Planning Board Work Session
May 22, 2012
Planning Board members: Richard Fon, John Savoca, John Flynn, John Kincart, Darlene Rivera
1. Costco update
During the opening “correspondence” portion of the meeting, Mr. Fon acknowledged receipt of the Planning Department’s latest update on the status of the Costco DEIS. The applicant is in the process of revising the DEIS based on comments from town staff. The update identified which of the staff’s comments have been addressed to date. No indication was given as to when the applicant might complete its revisions.
2.Gione Minor Subdivision
Mr. Riina advised the board that the ZBA had granted the requested variance, that some minor changes had been made to the plan, and that the applicant was requesting that the public hearing be set for the next meeting. Mr. Fon reported that the Conservation Board had no issue with the plan. In response to comments from Mr. Flynn about the small rear yards, followed by a suggestion from Planning Director John Tegeder about the possibility of turning the orientation of the houses in order to make a larger perceived rear yard, Mr. Riina said he thought he could revise the plan to accommodate the “turning” suggestion.
3. Proposed zoning amendment to permit recycling in an I-1 zone.
On a referral from the Town Board, the Planning Board reviewed the draft amendment to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Capellini acknowledged that there were lots of problems with the zoning text for the I-1 zone but asked the board not to hold back his client’s desire to move forward on the recycling use.
The applicant, Brian D’Amico, proposes to establish a recycling business for metal, plastic, paper, wood and cardboard in two buildings at the Osceola Industrial Park. The business would be aimed primarily at commercial establishments, plus he plans to solicit business from Putnam County municipalities. Eventually, he hopes to collect Yorktown’s residential recyclables when the town’s current IMA with the county expires. He said the town could make money if the recycling was handled locally.
In response to questions from board members, Mr. D’Amico explained that trucks carrying the recyclables would dump their contents outside the buildings. The material would then be “pushed into” the building, baled and then taken out of the building and onto trucks to be shipped elsewhere. He added that there was a possibility that some sorting of co-mingled products might take place inside as sorted recyclables command a higher price than co-mingled. In response to questions, he said he might also collect tires, in which case, they would be stored in a trailer and when he had sufficient quantity, he would rent a shredder. In addition, he might collect waste oil, but only for his own use and not for resale. Any wood processing would be done outside. The facility will not collect garbage.
Because the zoning amendment to allow for a recycling facility would apply to all I-1 zones, the board requested more information from the Planning Department about where other I-1 zones are located and the extent to which they might be close to residential areas. The board advised Mr. D’Amico that while his facility might present no problems, it was the board’s job to look ahead to the operations of possible future owners as well as other possible locations.
Planning Director Tegeder said that he needed more time to review other aspects of the proposed use including outdoor storage, types of uses and screening. There were also concerns about what restrictions, such as not creating dust, odor and noise, should be in the zoning text or come later during site plan review. He will send a memo to the Town Board stating that the Planning Board needs more time for its review of the draft legislation.
4. Fieldhome/Soccer field
Members of the Recreation Commission and Todd Orlowski, Assistant Superintendent for Parks & Recreation participated in a discussion over the future use of the 32 acre field. Fieldhome CEO John Ahearne repeated his concern that there be no increase in the intensity of the field’s use that could jeopardize the tranquility of the setting which could negatively impact the marketing of the new independent living units that will be located close to the field. Residents from Glasbury Condominiums also expressed concern over parking on Catherine St that narrowed the travel right of way. It was noted that when curbs were put in along the road a few years ago, the road was narrowed by about 3 feet.
Diana Quast, chairman of the Recreation Commission explained that since the existing agreement between the Town and the Fieldhome was signed six years ago, the field has had limited use because work had to be done to it to bring it up to an acceptable quality. Because the field is not regulation size, it is only used by younger players. Also, because of the needed improvements, there is little real history to go on to determine what “normal” usage would be. She said she would work with the Fieldhome as the new schedule for the field is developed, and that one option to minimize the parking problem would be to adjust the schedule in order to avoid overlapping usage.
Citing his concern about increasing the intensity of the usage, Mr. Ahearne rejected the Recreation Commission’s request that the field be considered a “multi-purpose” field in order to give the town and clubs more flexibility.
There was a brief discussion about the possibility of relocating the field away from the new units, but there was a consensus that there was no other suitable location. The discussion on whether additional on-site parking could be developed was inconclusive; there is a possibility that there might be sufficient right of way along Catherine St. to allow for parking on the shoulder.
There was some discussion, but no decisions, on whether there should be fencing (in the past, the field was damaged by ATVs). When Mr. Ahearne asked, “at who’s cost?” Mr. Fon cited the clubs as one possible source.
Mr. Capellini said that the existing agreement governing the use of the field should be scrapped and he will continue to work on a new agreement for a recreation easement, using the Trump Park agreement as a model.
Members of the Recreation Commission thanked the Planning Board for what they called an “awesome” opportunity to discuss recreational needs with the board and Mr. Fon, who again said that there needed to be more communication between boards, advised them of the ongoing discussions regarding the potential for additional fields at the Fieldstone Manor project.