Town Board, August 13, 2024

Note: Councilwoman Haughwout was on Zoom. Councilman Esposito was absent.

Another proposed senior development:  The Board heard a conceptual presentation for a proposed144 unit senior 1 and 2-bedroom rental development on 21 acres on East Main  Street in Mohegan, across the road from the old stone church reaching back to Strawberry Road. According to the developer, the project would be “unique” in that it would include a “wellness center” — which sounded like a cross between a clubhouse and a commercial venture where physical therapists and other medical services would provide services to the residents.   Currently zoned for half-acre development, the site would have to be rezoned.  Access would be from Route 6 (the developer acknowledged this could be an uphill climb with the state DOT) with emergency-only access to Strawberry Road.

Comments from the Board focused primarily on traffic and I asked for clarification about the proposed wellness center.

Route 6 traffic study: The discussion about a proposed new development on Route 6 triggered a broader discussion about the need for a comprehensive study of traffic in the Route 6 corridor, an issue that was brought up at Monday’s Planning Board meeting. Board members supported the idea and directed Planning Director John Tegeder to put together some options on how the study could be done and also to reach out to Cortlandt and the DOT about possibly participating in a study.

Field Home.  The Board directed the planning department to draft an RFP (Request for Proposal) that would explore adaptive reuse options for the historic building. Supervisor Lachterman and I both made it clear that the town should not own the building in the long term. At my suggestion, the RFP should be ready by the first Board meeting in October.

Housing. Ken Belfer and Sarah Wilson of the Community Housing Board made a presentation on the town’s efforts to promote affordable housing dating back to the late1980s to the present, with some steps forward and others backward.  After highlighting the need for both diverse housing options for different demographic groups and the need for affordably priced rental and for-sale housing, they outlined several initiatives the town could take to provide that housing, including amending the existing accessory apartment law and adopting a set-aside law.  The Board thanked the Housing Board for the presentation but didn’t commit to pursuing any option.

Solar Law. The Board voted to refer a revised version of the law to its advisory boards for comments. The proposed amendments increase the setback from 100 ft to 200 ft and have more definition and verbiage regarding buffering and screening.  With the moratorium ending on September 30th, it was not clear if the Board could hold a hearing and vote on the draft before then; if not, it will need to hold a public hearing to extend the moratorium.

I made it clear that in my opinion the draft amendments did not adequately address the need for the law to include a better balance between the two competing goals of solar and preserving the many valuable functions of woodlands. In response to my comments, Mr. Tegeder said that any comparison between the value of solar and woodlands would have to quantify the values provided by trees.  I also suggested that the law lower the allowed percentage of land that could be disturbed and requiring the screening to be from the residential property line, not the residential structure. I also suggested that requests for large-scale solar farms should be considered a rezoning request and that each parcel should be looked at on a parcel-by-parcel basis instead of the current practice that allows them “as of right” subject to a special permit.

Battery Storage. The Board referred to a proposed moratorium on new applications for a battery storage facility. One was approved a few years ago on Gomer Court (not Gomer Street) in Jefferson Valley.