Citizens for an Informed Yorktown

The discussion focused on the future disposition of the rear 70 acres and how that future use should be treated in both the rezoning resolution and the companion SEQRA Findings Statement. The applicant was not willing to voluntarily agree to donate the 70 acres to the town as a condition of rezoning and legally the town could not mandate the donation.

During the discussion Councilman Bianco stated that he supported the rezoning of the lower portion of the property but expressed concern about how best to protect the upper portion, especially if the property was sold after it was rezoned and the new owner wasn’t bound by any previous understandings. He pointed out that the SEQRA Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) clearly stated that the rear 70 acres of the site was to be left as open space.  If we’re going to rezone the site, he said, let’s do it the right way.

After Mr. Capellini stated that his client was willing to modify the rezoning application to apply only to the lower portion of the 100 acre parcel, the Board reviewed two alternative scenarios for where the rezoning line would be. Ultimately, the applicant and Board agreed to a line that will rezone approximately 50 acres and will include the proposed right of way for a future Bear Mountain Parkway extension. (According to the EAF, the commercial development would disturb approximately 28 acres.)

Bruce Barber explained that while the rezoning resolution could not include certain conditions, because the accompanying Findings Statement will be based on the hypothetical site plan  that was studied in the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), there will be certain constraints on any future “real” site plan submission and that if a future site plan did not conform to the EAF, then the SEQA findings could be rescinded and a new EAF would have to be done. One such constraint would be that a maximum of 240,000 sq ft could be built on the site.

Supervisor Grace stated that while he did not want to see any development on the environmentally sensitive rear portion of the site, he wasn’t sure if the town should eventually acquire the land or have an easement placed on the land. He also said he hoped the applicant would change his mind and voluntarily agree to have the site  included in the Sylvan Glen Forest Management Study and also that as part of any future site plan approval process, it was his hope that the applicant would do some mitigation on the rear portion of the site. Mr. Capellini indicated that the applicant would now participate in the study.

Staff will work on the wording of the rezoning resolution and Findings Statement and the Board anticipates a vote at the December 17 meeting.

A decision statement on the rezoning request, shown in the Tentative Agenda, was pulled from the agenda by late Tuesday afternoon. No \explanation was given.

Ms. Kutter suggested that the paragraphs in a draft Board memo to the Town Board supporting the rezoning of the southern portion of the site be rearranged so that the Board’s concern about the preservation of the rear 70 acres get more emphasis. She said she was concerned that if that part of memo remained towards the end,  Board members would not read that far into the memo.

The fundamental question was:  would the Planning Board support the rezoning if the northern part of the parcel was not protected.  The consensus was no.

However, after some discussion, the Board agreed only to put a bullet point at the beginning of the memo expressing its concern about the 70 acres and leave the rest of the memo as originally drafted.

After all agenda items had been discussed, the Board had an impromptu discussion about its memo to the Town Board regarding its recommendations on the State Land rezoning request.  The Board continued to support the rezoning for the front part of the parcel but was concerned about how best to “protect” the rear 70 acres in the event that a future site plan application is submitted  that proposes development on any portion of the 70 acres. The concern was based on the fact that once the entire 100 acres was rezoned for commercial use, a future applicant might be able to develop a portion of the 70 acres for commercial development  “as of right”  and that it would be more difficult to reject such an application.

Mr. Tegeder added, however, that because the EAF prepared for the rezoning did not include any development on the rear 70 areas, any future site plan that wanted to use a portion of the 70 acres would require a new EAF. And Mr. Kincart said that concerns about the rear 70 acres were best addressed when a site plan was submitted. He didn’t see any reason why the property owners should donate the land to the town now in the absence of any approved site plan.

Mr. Tegeder also suggested that part of the applicant’s motivation for wanting the entire 100 acres rezoned commercial now might be that once the 70 acres was zoned commercial, its value as a donation would increase.

Mr. Fon suggested the town consider the concept of “form based zoning” that he said had been successfully used in Yonkers. Under the concept, the parameters of future development are established ahead of time in the zoning classification.

Ultimately, the Board agreed that the best approach to protecting the 70 acres would be to draw a line north of the proposed Bear Mountain Parkway extension and that the land north of the line should be left residential. An amended memo will be sent to the Town Board reflecting this consensus.

As part of the discussion, Mr. Tegeder said that if the town was serious about wanting the future extension of the Bear Mountain Parkway, it was important for the town to continually make that point with the state; in the absence of any pressure and support from the town, he said the state was not likely to move ahead on the extension. To date, he said, he didn’t feel that the town had been aggressive in supporting the extension.

