Citizens for an Informed Yorktown



Planning Board

February 8, 2016


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




1. Staples Plaza, Master Sign Plan

Without any discussion, the board approved the Master Plan and the Urgent Care logo.


2. Marathon Development, Kear Street, Reconvened public hearing

Engineer Joe Riina responded to several of the comments made by the board and the public at the earlier public hearing.


Loading area. The plan includes two loading areas for delivery, one on the side and one in the rear, with the possibility of a door in the rear of the building. While the applicant preferred not to show the door on the plan until it was clear what tenant/s leased the space, at the suggestion of Mr. Flynn who noted that tenants change over time, the applicant said he would indicate on the plan where the door would be Ė if needed.


Parking. This remains an unresolved issue. The applicant repeated his contention that the residential requirement of 2.2 spaces per unit was onerous and not needed based on his experience at similar type developments.   The commercial requirement is 4 spaces/1,000 SF. Under the Zoning Code, the board can reduce  the requirements by 25% and/or combine and reduce the residential and commercial requirements.


The owners of the abutting dental office, citing existing parking problems in the area, and the traffic and narrowness of the street,  expressed concern about the parking impact of the new building. They said they had 12-15 people in their building at any given time.  Another resident who uses Kear Street spoke about traffic problems on the street.  


Robert Giordano, speaking for the Small Business Association, talked about his groupís efforts to address the lack of parking in the area with the Town Board, all of which had been unsuccessful. He said  his group supported the plan, but that if the parking isnít wasnít addressed, businesses couldnít survive.


Councilman Bernard advised the board that the parking issue is complex and that there was no immediate or clear solution. He said the Town Board was not willing to install 2-hour parking signs. Also, the parking lot in front of the highway garage could not be expanded or be re-configured to provide more parking  because of environmental issues.


Mr. Riina pointed out that there was a lot of parking available in the area but that it wasnít utilized properly, i.e., it wasnít connected.  He said that the Marathon project has provided for its own parking needs and that its plan should be judged on its own, and not as part of a larger area-wide problem. In response, Mr. Fon said it was the boardís responsibility to look at the area globally.


Other suggestions for dealing with the parking problem included connecting the site to the Food Emporium site at the rear of the property, asking  UPS not to use Kear Street,  shifting the double lnie on Kear Strreet, or putting up signs at Yorktown Glass indicating that there are six additional spaces available there.


Tax issue: Ed Ciffone, representing the United Taxpayers of Yorktown, objected to the use of taxpaper money (even if it was coming from the county) to build more affordable housing.  He said his group wou have no objection to the project if it was for Yorktown seniors.


The hearing was closed with a 30 day written comment period left open. The applicant will return to the board later in the month to continue the parking discussion while the Planning Board awaits a ZBA decision on the front yard setback variance request.


2. Bonsignore subdivision, Old Crompond Road. Reconvened public hearing

(See Planning Board, 1-25-2016.) Mr. Riina presented a slightly modified site plan in response to earlier comments. The applicantís earlier conceptual mitigation plan will need to be modified to reflect the changes. The applicant will submit the new plan to the Conservation Board.


The hearing was closed, leaving open a 14 day written comment period.  The applicant is anxious to get preliminary board subdivision approval at the boardís March meeting so that it can proceed to the Health Department. The applicant thanked the board for its assistance in arriving at an acceptable plan for what all agreed was a difficult site.


3. JCPC , Front Street, Public informational hearing

Dan Ciarccia, engineer for the project, gave an overall description of the project. Noting that there was no stormwater treatment for the watershed area from Hanover Street down to Front Street, he talked about the possibility of an area stormwater facility to the rear of the UPS property.


James Morgan, a Summit Street resident whose property backs up the site, said he had no objection to the plan but wanted to see some new trees planted along the property line to replace whatever had to be removed.


Central Street resident J. Patrick Francoise talked about the stream that traverses the watershed and suggested that all interested parties and boards try to work out a stormwater solution for the whole area, and not do piecemeal planning. 


In response to Mr. .Flynnís question of whether the applicant would consider any solar energy equipment, the applicant said he was looking into solar and wind, but that these would be long term projects.




5. Orchard View Subdivision, Sherry Drive

The applicant, Zappico Construction, presented preliminary plans for a 9 lot subdivision off a cul dísac on a 9.24 acre site. The lots would be an extension of Sherry Drive that is currently a dead end. One house, currently rented, has already been built. There was some discussion about the desirability of shifting a portion of the road in order to minimize the incursion of some of the rear yards into the wetlands buffer.  However, because the driveway into the subdivision has already been built for the first house, the applicant said it was not possible to shift the road.


The subdivision will have town water and the applilcant will seek approval to become part of the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District; access to the sewer line will be via an easement the applicant has obtained from a property owner on Pine Grove Court. 


The eastern half the property contains a detention pond constructed in the 1990s as part of the subdivisions off Mohansic Ave.  Noting that the pond has not been maintained over the years, and that responsibility for the pond was unclear, Mr. Barber said that any approval plan would have to include long term maintenance plans, either by the developer or the town. Stormwater from the subdivision will be captured and treated under the cul dísac.


In response to a comment that there were several outstanding liens on the property, the applicant said they would be paid; the board added that all the liens would have to be paid before any maps were filed.


While the siteís wetlands were delineated when the first house was constructed, the applicant will have to clarify the FEMA flood plain line.   The applicant will also have to provide details whether the existing driveway access for the first house meets the specs for a road that will eventually be deeded to the town.