February 22, 2016
Attending: John Savoca, John Kincert, Richard Fon
To accommodate the delay in filing the map, the board voted for the first 90 days extension.
2. Crompond Terraces, Old Crompond Road
Following the Town Board’s rezoning of the site, the applicant returned to the Planning Board for feedback on a modified conceptual plan that would increase the number of residential units to 121.
(The earlier concept plan that was the basis for the rezoning called for 80 units per acre. However, the rezoning resolution called for 6 units per acre, or 96 units, but also included a pro vision that the Planning Board could consider a greater density if it felt it was appropriate. See 2013 and 2014 notes below for earlier plans and different proposed densities.)
In response to a question from the Board, the applicant said that the developer now controls the two properties that were included in the rezoning but which, at the time of the rezoning, were not part of the Crompond Terraces conceptual plan.
To achieve the higher density, the revised concept plan calls for a cluster of 3 story buildings,(37’ high) built into the existing slope on the eastern side of the site, with below grade garages, internal elevators, and what sounded like a below grade tunnel-like road linking the condo buildings. A second cluster of what the applicant calls its “C units”, but only 2 story units, are proposed for the western side of the site.
The Board had some issues with the visual aspects of what the 3-story buildings would look like and asked the applicant to provide profiles so it could get a better visual sense of what the proposed below grade road would look like and the space between condo units that was called a “void.”
Commenting on the proposed 3-story buildings, Mr, Kincart said it looked as if the applicant was trying to force more units into the plan. He said the 3-story buildings would look like an apartment complex. While he had issues with the proposed 3 story units on the eastern side of the side, he had no issues with the same type of units, but as 2 story structures, on the western side.
The applicant indicated that it is holding off on more detailaed site plans until it gets a sense from the Board about the proposed additional units.
3. Triglia subdivision, Christine Road
Mr. Fon reported on the site visit that included several department heads as well as Planning Board members.
For the Board, the key issue remained looking at the overall neighborhood and just not at the proposed 2 lot subdivision. The Board also seemed unanimous in not wanting to create a second legal lot (the first lot with the house already built got a variance for being on a substandard road, i.e., a private road. While Mr. Triglia expressed concern that he was being held up while the Board looked at the broader neighborhood, Mr. Tegeder reminded him that he created his own problem by building the first house prior to getting approval for the two lot subdivision. And even though Mr. Triglia said access to the second lot could be from Christine, not Baker, the Board advised him to consider paving Baker to town standards up to the lot line that would separate the two lots; this would leave the fate of the remaining section of Baker up in the air, possibly pending the future development of the lots off Turus. If that is done, it woujld then be up to the Town Board to accept the upgraded portion of Baker which would then allow the Highway Department to plow that portion of the road.
There was a brief discussion of whether the existing residents who now pay for private maintenance of the road, would want to create a special district that would float a bond to pay for the upgrade of the road. (Although some area homeowners were present at the meeting, because it was as work session, they were not able to address the board.)
A memo from the Water Department noted that the water line that had been put in for the first house did not meet town code.
4. Orchard View Subdivision, Sherry Drive
Noting that the proposed stormwater treatment under the cul d’sac would be expensive for the town to maintain, the Board asked the applicant to consider revising his stormwater plan, possibly utilizing the existing detention pond on the site or creating a new one. The Board noted that it was not clear who was responsible for maintaining the pond that was constructed in 2000 to accommodate regional stormwater.
In response to the Board’s request that the applicant consider some alternate road configurations, the applicant said he had already done this and that what was being presented to the Board was the best of all the possible options. In response, the board asked to see the earlier sketches. The ultimate “best” plan may be a tradeoff between the extent of an incursion into the wetland buffer and the most appropriate stormwater plan that takes into account long term maintenance costs and responsibility.
Board members will arrange for individual site visits with the applicant to review topographic issues.
The applicant also needs to verify the FEMA flood plain line.
5. Bonsignore, Hunterbrook Road
(See Planning Board, 2-8-2016.) The applicant reviewed the proposed mitigation plan with the Board. The Board is waiting for written comments from Bruce Barber.
6. Marathon Development, Kear Street
The applicant will be before the ZBA this week for the front yard setttback variance.
Under the Zoning Code, the applicant would need 37 parking spaces; the current plan shows 28. Of the Zoning Code’s three options for reducing the required number of parking spaces (a 25% reduction if the application meets certain criteria; a reduction based on shared uses over different time periods; and utilizing conservation spaces, i.e., setting aside an area for future spaces but not paving the area until there is a need), the Board’s attorney felt that the “shared use” option was the most appropriate even though the wording of the Code appeared geared to shared commercial uses as opposed to the proposed shared residential and commercial uses.
Mr. Tegeder noted that the application met at least three of the five criteria needed for the 25% reduction.
The justification for the parking reduction will be incorporated into the approval resolution, but no action will be taken until after the ZBA rules on the variance.
The Board briefly discussed a proposal submitted by Mr. Flynn who was not at the meeting. Citing traffic conditions on Kear Street, Mr, Flynn suggested that in order to minimize traffic on the street, the street be dead ended at about the Mavis Tire/Brookside Park location. There was no support for the plan on the Board.
In response to a comment made at the previous meeting, a plan was shown that included a pedestrian access from the site to the abutting Yorktown Green; however, no discussions have taken place about allowing parking on the Yorktown Green site.
7. Chase Bank, 1975 Commerce Street
Representatives of the bank presented a conceptual plan to build a new 4,300 SF building on the current site of Empire Human. The new building would consolidate the two existing Chase banks in the Yorktown Heights hamlet. The new building would have two ocurb cuts onto Commerce Street and a drive in ATM machine but no drive in teller. Once built, the bank would close the existing locations which are currently leased.
The proposed site plan would preserve the tree currently in front of the building and provide additional landscaping.
The Board advised the development team that its main issues would be traffic, the architectural appearance of the building, landscaping, stormwater and the overall streetscape. Regarding traffic, the Board was concerned about turning conflicts with other parking lots along the street, as well as the timing of the two traffic lights along Commerce St. The plan calls for a reduction in the amount of impervious surface; the applicant will have to work with the DEP on an acceptable stormwater plan.
Because the leases at the existing bank locations are due to expire, the development team is anxious to move the project ahead as quickly as possible. A Public Information Hearing will likely be held on April 11th.
In general, the Board, which complemented Chase on the appearance and landscaping at the Route 202 building, was supportive of the new plan.