March 8, 2016
Contract negotiations and interviews for volunteer boards
1. Arbor Day
Bill Kellner, Dale Saltzman and Ann Kutter updated the board on plans for Arbor Day, scheduled for Friday, May 6 at 4pm. The ceremony will take place at the flag pole in front of the YCCC as part of this years “Street Trees” theme. The group asked for $400 from the town to help offset costs in the event donations do not cover expenses. The Arbor Day Committee received $400 in donations last year in addition to a $1,000 from the DEC. The group also plans to plant additional trees at Sylvan Glen as part of a Trees for Tribs program begun last year.
In other tree related issues, Ms. Kutter asked if the town could plan an improved access to Patriot Park and some possible drainage work at the site. Supervisor Grace mentioned a small town owned parcel next to Yorktown Glass and he advised Ms. Kutter to work with the Planning Department on ideas.
Supervisor Grace also asked if any DEP or DEC money was available for new plantings at Holland Sporting Club. Mr. Kellner said he would look into this.
In response to Ms. Kutter’s question about what changes the supervisor was considering to the Tree Ordinance, Supervisor Grace said he had no specificplans other than noting that the permit requirement was taking up considerable staff time.
2. Section 8 program
Karren Perez, Section 8 coordinator, advised that board that with only 13 names left on the closed waiting list, she was requesting permission to open the list and allow online sign ups. Her plan is to advertise the fact that the list will be open for one week, beginning May 6. Names will be pulled from those who sign up on a random basis. She explained that based on past experience, many people who put their names on a waiting list do not respond when contacted, or end up not qualifying for the program. The board voted later in the evening to advertise the opening of the list.
Ms. Perez also advised the board that she plans to make some minor changes to the program’s Administrative Plan. A public hearing on the changes will be held sometime in April.
3. RPG Properties (Lexington Avenue)
The applicant returned to the board with the same basic plan; the only change was eliminating the playground in the 55’ buffer area. This time, the applicant showed an architectural rendering of the proposed two buildings, each housing six units, and a rendering showing a treed buffer between the site and the houses to the rear.
Surrounding homeowners, who were permitted to participate in the discussion, still objected to the plan, citing the fact that they moved to the area because of its less dense single family character. They also expressed concern over how the property, which will be rental units ranging from $1,200-$1,400 for 3 bedroom units and less for two bedroom units, would be maintained over time.
Responding to a series of questions the residents had previously submitted to the board, Supervisor Grace said that some of them, such as the applicant’s history, were not relevant to the rezoning discussion. The applicant, however, stated that although he doesn’t have a web site, he has built several commercial developments in the Mid-Atlantic region. He added that once built, the properties would be maintained by a professional property management company.
Both Supervisor Grace and Councilman Bernard stated that in the event the board did approve the rezoning to the R-3, multi-family district that allowed up to 12 units per acre, it ultimately would be up to the Planning Board to decide on the permitted number of units.
Although he asked the applicant to return with plans calling for 8 and 10 units, Supervisor Grace said that even the 12 unit plan would be an improvement to the area; he preferred the plan with the needed variances to the one rejected at an earlier meeting, that did not require any.
The applicant said he had no problem “lopping off” the end units on both buildings for a 10 unit plan.
4. Navajo Fields (Creative Living)
C.J. Diven appeared before the board asking for permission to continue using the former horse paddock portion of the site for events. He said that previous approving resolutions did not bar such use. Both Mr. Tegeder and Mr. Barber said that such use was not allowed as the previous site reviews did not include this area. While they weren’t against the use, per se, their contention was that the proposed use (use of playing fields, parking and access from Route 6N) needed to be reviewed first. When Supervisor Grace said he didn’t see any difference between the area being used for horses or “feet” as a playing field, Mr. Barber explained that the use would compact the area -- a wetlands – which could cause flooding downstream in the Jefferson Valley area. “Have we come that far that feet are a damage?” the supervisor asked?
Mr. Tegeder advised the board that after this issue was raised was a December Planning Board meeting (see below), Mr. Diven had not returned with any response.
