Citizens for an Informed Yorktown



Planning Board

April 6, 2015


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


Regular Session


1. BJs/Staples Public Hearing

Mr. Aiello reviewed the final site plan, explaining that it addressed the various issues that had been raised during earlier work sessions, including the flow of both vehicular and pedestrian  traffic around the site and additional sidewalks.  New LED lighting will be installed throughout the shopping center.  Mr. Aiello again explained the need to proceed with the plan in phases but that the traffic light changes would be made as part of Phase 1.  The board was satisfied with the site plan changes, complimented the applicant’s team on their responsiveness and closed the public hearing, leaving open a 10 day period for written comments.  A vote on an approval resolution is anticipated at the next board meeting.


See the summary of the proposed CVS/bank building across the street  for a discussion of changes to the lanes on the north side of Route 202.


In other issues involving the shopping center

  • the board referred proposed changes in building signage to ABACA
  • the applicant indicated that he is finalizing plans to upgrade the building facades
  • the former Emigrant Saving Bank space has been leased to an urgent care facility

2. CVS/Bank Building: Public Informational Hearing

Representatives of the applicant’s development team made presentations regarding traffic, site concerns and architecture.  The following summary updates the information presented at the February 19, 2015 meeting (), focusing on what, if any, changes have been made.


Traffic: While the applicant initially favored four lanes at the Route 202/Stony St intersection, two  in each direction, based on the joint meeting with planners for the other developments being proposed in the area, they have agreed to three lanes southbound and one northbound. When questions were raised about whether one northbound lane was sufficient, especially given the short distance between Route 202 and Old Crompond Road, it was explained that traffic proceeding north had the right of way to turn either left or right and that a 3-way stop sign was not warranted because there already were stop signs on Old Crompond Rd for cars traveling both east and west.   Also, the eastern portion of Old Crompond Rd from the intersection to just passed Best Plumbing will be widened to accommodate left turn lanes into the CVS site and the spur to Route 202.


At the request of the DOT, an 80ft-90ft deceleration lane along Route 202 has been incorporated into the plan. While it is less than what DOT would like, the applicant said that given the topography and wetlands, it is the  only feasible length. Still undecided was future access to the adjoining site which is owned by the same owner as the CVS site. The applicant will raise this issue with DOT, especially whether DOT would permit a second access point on Route 202 in the event the second site was ever developed.


Flood Plain: The applicant will undertake a flood plain study to ascertain the current flood plain lines. If necessary, the buildings will be elevated 2 feet without the need to make other site plan changes. 


Signage: Based on feedback from ABACA, the applicant has lowered the height of a pylon sign on Route 202 from 25 feet to 15 feet (the current code allows a height of 16 ft) and has eliminated electronic delays of items on sale. However, Mr. Tegeder questioned even the need for a 15 ft high sign given the building’s visibility along Route 202; he suggested that a monument style sign would be preferred.  The applicant’s request for a second monument style sign at the entrance on Old Crompond Rd will require a variance as only one free standing sign is allowed by the code.


Architecture:  The architects for both buildings have met with ABACA. While both buildings will be “in harmony” with each other, the architect for the bank building rejected the suggestion that both buildings be similar. With some modifications to meet local concerns, t he CVS building  follows a corporate template while the final colors of the bank building will be based on the tenant’s branding needs.


The hearing was closed.




3. Joint meeting with Town Board


Performance Bond:  (See Peg Realty.) Explaining that he felt the $250,000 bond was a burden on small developers (in this case the owner of the A&S Pork Store), Supervisor Grace told the board he felt  that performance bonds should  be  only if site improvements were external to the site, such as sidewalks.  He said the town would never “call” the bond if the property owner didn’t finish work that just involved the owner’s site. Members of the Planning Board and Planning Director Tegeder explained, however, that the bond requirement was needed to assure that stormwater and utility connections done on site but which involve external factors, were satisfactorily completed.  They also raised the issue of what might happen if a building was started but never completed. It was agreed that in the future, the amount of the bond requirement, that is determined by the town engineer and is a percentage of overall site development costs, will be broken down into those improvements that involve town concerns and those that don’t.


