York Farms Estates. (See Planning Board, February 9, 2026) Most of the comments at the Public Informational Hearing focused on the required 10 affordable units. The applicant explained that four affordable units are currently being rented and that he would work with the Community Housing Board to develop a plan for the other six units that would conform with Chapter 300-39, the town’s Affordable Housing Law that regulates already approved affordable units. The Board had no issues with legalizing the four additional units that did not have COs. The Board advised the applicant that he should hold off applying to the Zoning Board for the needed square footage variance until the Planning Board resolves the affordable housing issue. The hearing was adjourned pending resolution of the affordable housing issue.
Jacob Road solar farm. (See Planning Board, February 9, 2026) At the public hearing several residents of the Glassbury development and neighboring Cortlandt voiced objection to the plan which they felt did not belong in their residential neighborhood. They also raised issues concerning drainage. In a memo, the Fire Commissioners raised concern about adequate access for fire trucks. Noting that there were “significant issues” that remained unresolved, the Board adjourned the hearing so that it could do what Chairman Fon called its “homework.” Board member Reardon requested clarification on how the future decommissioning cost was calculated.
Fieldstone Manor. (See Planning Board, February 9, 2026) The Recreation Commission has advised the Board that the town no longer needs the recreation facilities proposed in 2016 and instead wants money in lieu of the facilities. The Board now has to determine how to calculate the monetary value of what was supposed to be constructed. The Superintendent of Parks & Recreation has advised the Board that based on recent bids for upgrades to existing recreation facilities, the proposed Fieldstone improvements would cost an estimated $300,000. The applicant, however, said that based on a conversation he had with Supervisor Lachterman and the town attorney, he should only pay what would have been a $144,000 recreation fee which would have been in lieu of the land donation and new facilities. But, in separate comments, the applicant challenged the validity of the 2019 deed that gave the town ownership of the parcel and also said that based on the original approval resolution that said he was supposed to build the facilities, he could build them now. (Note: the 2016 approval resolution did not include detailed plans for the recreation facilities. The approved site plan only included an illustration of where they would be built.)
Given the conflicting statements, the Board said it first wanted something in writing from the town attorney as to ownership. Once that issue is resolved and assuming the parcel is owned by the town, the Board can then negotiate a settlement over the value of the unbuilt recreation facilitites.
Adding another unknown issue, two Board members wanted to know how much money the applicant has realized by renting out the land as a commercial parking lot.
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. (See Town Board March 10, 2026) On a referral from the Town Board, Board members had no issue with shifting the authority to issue a TCO for up to 12 months to the building inspector from the Town Board, but did raise concerns that the amendment was overbroad and that there were no provisions in the proposed amendment that assured that Planning Board conditions were being complied with before the TCO was issued. They asked the Planning Department to come up with some suggestions in a memo to the Town Board.
For a video of the meeting click
yorktownny.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2088