing multiple meetings and phone contacts with DEC staffers, Mr. Diven minimized the extent of any existing violations and said he anticipated receiving a compliance letter from DEC within the near future. In response, Mr. Tegeder said he wanted to see something in writing.


Given the lack of clarity on the compliance issues, the board tabled acting on a re-approval resolution pending a site visit by town staff. The board did, however, agree that the Building Department can issue a new certificate of occupancy (CO) for the continued use of the two greenhouse-like tents; as temporary structures, the COs are only good for one year at a time  


2. Hilltop Associates, Hilltop Road

The applicant is seeking re-approval of the 3-lot subdivision originally approved in 2008. According to attorney Al Capellini, the applicant is in the process of hiring a new engineer and getting drawings transferred and is also negotiating with an abutting property owner for an easement that would allow the applicant to hook up to sewers which would make the third lot developable.  After a check of the records, it was determined that the earlier approval for the 3-lot subdivision was still in play and that the board had never formally changed the approval to a 3-lot subdivision with only 2 permitted  building lots.


The board voted unanimously for the re-approval.


3. Hanover Corner, Commerce Street

The board voted unanimously to approve the latest plan.





4. Marathon Development, Kear Street

As requested at the previous meeting, the applicant provided the board with a photograph showing the proposed new building superimposed on the existing streetscape. Most board appeared satisfied that the mass of the proposed building would not overwhelm the street although Mr. Kincart continued to express concern about the mass of the building, pointing out that the visual impact depended on the perspective the photograph was taken from. They also liked to changes to the facade that softened the look of the building.


The remaining issue remains the number of required parking spaces; the code requires 37 but the board can reduce that by 25% to 28 under certain circumstances. While the latest plan does show 28 spaces, the board will consider whether fewer spaces should be built initially, leaving some in a natural landscaped state as conservation spaces to be improved if and when it becomes clear that additional spaces are needed.  The applicant provided the board with a traffic study of the Underhill apartments that showed that fewer spaces were needed for similar type units.


The applicant was also asked to see if the plan could incorporate a rear entrance into the retail stores for deliveries. As presently planned, delivery trucks could park on site but deliveries would have to be made from the front entrance on the street.  The applicant is still not sure if the 2,700 square feet of retail space will be used by one or two tenants; he did not think three tenants were feasible given the reduced size of the project.


The applicant was asked to return to the board on December 21 prior to scheduling a public hearing.


5. JCPC Holdings, Front Street

The applicant has made an adjustment to the lot line that would separate his parcel from the abutting Crown Delta parcel.  In response to Mr. Flynn’s concern about wetlands on the site, it was agreed that the wetlands will have to be delineated and reviewed by Bruce Barber.  Mr. Barber will also look into the wetlands functional value.;  he noted that other properties along Front Street also have pockets of water.  In response to Mr. Tegeder’s question about the feasibility of underground stormwater retention, the applicant indicated that the DEP has ruled out this option. Mr. Barber asked if the applicant could consider other “green” initiatives to replace the proposed above ground retention pond on the site.


The applicant will tweak the plan and return to the board.


6. Prunty subdivision, 3017 Old Yorktown Road

In a pre-preliminary submission discussion, the applicant, a contract vendee for the parcel, was seeking a general sense from the board as to the viability of his plan to demolish the existing house and garage and subdivide the property into two lots, with the second lot becoming a flag lot. While the Zoning Board would have to approve the flag lot, the applicant, represented by Dan Ciarcia Engineering,said  he would like to have Planning Board support for the variance before going to the Zoning Board. Mr. Tegeder noted that, in general, the town tries to discourage flag lots.


As the parcel, which is not in any sewer district, may not be able to get approval for two septic systems on the property, the applicant is hoping to get an easement from  an abutting property currently in the Hallocks Mill Sewer District and then apply to be included in the district. The applicant’s attorney, Mr. Capellini, indicated that the parcel might be able to accommodate two septic systems as the entire parcel was served by public water and would not be bound by well/septic distance requirements.


The board also expressed concern about the addition of a second curb cut on Route 132 and site distance issues.


Given the concerns raised by the board, the applicant will have to decide whether to spend additional money (Mr. Capellini estimated $30,000) to prepare plans for an actual submission.


7. CPD Energy Corporation (Mobil Gas Station), Saw Mill River Road

On a referral from the Town Board, the board reviewed plans to relocate the 1,000 SF convenience store to the rear of the parcel and construct a new 3,000 SF store with 15 parking spaces.  The existing building is non-conforming and the new plan would make the site conforming.


While the board supported the general idea of relocating the store and creating more parking, it had several issues with the rear location which sloped down towards the Triangle Shopping Center, and how the plan would treat stormwater. The applicant was asked to return to the board with a more detailed plan and Mr. Tegeder will prepare a list of items of concern.


8. RPG Properties, 3574 Lexington Avenue

On a referral from the Town Board, the board briefly reviewed the application to rezone the property from R1-20 to R-3 to permit the construction of 12 residential units.  There were no representatives of the applicant at the meeting. It was noted that while the Comprehensive Plan did not recommend changing the zoning for the parcel, in general, the concept of developing the site with multi family house did meet certain Plan goals.


In response to Mr. Flynn’s question as to whether the rezoning constituted spot zoning, it was suggested that the board might want to consider extending the R-3 zoning to the abutting parcel that contains a single family structure that allegedly has been illegally converted into multiple dwelling units. It was pointed out, however, that this would increase the overall density in the area.  


The board noted that ABACA had suggested that the site might be considered for a less dense R-2 zoning (two family housing.)


Town Board member Greg Bernard who attended the meeting noted that there already were many non-single family developments in the surrounding area, including Treetops Nursing Home,  Ben Franklin school, and the Islamic Center. Mr. Tegeder will review surrounding uses, including uses in Cortlandt, on the other side of Lexington Avenue.


9. Triglia-Rezi subdivision, Christine Road

Having reviewed drainage in the area with Highway Superintendent Paganelli and the town engineer, the applicant said that the culvert at the corner of Christine and Baker could accommodate piped runoff from the 2-lot subdivision.  He added, though, that the receiving catch basin may have to be cleaned out.  His revised plan eliminates the swale along Baker Road but retains a swale between the two properties although he considered the latter swale optional at the discretion of the board. He also plans underground retention on the first lot.  The board said it wants to see the applicant’s storm water plan (SWPP) with all the calculations, before approving any plan.


The board also discussed the feasibility, as well as the pros and cons of having the applicant pave Baker Road up to town standards and having the town take over the road. It was noted that while paving the road would be an improvement, at previous meetings area residents have indicated that they preferred the dirt road.  Mr. Tegeder said it was up to the board to decide which approach was best.


The applicant said he would hold off with any sale of the first house (under construction) until the subdivision plan, which would involve stormwater for both lots, was decided.