Citizens for an Informed Yorktown


Planning Board

June 13, 2016


Attending:  John Kincart, John Savoca, Rich Fon, Anthony Tripodi




1. Hilltop Associates

The board approved a first 90-day extension.  Mr. Capellini explained that the applicant has a new engineer and was trying to get a sewer easement that would permit the third lot to be developed. The preliminary approval shows the third lot as not being developed.


2. Kear Street (Marathon Development)

The item was withdrawn from the agenda. No reason was given.


3. Ianuzzi Subdivision, Baptist Church Road

The board voted to approve the subdivision, with conditions, after it was clarified that the trees to be cut down to accommodate the two new houses on the site will be marked on the plan before it is filed and that the town engineer’s concerns about the SWPPP will be addressed; he said he had no problem with the plan’s concept but that there were some details that remained to be worked out.   A landscape plan will not be needed for the site.


4. Taconic Vet Clinic & Canine Kindergarten, Route 202

The board approved the amended site plan. The town engineer’s memo to the Building Department noted some items that remain to be completed before a CO can be issued.


5. Spark Steakhouse, Old Crompond Road, Public Informational Hearing

Mr. Piccirilo reviewed the proposed changes in the plan. Town Engineer Quinn advised the board that he has been in contact with the property owner who will have an engineer design the revised catch basin. (Mr. Piccirilo is only representing the Steakhouse.)  Mr. Piccirilo will contact Best Plumbing to review previous agreements for the shared parking; he estimates that the revised plan will eliminate two or three parking spaces. As of now, there were no plans to change the previously submitted outdoor lighting plan.


A resident from Old Crompond Road expressed concern about hours of operation, noise, music and lighting for the outdoor seating.  In response, Mr. Fon advised her that more information was needed on these issues and that the information would be forthcoming as the application progressed to a second public hearing. The board’s attorney advised the resident that there were provisions regulating the hours of operation of outdoor dining areas. Mr. Piccirilo estimated that there would be approximate seating for 46 outside and about 150 inside.


The hearing was closed.


6. 3787 Crompond Road, Public Information Hearing on proposed restaurant

Mr. Riina advised the board that based on new information, the site consists of two separate parcels; the front one facing Route 202 that contains the building for the proposed restaurant, and the rear parcel that houses the landscape business (Countryside Properties. See below) and a residential dwelling.  He also advised the board that a traffic consultant has been hired and that a report should be ready by the time of the public hearing. He said the applicant was open to discussing the ingress/egress issue and whether the second access to Route 202 should be closed off or altered.


Mr. Brophy described his plans as more of a “take out” restaurant with counter service and seating for 15 inside and 35 outside depending on the season.


There were no public comments. The hearing was closed.


In a separate item on the work session portion of the agenda, the ZBA referral for Countryside Properties,  the landscape business, the board referenced a memo prepared by the Planning Department  but did not discuss its contents.




 7. Kia Car Dealership, Route 202

The applicant is seeking a special use permit for a new car dealership.  The parcel  is across from the New City Diner at Route 202 and Garden Lane.


The applicant explained that the current plan will modernize the building and have new lighting but otherwise there will be very few modifications to the previously approved plan. Mr. Tegeder displayed the previously approved site plan so that the board could compare the two plans; he noted some changes.


Part of the discussion focused on the lower half of Garden Lane that is jointly owned by Kia and the New City Diner, each owning a portion to the center line of Garden Road.  (The town owns the upper portion of the road.) 

The applicant appeared willing to consider revising the plan to allow ingress/egress to Garden Lane and also to talking to the new owner of the diner (currently undergoing renovation) regarding improving the road which would be the first step toward the town’s taking over the road.  Mr. Tegeder also asked the applicant to consider the future use of the rear of the parcel and how it fits in to the concept in the Sustainable Development Study for a parallel road north of Route 202 that would connect to Garden Lane. 


8. Saccente parcel, 3197 Rocky Place, ZBA referral

(See Planning Board, 5-23-2016.)  After a neighbor indicated that there could be discrepancies between the as built plan (which initially showed no problem with the current variance request) and improvements that had been made to the site, the board asked Mr. Tegeder to make a site visit. Based on his findings, he will either send a memo to the ZBA or report back to the board. 


9. Pervisi parcel, 3666 Old Yorktown Road, ZBA referral

(The site is located at the northern end of Route 132 that was previously home to geese.)  The applicant wants permission to operate a farm and construct a farm stand. The issue is complicated by the fact that the property straddles two zones: residential (R1-20 and commercial (C-2) and the farm and farm stand provisions in the zoning code relate only to residential districts.


While generally in favor of the farm stand concept, which would be located on Route 132, as an improvement to the area, the board said it needed more information about the intended uses, and exactly where they would located on the site before reviewing the application in greater detail.  To date they had only seen a sketch.


10. Town Board referrals on proposed local laws

(See Town Board, 5-24-2016 for background on the  proposed laws.)
Change in blasting permit law.  Board had no planning issues.

