Planning Board
February 10, 2020
Attending: John Savoca, William LaScala, Rich Fon Aaron Bock, Robert Garrigan
1. Broad Pines subdivision, Granite Springs Road
(See Planning Board 1-13-2020.) After a site visit, board members had questions primarily about wetlands mitigation and stormwater. They also advised the applicant that a new survey was needed that reflected a berm on the site and that the applicant needs to resolve the status of lot #7 currently in a foreclosure proceeding; the lot was supposed to be deeded to the town as part of the original subdivision but never was. Mr. Bock questioned whether the drainage plan approved in 1990 was adequate to meet today’s standards. The applicant needs to work with the town engineer on stormwater and the wetlands also have to be delineated and verified by the town.
The board reviewed some plan changes pursuant to its earlier concerns. The board needs to do some tweaking on the approval resolution which should be ready for its next meeting. The applicant will be addressing a slope issue along Old Crompond Road and whether the plan is ADA compliant; if not a board waiver may be needed.
The item was withdrawn from the agenda as the applicant advised Mr. Tegeder that it would not be ready with the documents that the board requested. Mr. Tegeder advised the board that he had a meeting of interested parties last week. Mr. Fon asked to be included in future meetings.
4. Nestle Waters, Crompond Road
Removed frm agenda
5. Correia site plan, East Main Street, Jefferson Valley
(See Planning Board 11-4-2019.) Mr. Riina submitted a revised plan that shifted the location and orientation of the building. The board was supportive of the proposed new location which it felt worked better than the earlier plans. A public informational hearing will be scheduled for March. The new building will be used only for storage and will be an accessory structure to the existing main use.
6. Nantucket Sound, Kear Street
The applicant presented a more detailed plan for the mixed use development with retail on the first floor (2 possible stores) and two floors, each containing three apartments. Access would be from the Caremount Building parking lot. Garbage trucks, serving separate locations for the stores and apartments would back out of the site into the Caremount parking lot. The board asked for more architectural details, including full elevations given the site’s slope. Mr. Bock questioned the limited outdoor space for the tenants; what’s proposed is a 10’ x 18’ patio. Mr. Bock also thought the project squeezed a lot into a small space.
While the applicant’s landscape architect explained how plantings would soften the appearance of the building, especially for westbound traffic, the board asked the applicant to look at ways to soften the appearance of the rear of the building facing Route 202. While the applicant was “steadfast” that it could not turn the building around, Mr. Tegeder said the board was steadfast in approving what was right for Yorktown. The potential tenant is still not known but the development team continues to insist that the site plan is applicant driven.
8. Battery Energy Storage Law/Town Board referral
The board considered the proposed modifications to the law that were presented to the Town Board. Mr. Tegeder advised the board that in January, NYSERDA came out with a revised model law that created only two tiers of systems: Tier 1 for systems that stored less than 6000 KW of electricity (this category combined the prior tier 1 and tier 2) and a new Tier 2 for facilities larger than 600 KW.
Mr. Fon advised that board that he had attended a workshop conducted by the retired fireman who had previously presented to the Town Board. His takeaway from the meeting was that the code regulating these facilities is fluid and rapidly changing as the facilities are so very new. He asked Mr. Tegeder to provide the board with some examples of already built facilities.
While there was some concern on the board for permitting Tier 3 facilities in residential zones, Mr. Tegeder advised the board that the key issue, whether the facility is located in a commercial or residential zone, would be the ability to adequate screen the facility. He noted that utility facilities, such as transformer stations, are currently permitted in residential neighborhoods.
In general, the board preferred that the height of the facilities be limited to 15’, not 20’ as proposed. It was also suggested that the law include standards for the new Tier 1 facilities which would not require a special permit or site plan review. While there was some discussion about limiting the amount of lot coverage, there was a sense that the existing bulk regulations in the zoning code limiting building coverage would apply to energy storage structures.
When the question of how soon the Town Board needed a response was raised, Councilman Lachterman advised the board that while the Town Board wants to move on the issue, it wants to do it the right way. Based on that feedback, it wasn’t clear if the board would have a follow up discussion or send its recommendations to the Town Board.