August 13, 2018
Attending: John Kincart, John Savoca, William LaScala, Rich Fon, Anthony Tripodi, Robert Garrigan
1. Stahmer minor subdivision
(See Planning Board, 2-26-2018.) The applicant is awaiting comments from the DEP. The board approved the first 90 day time extension.
2. Hilltop minor subdivision, Hilltop Drive
The applicant is still waiting for the possibility of Hilltop being sewered; he said he was advised by the town engineer that the Ridge area that includes Hilltop, could be sewered within a year. Mr. Tegeder said that given the number of extensions already granted, if the applicant has to come back in 90 days, a more in depth look at the application may be advised. The board approved the second 90 day extension. Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, advised the board that based on her familiarity with the sewer issue, sewers for Hilltop weren’t likely for at least another 2-3 years.
3. Dubovsky site plan, Saw Mill River Road
The first one year extension was granted. The site has a public hearing pending for an amendment to the zoning code that would allow three apartments on the site.
4. Mohegan Court (RPG), Lexington Avenue
The board approved the site plan, stormwater and tree permit with the condition that the applicant submit dated final drawings to the board’s satisfaction. The condition was based on Mr. Tegeder having received confusing drawings from the applicant and the provider of the planned modular units.
5. Anderson minor subdivision, Croton Lake Road
(See Planning Board, 6-25-2018). The hearing was reconvened. The board was advised that the ZBA has granted the needed variances and the town’s consultant has verified the wetlands delineation. Mr. Tegeder advised Mr. Ciarcia to set up a meeting to go over some remaining issues. The Conservation Board raised issues about mitigation for the disturbance to the wetland buffer and whether a tree survey was needed. The hearing was closed.
6. Mohegan Audi addition East Main Street, public hearing
The board was advised that the ZBA variance has been granted and that negotiations have continued with the DOT regarding the transfer of land along East Main Street for the sidewalk. The applicant explained that although it had an off site location for unloading cars, in the event that unloading had to take place at the East Main Street site, there was room on site for the unloading so that trucks would not have to park on East Main Street.
In response to a question from the public, the applicant explained that the area set aside for parked cars along East Main Street would be for pre-owned car4s and not cars waiting to be serviced.
The hearing was closed. Mr. Tegeder asked the applicant to provide more information about street scape landscaping and also landscaping at the rear of the property abutting residential properties.
7. Biffer Enterprises, Hill Boulevard
Removed from the agenda
8. Lowe’s off site sewer issue
(Note: the board went into a closed executive session prior to the discussion.)
(See Planning Board 7-16-2018.) Representing Breslin Realty, Michael Grace advised the board that his client was ready to live up to his commitments but that his client still believed that the agreements were too opened ended and might need to go to arbitration. He said that Breslin needed more information about the potential cost of making the sewer connections for the homeowners.
The board’s attorney stated that the SEQRA documents that were part of the project’s approval are “pretty clear” about Breslin’s obligations and advised Mr. Grace that he might want to submit a written document outlining Breslin’s disagreement with that conclusion.
Ann Kutter, speaking for homeownrtd, said that the homeowners had gotten some estimates as to the potential cost of the hookups but that representatives of Breslin were not willing to share their estimates with the homeowners. Breslin representative Bob Rosenberg said he hadn’t even seen the estimates.
Ms. Kutter also expressed concern that the issue might drag on.
The board advised the parties to continue to negotiate and return to the board in September. It was not clear whether Mr. Grace would be submitting any written response.
9. Prestige Renovation and Remodeling, Buckhorn Street
(See Planning Board 6-11-2018.) There was an issue over the potential connection of the two pieces of vacant land. It was decided that the rear portion of the applicant’s lot would be given to the town in satisfaction of the recreation fee.
10. Clean Energy Collective (Solar Installation), Foothill Street
A representative of the company showed a proposed layout for the panels that would use 16 acres of the 34 acre site and have a 100 feet buffer: 25’ would be a natural buffer and 75’ would be a buffer that eliminated any shade. The panels would be surrounded by a 7’ fence, a state requirement. Because grass would be planted under the panels and would absorb rain coming off the panels, the site would remain pervious.
Board members LaScala and Fon expressed concern that large solar installations was not appropriate for residential areas. Mr. LaScala called them a “blight on Yorktown,” adding that he had no problem with solar panels on the roofs of single family houses. Calling the proposed installation “a sea of glass,” Mr. Fon suggested that the installations could be appropriate at other locations. Mr. Kincart thought they would be more appropriate for land that had already been cleared for agricultural use but no longer used for that purpose.
Mr, Savoca wanted to postpone consideration of the site plan until after the town board held a public hearing on the proposed solar law. Mr. Tegeder explained that comments on the law are due back on the draft solar law by August 30. (Note: the draft law leaves blank the zoning districts in which solar installations would be allowed.) The board did not comment on the proposed law.
11. Popeyes (Staples Plaza), Route 202
The proposal for the fast food chain is for an approximate 2,350 SF building on the existing grass pad to the east of Dunkin Donuts. When the board approved the BJ’s gas station, it approved the plan for a building on this site. The applicant has made some slight modifications to the building and some suggested traffic routing around the building. In response to Mr, Tegeder’s question if the colors on the building could be softened, the applicant said that those were the colors that ABACA preferred. Proposed signage on the building conforms to the previously approved master sign plan for the site.
As the site plan is very close to what was previously approved, the board determined that a new EAF was not needed but asked the applicant to submit a comparison of the current plan to the previously submitted EAF. A public hearing will be held in September.