Citizens for an Informed Yorktown



Planning Board

June 9, 2014


Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, John Flynn, Darlene Rivera, Ann Kutter




1. Kiederer Subdivision

The board granted a second 90-day extension to allow the applicant to make some additional changes to the plan.


2. Village Traditions (Route 6)

The board retroactively reapproved the earlier site plan and granted a one year extension. Attorney Al Capellini advised the board that the applicant will be returning at a future date to discuss changes in the original ingress and egress plan that was linked to the redevelopment of an adjoining site.


3.Sierra Bella

The board granted a wetlands permit.




4. Yorktown Farms, lot #15, Wetlands permit
The homeowner wants to clear brush and install a fence around his property that will be partially in a wetland buffer. He explained his concern for the health and safety of his children who play in the backyard, not in the buffer, but who retrieve balls in the buffer which has ticks. Also, at least one child has allergies to the brush.


Concerned about other requests to encroach or alter the buffer area, and citing the importance of the buffer area, Ms. Kutter said that when homeowners buy a property theyshould have a better understanding of the restrictions placed on buffer areas and that a balance was needed between preserving the buffer and homeowners desire for a larger yard. Noting that ticks are everywhere, not just in the buffer area,  Mr. Flynn asked the homeowner if he considered installing the fence outside the buffer. (The immediate need for the fence is to enclose a pool, but the homeowner wants the fence to encompass more of the property.) The board also suggested as a possible mitigation measure that the homeowner replace the invasive species with more suitable plants that could be suggested by the Conservation Board.   


The board will make a joint site visit with the Conservation Board.


5. Grotto Holding (former Salerno Dodge on Route 202)

Architect David Barbuti  explained that the building’s new owner, a Yorktown resident who owns a plumbing contracting business in Yonkers, plans to convert the vacant auto dealership building to house a retail flooring store on the first floor, and his plumbing business on the second floor.  The rear of the first floor would be used for the flooring company’s storage, as well as storage for the plumbing business. In the process, the new owner will “clean up” some outstanding issues that stem from work the town did on the site in the 1990s that weren’t shown on the approved site plan.  The current plan shows 40 parking spaces where 27 are needed.


As a lease for the retail space has not been signed yet, the architect advised the board that the owner has also had discussions with an alternate tenant: a doggie day care facility.  This tenant would use the same first floor area but would also need to install on outdoor run. The doggie day care would require a special permit as a personal services establishment but it was not clear which board would have to approve such a permit.  Mr. Flynn noted that the residents along Old Crompond Road might be concerned about  noise issues from this proposed use.


A public informational hearing will be advertised for July 14.


6. Teatown Lake Reservation auxiliary parking lot

A representative of Insite Engineering, the applicant’s engineering/environmental consultant, discussed the plan to construct an auxiliary parking lot of 46 spaces across the street from the existing entrance. The lot, which would be gravel and only used seasonally, would eliminate unsafe parking along Spring Valley Road.  The plan includes landscaping and stormwater controls. A public informational hearing will be advertised for July 14.


7.Lake Osceola Realty (Hill Blvd.)

Based on a site visit by Planning Director Tegeder and Assistant Planner Steinberg, plus some additional suggestions by Ms. Steinberg, the board came to an agreement with the developer on the size, appearance and location of the sign and the Planning Department will send a memo to that effect to the Zoning Board.


8.Lake Osceola Square

The applicant advised the board that a formal application had been made with a plan “almost exactly” the same as what the board had previously seen, and that a stormwater and landscaping plan have been prepared.  A traffic study is underway that might include some suggestions for how traffic could be slowed along East Main Street. The wetlands delineaton has not been completed.


Sewers: The applicant has had discussions with other property owners along the south side of East Main Street regarding their hooking up to the sewer line that will connect the new development to the existing sewer main on Hill Blvd.  In response to Mr. Kincart’s question about the possibility of sewering the properties on the north side of East Main Street, Mr. Riina said he didn’t think the applicant would have any problem as long as the project could be considered a private one and not involve the creation of a sewer district.


Beach: Still undecided was the future operation of the beach. The owner does not want to operate the beach and would either want the town to take over the operation or gave the town an easement. The Planning Department will refer the issue to the Recreation Commission for its input, although Assistant Planner Steinberg advised the board that in an earlier conversation with the Rec Commission chairperson, it was stated that it was costly for the town to operate a beach.  There are two existing docks on the lake.


The applicantwill return to the June 23 work session before a date is set for a public hearing on the site plan.


9. Broad Pines Subdivision (Granite Springs Road)

(See Planning Board 8/12/2013) The applicant was not present and Ms. Steinberg explained that there were several issues that remained to be figured out before the partial abandonment could take place. One issue is that it appears that the two existing houses (with a shared common wall) also share a septic system but the location of the system is not known.  Karen Wagner, the board’s attorney, advised that a new site plan may be needed based on what actually exists on the site. More information was also needed from the applicant.