Citizens for an Informed Yorktown


Planning Board

March 28, 2016


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


Before proceeding to the agenda items, Mr. Tegeder gave the board an update on the following two issues that had been discussed by the Town Board. (The Town Board meeting summaries are available at ciyinfo.orgas well as on the individual development pages.)


Creative Living (Navajo Fields)

(See Town Board, 3-22-2016.) Mr. Tegeder reported that the Town Board appeared supportive of the idea of allowing  special events on the site and that any such use would come back to the Planning Board for review and would have to be reconciled with the Planning Board’s previous resolutions limiting the use of the horse paddock area. 


Councilman Bernard advised the board that the Town Board didn’t see any problem with children playing in a wetlands and that the Town Board looked favorably on allowing events as long as health and safety issues were taken into account.


Mr. Flynn expressed concern that while homeowners might be limited as to how they could use portions of their property if it had conservation easement or wetlands permit limitations, other property owners would not be bound by similar restrictions. He also suggested that the Recreation Commission should possibly play a role in the granting of any special events permit.  Mr. Tegeder noted that since any special permit would involve land use issues, such as traffic, the Planning Board would have a role in any permit review; Councilman Bernard said that the Town Board would take the lead role in issuing any such permit.


Mr. Tegeder noted that in the past, the site has been used for special tournaments that have created traffic problem on Route 6 and Route 6N.


Triglia Subdivision, Christine Road

(See Town Board, 3-22-2016. See also Kelderhouse-Dornoch subdivision issue below.) Mr. Tegeder advised the board that the Town Board appeared to favor Mr. Triglia providing some drainage improvements in lieu of paving a portion of Baker Highway.  He also advised the board that the Turus Lane homeowner who currently maintains and plows Baker has advised him that he will no longer do it if there is additional development that uses the road.  He added that at least one homeowner has expressed the opinion that while she preferred keeping Baker unpaved in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood, she  would want the road improved is there were going to be additional homes.




1. Field Home

The board approved a one year extension of the site plan approval.


2. Trail Side Café, Commerce Street

The applicant is requesting a special permit for an outdoor patio seating area in the rear of the property.  Justin Fagan, the Café owner, explained that the seating area was created last year before he knew that a permit was required.  The area will have tables and 29 chairs, but can actually accommodate 34 with seating on an existing retaining wall.  The café has inside seating for , plus some outside tables on the sidewalk.

Explaining why the additional seating would not generate the need for additional parking spacaes, Mr. Fagan said the patrons would be coming off the Trailway and that the stops would be relatively short in duration.


In response to Mr. Flynn’s comments that the seating area might be considered an expansion of a non conforming use, Mr. Tegeder suggested that the building inspector be asked to comment on the issue, adding that because the redevelopment of the site was grandfathered, it did not have to meet current parking requirements.


Mr. Fagan also talked about the general lack of parking for other businesses in the area and the fact that without adequate parking, some of the businesses were losing customers. He said that the lot by the highway garage was always filled with employees from the highway department and Yorktown Auto Body.


The board was generally favorable to the request and Mr. Fagan was advised to submit a formal application for a special permit and related required documents.


3. Kelderhouse-Dornach subdivision, Turus Lane

(See related Triglia subdivision.) The applicant was before the board to approve combining two substandard sized lots to form one lot for one single family house; the applicant already has a variance from the ZBA because the lot would not meet the frontage requirements. (The lots are part of a larger subdivision approved many years ago but never built.)


The applicant, who owns abutting property, also explained his preliminary thoughts for the balance of the property he owns, a discussion that involved a variety of legal issues surrounding the ownership of “paper roads” that were part of the original subdivision, as well as several planning issues, including access for the one currently proposed house and whether other lots in the area could eventually be subdivided and how that would affect road access and stormwater issues involving neighboring Judy Road.


The applicant advised the board that in the past he had offered to donate a portion of his property to the town, but there appeared not to be any interest.


In recognition of the fact that, as Mr. Fon noted, there were “too many moving pieces” to the issue, the board went into executive session at the end of the meeting to consult with the board’s attorney.


4. PEG Realty, Hill Boulevard

A representative of Signs Ink was before the board to discuss a Master Sign Plan for the site. The applicant will have to go ABACA for plan review, including the individual store signs and a proposed monument sign. 


Mr. Tegeder noted that the Master Plan requirement, originally intended for commercial complexes such as the Staples Shopping Center, should probably be tweaked to eliminate any possible confusion that a Master Plan was needed for a smaller shopping area such as the PEG Realty site.


5. JCPC Holdings, Front St.

Three options for addressing the off-site mitigation were set out. A final decision was deferred, however, pending the submission of more information on the potential cost of constructing the new wetlands. Mr. Barber estimated that it could cost about $60,000 to construct one acre of wetlands, which would work out to about $15,000 for the portion that JCPC might be obligated to construct or finance.


The three options are:

1. A “complete” solution that includes creating the forebay and creating an abutting wetland by grading and seeding the area.  Mr. Barber advised the board that the Conservation Board favored this option.


2. A “partial” solution that would create the forebay but hold off for two years, pending an EOH decision on the anticipated larger stormwater project, any work to create the wetlands. The applicant would contribute a collar amount towards the eventual creation of the wetlands. If the EOH project did not proceed, then the money would be used to create the wetlands. Mr. Barber said he favored Option #2  on the theory that if and when the EOH project proceeds, the plan might call for tearing up the wetland area that would be created under option #1.


3. Do nothing now, wait for the EOH decision, and hold a dollar amount from the applicant pending the EOH decision.


The applicant said he had no problem with any of the three options.


The board will hold a public hearing on April 11. All three options, with the cost figures, will be available at the time.


6.Chase Bank, 1975 Commerce Street

Representatives of Chase advised the board about the changes that had been made to the initial submission in response to issues that had been raised at the previous meeting.  The applicant has completed an Enviornmental Assessment Form and a SWPP (stormwater plan.)  The applicant has not yet been to ABACA. The required lighting plan will have to address/reconcile the state’s lighting requirements for ATM with the town’s lighting code.


A Public Informational Hearing will be held on April 11.


7. Orchard View Realty, Sherry Drive

How to handle stormwater remains one of the key unresolved issues. The applicant has submitted the details for the underground retention system in the cul d’sac; the plans and calculations will be reviewed by the new town engineer who will start work April 11.  The board asked the applicant for the locations of developments where the system is in place.


Mr. Barber had several questions about the desirability of using the existing detention pond in lieu of the cul d’sac option. He said that he still had questions about how the pond was dedicated to the town. The applicant indicated that because the cul d’sac was lower than the pond, running the stormwater to the pond was not a viable way to treat the runoff.


As part of the stormwater issue, there was a brief discussion on the ownership and maintenance of detention ponds. Mr. Barber explained that existing ponds have become the town’s responsibility, but Councilman Bernard said the current Town Board was not interested in assuming ownership and responsibility for new ponds. Mr. Barber said the town did not have much experience with a homeowner’s association owning such ponds.


Mr. Barber suggested that the applicant look into additional green infrastructure options on the proposed lots as a way to reduce the site’s overall stormwater needs.


The applicant said he would explore other stormwater options.


Still be fleshed out is how the applicant will satisfy the recreation fee requirement. The applicant said he was willing to work with the town if the town wanted him to develop an off-site location; the proposed second field at Hunterbrook was raised as one possibility.


The board advised several area homeowners who attended the meeting to continue monitoring the progress of the meetings.