As a follow up to a 2012 memo indicating that the Board needed more information prior to issuing a recommendation on the proposed rezoning, Mr. Tegeder advised the Board that a “beefed up” EAF had been submitted.  The only change in the revised submission was that based on the town’s reduced parking requirements, some square footage had been added to a second floor, leaving the building’s footprint unchanged.

The Board supported the rezoning of the front portion of the parcel for commercial use, noting that it was more environmentally sensitive than previous plans for either residential development or a differently configured commercial developed. As proposed in the conceptual plan, the rezoning  also avoided the impact of any additional school children, it had less of a traffic impact, and  it protected the habitat for several species by not chopping up the site.

The Board’s major concern dealt with the future of the “upper” portion of the site north of the proposed right of way for the Bear Mountain Parkway, or, as expressed by Mr. Fon: how to protect that area so as not to get burnt at some future date if and when a site plan comes in with a different configuration of buildings. The Board was concerned that rezoning the entire parcel to C-1 left open the possibility that a future site plan could be submitted that called for developing some of the “open space,” a possibility Mr. Capellini acknowledged could happen. 

The Board’s attorney will look into the legal feasibility of attaching a condition to the rezoning that would require the future donation of the land to the town, an idea Mr. Capellini did not think was legal.  An alternate approach would be rezoning only the lower portion of the site, including some “wiggle room” north of the proposed buildings to give the DOT flexibility for siting any future Bear Mountain Parkway.     Mr. Capellini said that based on meetings with the DOT, there is no decision on where the future road might be.

John Schroeder, speaking on behalf of the Advisory Committee on Open Space advised the Board that his group was opposed to using any of the Sylvan Glen Preserve to the north of the site for any stormwater retention ponds. In response Mr. Capellini noted that that plan had nothing to do with the proposed commercial bjuildings and was an “extra” that the property was willing to do in response to a request from the town.

After a brief discussion, and voting on a motion by Supervisor Grace, the Board set a public hearing for the rezoning application for October 15.  Noting that the Mall public hearing was scheduled for that date and that two hearings might be too much for one meeting, Councilman Bianco suggested a November 19 hearing date.

Representing the property owner, attorney Al Capellini reminded the Board that the application, and long form EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) of about 200 pages had been submitted over a year and a half ago and that it was time for a public hearing.  Supervisor Grace said there was no need to refer out the application as it had already been referred out last year.

Although the initial application was for a C-3 zone, Mr. Capellini said his client would accept a rezoning to C-1 if it included provisions that would allow for outdoor storage (permitted “as of right” in a C-3 zone but only with a special permit in a C-1 zone) for uses such as a garden center.  Planning Director Tegeder explained that a C-3 zone permitted some uses, such as gas stations, that the town might not want. Also the C-1 zone required larger lots.  Supervisor Grace asked about the applicability of rezoning the site to a CRC zone (regional shopping center) – the only zone that gives site plan approval to the Town Board.

The issue of the future alignment of the Bear Mountain Parkway was briefly discussed as the plan calls for relocating the right of way from the area abutting Route 202 further into the site and basically behind the proposed buildings. While Supervisor Grace said he thought that plan was ‘dead” as far as the DOT was concerned, Mr. Tegeder said the realignment was part of the 2004 Sustainable Study that included the Route 202 corridor.

Mr. Capellini said it was not possible for the property owner to interest a potential tenant in the property until the site was rezoned.

On a referral from the Town Board, this was the first time the Planning Board saw the rezoning application and the conceptual site plan. Joe Riina of Site Design Consultants re viewed the basic plan and Phil Grealy, the applicant’s traffic consultant, discussed the traffic impact.

Because only three Planning Board members were in attendance, the board decided not to take any action on a recommendation to the Town Board and instead continue the discussion at a future meeting when a full board was in attendance.

The following issues were discussed:

Drainage: Mr. Rrina explained that based on a preliminary review,he has determined that there would be a 30% reduction in peak runoff from the site if two detention areas were created to the north of the site on the adjacent town-owned Sylvan Glen preserve and that this would help alleviate flooding south of Route 202. He added that there were also other potential sites that could be factored in to a regional stormwater plan.

Traffic: Mr. Grealy said that the proposed development would generate approximately 800 trips per hour during peak afternoon hours, with 400 trips in each direction. However, he noted that only about 600 of those trips would be “new” trips and that the remaining 200 trips would be those who currently use the road. He also explained that the applicant would extend the scheduled DOT widening of Route 202 to four lanes further to the west and also construct a fifth turning lane. With the addition of the new lanes, he said, the wider roadway would be under capacity even with the new traffic.A traffic light is proposed at the entrance to the shopping center which will be across from Parkside Corners.

