Planning Board

April 22, 2019


Attending: Aaron Bock, William LaScala, John Kincart




1. Little Sorrento’s Restaurant/Renewal of outdoor seating permit

With no discussion, the board renewed the permit for five years.


2. Ricciardella Estates/ Saw Mill River Road/Public hearing

(See Country Commercial zoning change. Also prior Dubovsky site plan). Pursuant to the recent change in the Zoning Code, the application is requesting a special permit for three 1-bedroom units instead of the previously approved plan for two 1-bedroom units and one commercial space.  The building footprint, as well as other features of the site plan, remain the same.  The abutting property expressed concern that the site’s septic system, already approved by the Department of Health, could negatively impact her well. She also expressed concern over noise from the site.


The board explained that the septic system has already been approved and that evergreens would be planted abutting her property that would act as a   sound barrier.


The board wants the approval resolution to include a condition that the garage proposed for the rear of the property for storage cannot be used for a residence.


The hearing was held open because of a problem with the hearing notice.


3. Fiore subdivision/Carr Court/Adjourned public hearing

(See Planning Board, 4-8-2019.) Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, citing issues with  how the maintenance agreement could and would be enforced, asked the board to postpone a vote on the subdivision until either the Planning Board or the Town Board which is dealing with the same issue for a different application, can be resolved. The hearing was closed and the maintenance agreement will be reviewed prior to the board’s next meeting.


4. Fusco subdivision/Stony Street/public hearing

(See Planning Board, 1/14/2019). There were no comments from the public. The Conservation Boad had no issue with the application and the Tree Commission wanted more information about the species of the protected trees that were being cut down. Mr. Tegeder noted that the SWPPP needed to be complete by the time the board was ready to approve the subdivision. The hearing was closed.




5. Anderson Subdivision/Croton Lake Road

(See Planning Board, 3-25-2019.) The applicant advised the board that it was “close” to agreement with the Conservation Board.  Mr. Tegeder wanted more details on the tree mitigation plan, noting that there may not be an appropriate location on the site for new plantings.  He wanted the applicant to distinguish wetland mitigation from proposed tree mitigation and show the latter on the subdivision plan.  The SWPPP also needs to be completed.


The applicant noted that the mortgage commitment for the person planning to buy the existing house (the applicant plans to build a new house for himself on the newly subdivided lot) is expiring.


6. The Weyant, Crompond Road

Mr. Tegeder again explained the benefits of realigning the temporary Hamblyn access. The applicant explained that as soon as the DOT approved the land dedication, the Crompond Road access would become the main access and that as part of the applicant’s project, his portion of Crompond Road would be widened. He said it was his hope that the DOT acceptance would occur simultaneously with his build out schedule, but that it was all up to the DOT.. The existing rock wall and trees along Crompond Road will be removed and replaced with new low fencing and shrubs. 


The site plan will nowt be sent to the Town Board which is the approval authority for the site plan and rezoning.


7. Summit Hill/East Main Street

For the benefit of many people in the audience, many from Jefferson Village, the applicant reviewed the basic of the plan: 66 1-bedroom units and 84 2-bedroom units, in 11 buildings, plus a community center.  He said that contrary to “rumors.” the development was not for low income residents. The plan calls for a total of 300 parking spaces (100 in garages, 100  on the driveway in front of the garage and 100 additional spaces for a close to 2 spaces per unit where town code requires 1.5 space per unit.  The garages are allocated on a first come first basis. The applicant also showed a rendering of the buildings to illustrate the point that while the units are inward looking, the rear facades facing East Main Street mimic the  look of the front of the units.


Mr. Bock asked whether this was the best possible use of the property, noting that the Comprehensive Plan suggested that the site could be used for a mixed residential/commercial development. When he noted that 150 was a lot of units, Mr. LaScala noted that some developers might have asked for 190 units.


The applicant explained the impediments to creating a second access to Hill Blvd was not feasible, despite the fact that there is an easement from the site to Hill Blvd abutting the new Hill Blvd stores.


8. Proposed Solar Law and site plans for two solar farms

(Mr. Bock recused himself from the discussion of the proposed solar farm on Underhill Avenue.)


Solar law: Mr. Bock expressed concern over the possible very large impact the law could have as it would permit large solar installations on all residential properties in the R1, R2 and R3 zones.  He said he had no issue with small solar installations on existing structures. He shared with the board that he had tried to get a quantification of how many potential acres the law applied to but that the assessor’s office was not able to come up with a count. Mr. Tegeder said that most of the town was zoned R1, single family development at varying densities.


Using the State Land property on the north side of Route 202 as an example, Mr. Tegeder said he preferred not to see solar installations on commercial sites along town roads, adding that he found solar canopy installations over parking lots unattractive.  In response, Mr. Bock said he’d prefer car parking lot installations over taking down trees in residential neighborhoods.  Mr. LaScala also expressed concern about the visual aspects of the installations and reminded the applicant that he was still waiting for visuals about the applicant’s other locations she had said would be provided.  


In support of his opinion that solar farms were an acceptable use in residential zones, Mr. Tegeder said that they would but a stop to any residential development over a period of many years and that a solar farm would use a smaller portion of the overall site than a residential subdivision that might require all the trees to be cut down. He said that the subdivision once proposed for the Lockwood site would have used up all the land,  In response, Mr. LaScala said that he preferred the board to control the land use aspects of  a residential subdivision.


The board deferred arriving at a consensus on the law because only three members were present.


Site plans.  The applicant advised the board that based on the site visit, she would be making some adjustments to the site plans for both locations. Because the change for the Underhill Avenue site would conflict with the setback requirements in the proposed law, the applicant asked that a provision be added to the law that gave the Planning Board the ability to waive setback requirements. In response, Mr. Tegeder explained that based on the Town Code, only the Zoning Board could do this and that the applicant would need to get a variance.


The applicant also asked for guidance from the board on the locations it wanted for visual impact assessments for both sites.