The discussion was tabled pending Mr. Tegeder producing a copy of the approving resolution that restricted use of the horse paddock area. Supervisor Grace indicated that the Town Board would “fix” the problem so that it could be used as a playing field. He added that the access to Route 6N could also be straightened out.
5. Orchard View subdivision
The board has no problem passing along a resolution to the county that would enable the subdivision to become part of the Peekskill Sanitary Sewer District. A resolution will be drafted.
6. JCPC Holdings
In order to meet the off site mitigation requirement for the plan, Dan Ciarcia and Bruce Barber explained the plan to create a forebay on town owned land in the vicinity of the UPS building to capture sediment in the stormwater flowing from the applicant’s site. The water would then flow into the adjoining state wetlands and stream. The forebay could function as one part of a larger regional stormwater retention project that is currently under consideration as an East of Hudson (EOH)stormwater retrofit project.
Until such time as the EOH materialized, the town would be responsible for clearing out the sentiment from the forebay.
(It was not clear from the discussion exactly what the applicant’s contribution towards either the construction or ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility would be. The Town Board left it up to the Planning Board to work out the details. It was noted that the Planning Board has no problems with the overall JCPC site plan; the only outstanding issue was how to address the off sits wetlands mitigation.)
Supervisor Grace called the proposed JCPC project a symbolic one that would reaffirm the Town Board’s plans for additional commercial development. The applicant was one of the first property owners to get a sewer permit once the DEP connection moratorium was lifted last spring.
7. Furci’s Restaurant (formerly Don Tomaso’s)
Due to an oversight, the previous Don Tomaso sign was erected in the town’s right of way. The board okayed the new owner replacing the sign, of the same size, with the restaurant’s new name.
8. Front Street rezoning request
The request involves four small adjoining vacnt parcels on Front Street next to the existing single family house. The parcels are zoned for residential use, and the owner was among the first to receive sewer permits when the DEP moratorium was lifted last spring. Although the owner has obtained a building permit for a single family house, the parcel could also be developed as a mixed commercial/residential building or all commercial. The property owner said he’s open to suggestions and not adverse to assuming the risk of a commercial building; he’s willing to work with Mr. Tegeder on development/zoning options. One of the four lots involves a “paper road” shown between Front Street and the lot. The town will have to do a title search to determine ownership.
The question of when to let residents on Summit Street know about the possible rezonng and development was raised. It was decided to wait until the property owner has a better idea of how he would like to develop the site so that the residents could react to something more specific.
9. Osceola Beach
Although not on the agenda, there was a brief discussion of this property, as George Roberta, the owner, also owns the Front Street parcels that ws the subject of a rezoning discussion.
Supervisor Grace said he was not adverse to splitting the property into residential and commercial, explaining that while more commercial development might be desirable, the current residential plan would also help to upgrade the area. Citing the value of lakefront property for commercial development, Mr. Tegeder said that he still preferred to see a mixed use of the site. On the supervisor’s suggestion, he will work with Mr. Roberta to see if an alternate plan can be developed.
Mr. Roberta again advised the board that the abutting property owners were not interested in working with him on a proposed sewer line. The supervisor said that the property owners appeared to be holding out for a hoped for increase in their property values once the beach parcel was developed.
10. Draft local law on water meters
Town Attorney McDermott briefly reviewed with the board the text of a law that would require the building department to determine, at the time a residence is being sold, whether the existing water meter is adequate or should be replaced. If it needs to be replaced, the owner and buyer will decide who will pay the $275 fee. Supervisor Grace estimates that about 300 houses are sold each year; not all would necessarily require that a new meter be installed. A date for a public hearing was not set.
11. Enrichment Center rent at YCCC.
Because it was not clear exactly what discount the Center was looking for, the resolution was tabled. The supervisor will review the matter with Ms. Gspurning.
12. Additional Town Board meeting
The board will hold a final extra work session on Tuesday, March 29, at 6 pm to finish its series of meetings with department heads.
The board hired three laborers for the Highway Department.
The board referred an amended SWPP (stormwater plan) to Mr. Barber for the AIM project. No details were provided.
(Note; The "parking issues" item listed on the agenda was not discussed. No reason was provided.)