Underhill Farms. (See January 13, 2025 Planning Board and January 21 Town Board for background.) After the Board opened the public hearing on the proposed subdivision, the applicant explained how the terms of the open space easement that will guarantee public access to the pond area will be honored by a future Property Owner’s Association (POA). Planning Director Tegeder advised the Board of the importance of making sure that all the provisions in the approved site plan can and will be enforced by the separate owners of the subdivided property. This can be done, he said, by adding notations to the signed site plan (the “plat”) and also in the resolution approving the subdivision. He also advised the Board that it should see a draft POA agreement and the cross easements between the two owners before voting on the subdivision application. Another option is for the Board to grant a “conditional approval” which would give the applicant additional time to complete the documents to the Board’s satisfaction.
Although the applicant argued that delaying the subdivision approval until the Board reviewed the POA and other documents would slow down his next steps, e.g., drafting the prospectus for the condominiums, the Board decided to wait for the additional information. And, because the Board was still waiting for comments on the subdivision request from other entities, the Board voted to adjourn the hearing rather than close it. In the meantime, the applicant was advised to work with staff on an approval resolution and the notations that would have to be added to the signed site plan.
Jacob Road Solar Farm. At the request of Chairman Fon, Councilman Esposito updated the Board on the recent Town Board discussion about possible changes to the Solar Law. Without going into details, Mr. Esposito advised the Planning Board that as of yet there was no clear direction of where the Board was headed.
The applicant advised the Board that he would not be submitting an updated visual impact report until the Town Board resolved the setback issue. (The current plan assumes a 100’ setback but the Town Board may consider increasing that to 200’.) In the meantime, the applicant presented an updated decommissioning plan and additional studies showing that the plan would have no significant adverse impacts on wildlife that would warrant a more detailed Draft Environmental Impact Study. In response to the applicant’s comments about the plan’s benefits to Yorktown resident, e.g., a locally generated source of electricity, Mr. Bock said that SEQRA only required the Board to look at significant adverse impacts and not to balance adverse impacts against benefits.
Ms. Reardon asked several questions about the decommissioning plan and how the amount of the bond could be updated over time to reflect increased costs. She also asked the applicant what herbicides would be used to control weeds; the applicant said that decision had not been made yet.
For a video of he enyire meeteing, visit
https://yorktownny.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1912 video of the entire meeting, visit