RPG Properties
SBL: 15.15-1-22
Discussion Site Plan

Location: 3574 Lexington Avenue
Contact: Phil Sanders

Click here for the previous meeting summaries that rezoned the parcel. 

Planning Board, 9-11-2017

The applicant advised the board the last two unresolved issues were tying into the water line with Cortlandt and the sewer connection. For the latter, the applicant’s preferred option is tying into the Cortlandt force main that serves Mohegan Manor. This would require an intermunicipal agreement between Yorktown and Cortlandt. The alternate option is to tie into the line within Yorktown.  


The applicant was also advised to check with the building department regarding the location of AC units and front and rear steps to a patio to make sure they complied with setback requirements and the variances the applicant has already received. The board also wanted to make sure that ABACA was on board with all aspects of the building design.


The board did want to set up a final public hearing until these issues were resolved.

Planning Board, 7/10/2017

There was a brief discussion of the applicant responding to a July 10 memo from the town engineer, mostly about utility issues, and a July 6 memo from the Planning Department regarding a concern from the Town of Cortlandt about remote sensors in a Lexington Avenue traffic light.


Mr. Tegeder said the plan was pretty close to final review; Planning would do a second and last look. It was anticipated that the board would grant approval at its August meeting.


Planning Board, 5-8-2017

Paul Moskowitz and Mark Lieberman spoke at the hearing in opposition to the multi family plan saying that the site should have been developed for single family housing more in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Capellini responded that the neighborhood was eclectic and Mr. Fon noted that the board had looked at the neighborhood. Dan Strauss said that the concern about the zoning was “after the fact” as the Town Board had already rezoned the property for multi family use and that the site plan conformed to the planned use.  Marcia Stone wanted to know how many trees would be cut.


The developer said the town house units would rent for under $2,000 a month.


The hearing was closed and a written comment was left open for 10 days.

Planning Board, 3-27-2017

Mr. Capellini advised the board that the ZBA had granted the needed variances and that the Fire Prevention Board had reviewed the plan.  A landscaping plan and lighting will be ready for a May 8th public hearing.   Reference was made to a Planning Department memo that listed some plan deficiencies.

Planning Board, 1-9-2017

After reviewing alternate plans with an 80’ and 90’ separation between the buildings, the board didn’t have any strong preference for one plan over the other but in the end advised the applicant to use the 80’ plan, although he can modify the separation to anything up to the 90’. By reducing the spacing between the buildings, the applicant will be able to add a few feet to either the rear yard of each building and/or add a landscaping strip in front of the buildings. The applicant will now apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the needed variance.

Planning Board, 12-5-2016

After the applicant showed the board alternative layouts that would not require variances, the board agreed that the current plan was the best one for the site.  Suggested minor modifications to the plan included a 5-6” fence at the end of the parking area to screen out  headlights from the cars and possibly replacing what was described as  “some of the straggly trees” in the buffer area with new evergreen plantings that would provide better screening for the abutting homeowners.


Before going to the ZBA for the required variances, the Planning Department will review the zoning code and past practice for multi family developments relating to the required distance between units. At the next work session, the board will possibly consider whether reducing the required separation may be a desirable trade off if it allows for larger rear yards for the units.


In response to a question from Mr. Flynn about whether the project will include any affordable housing units, Mr. Capellini explained that now that the Town Board has  repealed the Affordable Housing Law, the applicant will not be required to provide one affordable unit. He explained that under the proposed new density bonus law that is still pending, providing affordable units is voluntary on the part of the developer.


The Planning Board will defer any approvals on the site plan until after the ZBA rules on the variance application.

Planning Board, 10-17-2016

The applicant did a brief presentation of the plan, noting that, as per the board’s earlier request, he had relocated the water and sewer lines under the parking lot in order to provide more landscaping in the two side yards.


Two residents who had spoken in opposition to the rezoning at the Town Board addressed the board. The resident who backs up to the site asked that the applicant be required to present a plan that did not require any variances; the current plan will require two side yard variances and possibly a third variance relating to the separation between the two buildings.  He also expressed concern about the loss of privacy for his property and the noise; he suggested a possible wall separating the parcel from his property.  He also took issue with the applicant’s comment that residents would be able to walk to the hamlet, noting that there were no sidewalks along Lexington Ave. A resident from Clover Rd expressed concern that residents would use Clover to take a short cut into the hamlet.


In response to the residents’ comments that the plan would change the character of their single family neighborhood, Mr. Kincart responded that the board would review the plan based on its current multi family zoning.


The hearing was closed.

Planning Board, 9-12-2016

The applicant presented a site plan application that conforms to the recently approved rezoning. A public informational hearing will be held on October 17.


Mr. Tegeder explained that the plan was the most appropriate layout for the site.  Prior to the informational meeting, the board asked the applicant to consider the following issues:


Parking lot: Whether the mass of the lot could be divided in half, separated by some plantings, and the upper portion of the shifted slightly into the open space area. The developer was concerned about encroaching on the buffer to the adjoining homes.


Water and sewer lines: Instead of running the lines behind the buildings, the board asked the developer to consider running them under the parking lot in order to allow for more landscaping behind the houses which could provide more buffering for the abutting properties.  The applicant’s concern was that if any repair work had to be done with the lines, it could temporarily limit parking.   Mr. Tegeder suggested that if the construction went beyond one day, a plate could be placed over the working trench.


Dumpster: The board was concerned about the location in the front of the parcel, but the applicant explained his desire not to place  the dumpster to the rear closer to the  single family homes. 


The site’s sewer connection and stormwater plans remain to be worked out. The plan will require variances from the Zoning Board.