Change in definition of home occupations: Board had no planning issues.

Change regarding private and parochial schools and helistops.  Mr. Tegeder explained that the helistop amendment would permit helistops  in two and four acre zones (current law only permits them in OB zones – the IBM zone) and for certain uses, e.g., medical.

Change regarding Littering law. Mr. Tripodi felt the law, while well intentioned, needed to be reworked. He said it wasn’t fair to fine the car’s owner if the car had been stolen and the thief did the littering. Similarly, the owner should not be penalized if someone else used the car and littered. Mr. Kincart agreed.


11. Tree Ordinance, Town Board Referral

(Note: Supervisor Grace participated in the discussion.)


Mr. Tegeder gave the following reasons as the impetus for the new law.

·         Concern over the 30% requirement

·         Provisions dealing with the community forest

·         Mitigation

·         The need to do tree surveys for smaller developments and residential developments like Hilltop and Jacob Rd . He said the survey requirement hadn’t been a problem with commercial developments.


Calling the current law counterproductive, Supervisor Grace advised the board that the town needed to define the goal of the Tree Law so that we knew what we wanted to accomplish. The two goals he emphasized were the need for more street trees,  e.g., along E. Main St in Mohegan and what he called an urban landscape, and the need for more forest management. He said the forest management plans that had been done were gathering dust on the shelves.He added that he wanted to avoid neighbor disputes involving the cutting of trees. He made the following additional points:

·         Why do a tree survey when the trees are going to be cut down for development. Tree surveys cost tens of thousands of dollars. Applicants have limited resources.

·         Mitigation shouldn’t be just about replanting a tree; it should be more forest management. He wants to see more creative mitigation plans; the Tree Commission should identify “hot spots” – places where off site mitigation (planting)  should be done

·         He talked about the “mess” of the forest on the east side of Stoney

·         He took aim at those who have criticized the cutting of trees at Hilltop Service Station. He doesn’t see a problem with what the new owner has done.

·         He questioned the value of requiring tree permits if they’re never denied.

·         He saw no evidence that there’s been a problem with clear cutting  -- except possibly one incident where it was a neighbor issue.

·         He called it far-fetched to think that the community should have an interest in your trees.


Mr. Tegeder walked the board through the draft highlighting sections he suggested needed to be looked at in greater detail.  In response to one comment about whether the law called for the town engineer to issue administrative permits, i.e., permits that were not part of  a subdivision or site plan review, Supervisor  Grace said that homeowners would not be required to get permits to cut down trees on their own property. Mr. Tegeder did add, however, that a public hearing might be needed if a property owner proposed clear cutting that was not part of a subdivision or site plan.


All agreed about the value of street trees but that the definition and possibly some sections in the draft law dealing with street trees needed to be worked on.


At the end of the discussion, Supervisor Grace said that the draft was a very preliminary one and that he welcomed more input from the Planning Board based on its experience.  Mr. Tegeder will provide the Planning Board with a written review of his comments.


11 & 12 Yorktown Highway Garage, Greenwood Street & Front Street Property

(Note: because of the interrelationship between the two projects, going forward. it is the intention of the CIY observer to discuss both applications as a unit and to start a new page of the CIY web site to follow the applications. See Highway Garage/Depot Square for the previous discussions about both projects. Note also that all members of the Town Board were present for the discussion although Supervisor Grace did most of the talking.)


Formal applications have been submitted for both projects. The site plans presented to the Planning Board were the same as had been shown before although the plan for the highway garage (40,000 sf and the Parks garage (20,000 sf) was subject to change. 


Supervisor Grace explained the merits of both plans, basically repeating the reasons he has cited in the past for both projects.  He said that in order for the town to have a chance to get grants for the projects, the town needed to have permits for both projects in place and both projects shovel ready.


After more detailed plans are submitted, the Planning Board will hold a Public Informational Meeting on both applications.


Highway garage:  Supervisor Grace said the 40,000 Sf building was based on the former highway superintendent’s recommendation on the space needed to bring all vehicles inside and provide a washing bay.  Mr. Fon, who is an assistant DPW Commissioner in Greenburgh, advised the board that if the town was going to proceed with the plan, it should do it right the first time and plan for future needs.  In response, Supervisor Grace said that additional butler like buildings could be added on to what was being proposed if additional space was needed. This led to a discussion of the life span of the salt storage shed that is next to the proposed building. In response, the statement was made that the existing shed is close to the end of its 15 year life span.


Front Street parcel. Supervisor Grace explained that once the town has more of the components of the project set, it would issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for more detailed architectural plans. (Note: It was not clear exactly at what stage an RFP would be released.)


When Councilman Patel raised the issue of cost and the environment for both projects, Supervisor Grace agreed that those were valid issues and that they would be addressed. (There was not talk about costs during the discussion.) When Mr. Savoca indicated that the board had no problem with the applications but that others might, Supervisor Grace said, referring to the future public informational hearing, that he would “carry his own water” and dispel the crazy misinformation that has been said about the projects.