Lake Osceola Square; At issue was whether the town was interested in owning or operating a beach, and if not, what type of public access to the lakefront if any, was the town board interested in having. While it was clear that the Town Board did not want to operate a beach, the board gave no indication to the Planning Board as to what type of public access it might want, with Supervisor Grace saying that that was really a planning issue left to the Planning Board.   However, the supervisor did say that in general, when there are issues that involve the town accepting land, e.g., in fulfillment of the Code’s recreation fee  or land requirement, that the Town Board be  consulted. Councilman Bernard said he will be the Board’s liaison to the Planning Board and that while he will not be attending every Planning Board meeting, he will keep the Town Board informed about issues as they develop.


As the developer was not present at the meeting, there was no discussion of possible changes in the overall plan.  There was a consensus from both boards that they wanted to see the project proceed and that it would be a key component to revitalizing the Jefferson Valley hamlet.


(Note: At the April 2 meeting of the Recreation Commission, the developer said that without a beach operation, retail space on the site was not viable.  Instead, he talked about a high end destination restaurant and two floors of apartments. )


As an aside, the issue of the potentially unsafe condition of the nearby bar was brought up and whether the town could invoke the existing Unsafe Structure law to remedy the situation.


4. Starbucks/Renewal of outdoor seating permit

Before considering whether to renew the existing permit that expired about two years ago, the board wanted the site cleaned up. The board expressed its displeasure that the litter on the site had been addressed the last time the permit was renewed but the problem continued to exist.  The board also said that the parking area in front of the store needed to be striped.


A representative of Starbucks said he would speak to the store manager about the litter. The building lease will have to be reviewed in order to determine whether Starbucks or the building’s owner will be responsible for the pavement striping.  A Starbucks representative will be asked to attend the board’s April 20 meeting.


For a history on the recurring litter issue dating back to 2009, see


5. Taconic Vet Clinic & Canine Kindergarten

(See Grotto Plumbing.)  Since relocating his plumbing business to the site in 2014, the owner now plans to sell the building and the owners of Canine Kindergarten are in discussions to purchase the building a;pmg woth another co-owner. However, before they do, and before their architect, Michael Piccirillo, proceeds with any plans, they wanted guidance from the board as to what site plan changes will be required. As explained by Mr. Piccirillo, many of the site plan changes incorporated into the approved Grotto plan, e.g., parking requirementsw, may be unnecessary and/or too expensive for the new owners. 


The new concept plan includes an outdoor play area for the dogs. While the current zoning code has no provision for this use in order to calculate parking needs, the board felt it could exercise its judgement in deciding parking needs which would obviously be different from the original site plan.


Mr. Piccirillo asked the board if his client could proceed with interior changes to the building before the board approved an amended site plan and that changes be made in phases. In response, Mr. Tegeder said that was “hard to answer” and the issue was left open and undecided.


The applicant will contact the three houses on Old Crompond Rd behind the site to discuss potential noise issues. The applicant also has to work out an emergency access plan.


6. Bonsignore subdivision (Hunterbrook Road)

The board revisited a subdivision plan dating back to 2010. The new plan calls for the 3.4 acre lot in a half acre zone to be subdivided into three lots, permitting the construction of two news houses, one with access to Hunterbroook Rd, and the second to Old Crompond Rd.  The third lot is for the existing house. The site has public sewers and water. The site has wetlands and steep slopes. Board members will visit the site on their own.


7. Grandmas (Route 202)

(See Planning Board 11/24/2014.) Although the ZBA has issued a special permit with conditions regarding landscaping and screening, there seemed to be some ambiguity as to exactly what was required.  In a brief discussion, the board left this up to applicant to work out exactly what the ZBA and Planning Board wanted.