Citizens for an Informed Yorktown



Planning Board

September 26, 2016


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




1. 3787 Crompond Rd (Brophy):  Public hearing

Mr. Riina and traffic consultant Philip Grealy made presentations describing the plan and traffic ; there were no changes from the previous plan.  There were no comments from the public, Mr. Flynn brought up two issues raised in an ABACA memo, including that board’s recommendation that both curb cuts be used to access the sandwich shop and the need for steel bollards in the parking area.  On Mr. Grealy’s recommendation that the single access was more appropriate for this type of limited use, the board rejected ABACA’s dual access suggestion.  The board also concluded that if it could be shown that the planned 8’ x 2.5’  landscape planters where substantial enough to stop cars, the bollards would not be necessary.  ABACA had also suggested that the curb cuts be moved, but the board agreed with Mr. Riina who said that the change was not necessary and that doing so would be an unwarranted expense and delay the project because it would require DOT approval.


The hearing was closed and the resolution approving the site plan was unanimously approved.


Carrying out the motif on the building’s new façade, the sandwich shop will be known as the Little Cabin Sandwich Shop.


2. Triglia & Rezi subdivision, Christine Rd: Public hearing

Several area homeowners raised a series of concerns about the proposed plan, including their long standing concern about drainage in the area and the plan to pave a portion of Baker Highway which would involve what they said was taking portions of their property.  They also advised the board of numerous instances where, in their opinion, the developer had violated the terms of the building permit for the first house and also his unresponsiveness after work he had done created serious problems in the road for area residents that had to be repaired by the Highway Department.  The residents have retained their own engineer to review the drainage issue. 


In general, while understanding that they can’t stop development, the residents felt that their properties and privacy were being compromised so that a single property owner could make a larger profit.


 Citing what he called a “laundry list” of issues raised by the residents as well as from town staff that need answers, the board adjourned the hearing pending the receipt of more information from town staff and the residents’ engineer.


3. Orchard View Subdivision, Sherry Drive: Public Hearing

The applicant made a presentation explaining that the road and all the stormwater infrastructure, including the existing detention pond, would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association (HOA). A hammerhead would be constructed at the end of the current Sherry Drive.


Several residents from abutting Pine Grove Court expressed concern about flooding given the topography of the site that slopes downhill to their property.  They also asked who would responsible for maintaining the stormwater facilities if and when the HOA failed to do so.


Planning Director Tegeder said he still had some issues to go through with the applicant and Town Engineer Quinn advised the board that he was still reviewing the plan, especially the history of the detention pond which he said had not been maintained for years.  He also said that the HOA issue needed further thought and that possibly an escrow fund would need to be established in the event the HOA ceased to maintain the drainage infrastructure.


The detention pond was built several years ago as a regional stormwater facility. Mr. Tegeder said that it has capacity to take on additional flows.


Susan Siegel, the person writing this summary, asked how the recreation requirement for the 9 lots would be assessed and also reminded the board that the development was subject to one affordable housing unit.


Because the applicant had emailed the response cards from the required notice of the hearing instead of physically bringing them to the meeting, the hearing had to be adjourned so the cards could be produced.





4. Featherbed (Colangelo) subdivision, Jacob Road

Reviewing the conventional layout, the applicant advised the board that he had made some slight changes to the house location on two lots. The rest of the conventional plan, used to determine lot count, was the same. He also said that contrary to his statement at the previous meeting, the site was not in the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District but that he would be applying to come into the district. The applicant showed a plan that included the 6 proposed houses, farm stand, trail, dog park and the remaining undeveloped portion of the site.


The applicant went through a comparison of the conventional and flexibility layouts, pointing out that the latter would result in 25% less disturbance, less imperious surface, smaller houses and the potential removal of only 607 trees compared to 766 trees in the conventional layout; he said that every effort would be made to save as many trees as possible.


Mr. Tegeder noted that the goal of the flexibility provisions was to develop a plan that was more sensitive to the land. He said that the current plan met that goal.


Bruce Barber asked the applicant to prepare a plan that showed the existing barn on both the conventional and flexibility plans so that the board would be comparing apples to apples.  He also advised the board to consider the future uses of the remaining portion of the site that has slopes in excess of 20%, poor soils, wetlands, is heavily treed and is close to the Hunter Brook trout stream.  He explained that if and when that portion of the site becomes an agricultural district, as such, it would be exempt for all town land use regulations and the board would not get a second chance to review any future plan for the site. The applicant said that at the present time it had no plans for the rear portion of the site. Mr. Barber noted, and the board agreed, that the proposed 6 houses are being situated on the more relatively level portion of the site.


The Planning Department will prepare a recommendation to the Town Board supporting flexibility and the Planning Board will conduct a site visit.


5. Lowe’s Home Center

The key issue discussed at the meeting was whether the plan created any significant adverse impacts (the key word being “significant”) that were not in the approved Costco plan; if there were, the applicant would have to complete a supplemental EIS.  It is the applicant’s contention that a supplemental EIS is not needed.


Having gone through each of the sections in the previously submitted Technical Memo, Mr. Fon said he saw either less of an impact, or an improved situation for the new plan’s visual impact, overall uses, parking, layout and traffic.  His one area of concern was that more information was needed on the landscaping plan, especially along Route 202.


Traffic consultant Philip Grealy explained that while the AM peak hour traffic will be heavier than Costco due to contractor’s visiting the garden center, the PM and Saturday peaks will be lower and that overall, when the peak AM and PM hours and Saturday peaks are looked at, the total traffic impact will be less than Costco – and the applicant will be making the same level of improvements.


Most of the discussion centered on the revised stormwater plan on the 3.3 acres the applicant plans to purchase from the state DOT.  While this could be considered a “significant” impact that involved removing a considerable number of trees, the general sense was that the proposed mitigation that called for adding 100 new trees and other mitigation measures would offset the tree removal.


Mr. Tegeder said he did not think that the new plan had any significant impacts but that he was still reading through the Technical Memo.  Several board members also have not had an opportunity yet to review the Memo.


Board counsel Anna Georgiou advised the board that after all the members have had an opportunity to  review the memo, at its next meeting (October 17) the board could come to a preliminary decision that a supplemental EIS would not be necessary and that it could proceed to review the site plan and environmental issues at the same time.


The applicant is still working out the details of the stormwater plan with the DEP and will meet on site with DEP staff  at the end of October to do some testing.  Plans for the road improvements that need to be approved by the DOT are about 95% completed.


Once more information is available on the stormwater plan and mitigation, the board will schedule a public hearing.


While the board is processing the amended site plan, the applicant will be able to proceed with plans to demolish the existing building. If less than 5,000 s        q. ft. of soil is disturbed, the applicant will not need a DEP permit but will need a town  stormwater permit (SWPPP).


The applicant wishes to create 5 separate lots on the overall site, one for each building and a fifth for the stormwater site. The applicant would own all five lots. What needs to be determined is whether this can/should be accomplished by a formal subdivision process or a simpler lot line adjustment.


6. Saccente, Rocky Place . ZBA Referral

(See Planning Board, 6-13-2016.) A representative of the property owner advised the board that the pool was not over a drainage system and that the drainage system was not built according to the original plan. Before advising the board to send a recommendation to the ZBA,  Mr. Tegeder asked the representative to show the line of the drainage on a plan.


Note:  Because of the Columbus Day holiday, the Planning Board will only have one meeting in October: the 17th.