Citizens for an Informed Yorktown

1.Fieldhome expansion

The discussion centered on the language of the license agreement with the town for the continued use of the soccer field and the conservation easement. Both documents are being reviewed by the Recreation Commission and the town attorney.  On the soccer field use, representatives of the Fieldhome indicated they had no problem with the time frame of the license (or possibly a lease) being open ended with a provision that it could be terminated on written notice. They indicated that the field did not seem to be used very much and that it may not be needed in the future if other fields became available. On the easement issue, they wanted the ability to change the location of the field if the situation warranted and also to be consulted on any signage at the field to assure compatibility with the abutting Fieldhome.

Al Capellini, attorney for the Fieldhome, indicated that they would like both issues to be resolved as soon as possible as it could affect changes in the home’s marketing plan and the way the units are sold. The possible changes  are currently under review.

2. Hudson Valley Islamic Center

As a follow up to the May meeting, members of the Center explained that the soccer field was used only on Friday evenings and some Saturdays and, showing a series of photographs, disputed the validity of the lighting complaint by a neighboring homeowner. Adding that the same homeowner has, over time, complained about other uses in the area, the representative told the board that the house in question is 600 feet from the road – too far for it to be impacted by the lights.  With the cooperation of the Center, Mr. Tegeder said he would visit the site at night and several board members also indicated that they would drive by in the evenings.  Mr. Tegeder said he wanted to assess how the lighting affected the surrounding area, not just the complaining neighbor.  Ultimately, the board would like to see something in writing stating the hours and days the lights will be used.  It was not clear whether  the existing 25’ lighting poles would remain or be replaced with 16’ foot poles. New lighting fixtures have been installed on the poles. 

3. Arrowhead subdivision

In a discussion over procedure and process that became somewhat testy at times, the applicant was trying to push ahead with certain approvals so that he could get sales contracts signed, but the board remained firm that the applicant had to follow established procedures. Mr. Fon strongly advised the applicant to meet with town staff to iron out remaining issues.  Approved in 2007, the 5-lot subdivision has a long history of changes to the original plan.

4. Staples Shopping Center

With Burger Fi no longer interested in leasing space in the former Emigrant Bank building, the applicant showed the board a slightly modified plan that has the flexibility to accommodate a restaurant and a possible second retail tenant. The plan includes two stairways leading to a sidewalk that will abut two sides of the building and a revised stormwater plan.

The board liked the changes and will hold a public hearing on the revised plan on July 14.

5. Yorktown Farms wetlands permit

(See Planning Board, 6/9/2014) The homeowner advised the board that the Conservation Board had suggested two options: encroach only 25’ into the buffer and plant grass in the area, or encroach the full 50’ he wanted but as mitigation plant shrubs in the area. Given the cost of the shrubs, the homeowner said he was prepared to live with the first option. Explaining that the pool was going to be filled this week, the homeowner wanted some immediate approval from the board for the fence (town code requires fencing around a pool)  so that the pool could be used this summer. However, Mr. Fon explained that the board could not act given that it did not have a quorum, but also because there were outstanding issues that needed to be addressed, including, whether the adjustment to the wetlands permit had to be reviewed by DEC (it’s a state regulated wetland), comments from Bruce Barber, the town’s environmental consultant, regarding the value of the buffer and the possible need for mitigation , and a review of the original subdivision plan and any possible restrictions on the wetlands area. Given that it will take time to resolve these issues, Mr. Fon suggested to the homeowner that he might consider some temporary fencing around the pool area only but the homeowner did not appear to want to spend money on a temporary solution.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Because Because of a previously scheduled vacation, the homeowner will not be able to attend the board’s next meeting scheduled for July 14. And the meeting after that will not be until August 11.

Having visited the site, Mr. Kincart said he had no problem with the fence being installed 25’ into the buffer if Mr. Barber had no objection.  The homeowner rejected the suggestion that he install the fence outside the buffer, explaining that  that would result in an unwelcome boxed in feeling.