Sidewalks: In response to Mr. Flynn’s questions as to how the project could be made more pedestrian friendly, Mr. Grealy explained that the DOT plan calls for sidewalks on the south side of Route 202 beginning at the Chase bank but that he did not know exactly how far west the sidewalks would go. He added that his client was willing to construct a pedestrian crosswalk across from Parkside Corners.

Mr. Flynn also commented on the fact that the plan calls for retail buildings on both sides of the stream and that this would generate traffic going from one side to the other.

Residential development: In response to Mr. Flynn’s questions as to why the property owner wasn’t considering a residential use for the property, Mr. Grealy pointed out that a residential development would not generate sufficient money to pay for the traffic and drainage infrastructure improvements being proposed.Mr. Savoca also noted that a residential development would “eat into” the proposed dedication of half the site as permanent open space. He agreed that the residential use of the site was not practical and that the site was suitable only for commercial use. It’s that or nothing, he said. Planning Director Tegeder noted that an earlier plan to develop the site for 26 single family homes utilized most of the site.

Rezoning designation: Mr. Tegeder made two points. First, he noted that it was not in the town’s interest to rezone the entire 100 acres; he suggested that there was no need to rezone the roughly 50 acres that were to remain open space.On a more contentious issue, he suggested that a rezoning to a C-1 rather than C-3 as requested by the applicant was more appropriate based on what the applicant was proposing.He pointed out that the C-3 zone permitted some potentially undesirable uses such as gas stations and warehouses that were not part of the strictly retail plan that was currently being proposed. While Mr. Tedger explained why C-1 was more appropriate than C-3, Mr. Capellini said his client wanted the C-3 designation because it permitted outdoor storage, as in a garden center attached to a Loewes type use. In response, Mr. Tegeder said that the while the current C-1 regulations did not prohibit an outdoor use, the town could amend the C-1 regulations to specifically permit it. He added that he didn’t want to see the town disappointed in the future is an undesirable C-3 use was proposed for the site, such a butler building type warehouse with tractor trailer usage.

Appearance of Route 202 corridor: In response to Mr. Flynn’s comments that the town had “lucked out” in that the northern side of Route 202 had not been developed and had retained its open space look, Mr. Riina noted that because of the site’s grade, some of the natural vegetation along Route 202 would remain and that the buildings and parking lot would be about 15 feet above the road.

Other issues. The applicant, Charles Monaco, stated that the project would generate $1 million a year in taxes, plus increased sales tax revenue. Mr. Capellini referred to the proposed project as Yorktown’s “second crown jewel” noting that it will help with the overall redevelopment of the south side of Route 202. It’s the highest and best use of the property, he said. Mr. Capellini reiterated comments made before the Town Board that the property owner needed the commercial rezoning in order to attract a prospective tenant.In response to comments from Babette Ballinger about market share, he said that if Yorktown didn’t okay the shopping center, the market share would simply go elsewhere.

Several members of Yorktown Smart Growth expressed concern about the increased traffic that the project would generate and its impact on the quality of life of residents. Noting that the extension of the Bear Mountain Parkway was not likely to happen in our lifetime, he said that the board should be looking at the long term future of the town and not think of immediate concerns. In response to Jonathan Nettlefield’s comments as to whether the parking lot would utilize pervious pavement, Mr. Riina said that stormwater runoff from the parking lot would be stored beneath the lot.

 The board voted unanimously to refer the rezoning request from R-160 to C-3 to the Town’s advisory boards and appropriate outside agencies for review and comment. Prior to the vote and during Courtesy of the Floor, when Walt Daniels, co-chairman of the Advisory Committee on Open Space asked the board if any action had been taken on the request, he was assured by Councilman Bianco that established procedures would be followed and that the ACOS would have an opportunity to comment on the application.

Referring to earlier plans for the site which he described as “lousy,” Councilman Bianco said that the current plan “might work with a question mark” as it was more environmentally sensitive to the difficult site.He noted that the plan calls for the rear portion of the site to either be designated a conservation easement or donated to the Town.

Councilman Bianco praised the Planning Department for the book it has put together that illustrates the Town’s vision for an enhanced Route 202. The book incorporates the planning for Route 202 that was done as part of the Sustainable Development Study. A copy of the book was given to Senator Ball who is trying to get state funds for the project.