After every Town Board and Planning Board meeting, I write a summary of the issues I believe are of most interest to most residents.
This new blog resumes my meeting summaries, something I did from 2012 to December, 2020. Those summaries remain online at http://www.ciyinfo.org and provide an historical record of many town issues, some of which are still current today.
The new summaries are uploaded to a different web site,
yorktownbettergovernmentorg.wordpress.com. The summaries can be accessed by
month and/or by board.
The meeting summaries below are an example of what each meeting’s summary may contain. Residents who want more information about a specific are encouraged to view the meeting videos on the town’s web site.
Note: For technical reasons that I can’t seem to get fixed despite multiple attempts, Verizon FIOS users may have an issue opening the above link. My apologies. But if you email me at [email protected], I can give you a direct link for a specific board meeting.
Town Board, May 21, 2024
Lake Osceola Overlay District: (See May 7 Town Board Meeting) Former Supervisor Michael Grace submitted an amended map for the proposed extension of the overlay district to include his client’s property, but the changes were not identified. He asked for a June public hearing on the law to extend the district. The Board appeared to support the plan which would bring sewers to the East Main Street homeowners whose septic systems abut the lake.
Doggie Day Care: Planning Director Tegeder explained he is working on a proposed law that would regulate this relatively new but popular use. The law would cover issues like the need for outdoor run space, sanitary and noise issues. (See plan for this type of use in the current Remax space at the Triangle intersection in the May 6 Planning Board meeting summary.)
Proposed cell tower on Granite Springs Road: Several residents in the area of the proposed cell tower (roughly across from Crystal Lake) spoke up during Courtesy of the Floor in opposition to the tower. They were also critical of not being informed about the project. Because the tower would be located on town parkland, the Board was considering a resolution requesting the NYS Legislature to allow the town to “alienate” the parkland in order to allow the construction of the tower. While the Board voted to send the request to Albany, Supervisor Lachterman assured the residents that the issue as not a “done deal” and that the Legislature might not approve the town’s home rule request. He also assured residents that even if the Legislature passed the alienation bill, the Town Board would still have to hold a public hearing on the plan and that their concerns could be addressed at that time. (Note: A review of Town Board minutes indicates that the project’s first presentation before the Town Board was October 12, 2021.)
Proposed Amendments to Noise Law: The Board opened the public hearing on the proposed law but adjourned it after Councilman Esposito asked for several changes dealing the allowed noise levels as well the hours when the noise level restrictions would be in effect. I asked how the law would be enforced and whether all police cars would have the required equipment to test for noise levels in response to an incoming complaint.
Nantucket Sound Mixed Use Buidling (Kear Street & Route 118): The continuing saga of how the town deals with a developer who doesn’t follow the rules. (For background, see the May 6 posting that explains how the developer made changes to the site plan without Planning Board approval.)
After learning that the Building Department lifted its Stop Work Order, the Board voted to direct Planning Director Tegeder to issue its own a Stop Work Order. And, after reviewing the original architectural plans that sited the HVAC systems on the roof, the Board determined that, in contrast to the developer’s claim, it was very likely that it would not be a financial burden to relocate the existing units to the roof. The developer has arranged for a noise test for the units. But the Board was also concerned about the how the heat generated from the units would negatively impact on residents using the abutting patio. It was also noted that the current location of the HVAC units did not conform to the town’s setback requirements.
Yorktown Green: The Board continued its review of the landscaping plan. While representatives of the owner said that new plantings in the state right-of-way along Route 118 would be sufficient to screen the rooftop HVAC systems, Board members, expressing concern over who would maintain the plantings, repeated their desire to see some type of screening on the roof. They also wanted more information about the number and size of the planned new units. Also discussed was the placement of new raised planter boxes along the sidewalk inside the shopping centerr that will contains trees and other vegetation. The monument signs at Kear St and Downing Drive have been revised to conform to the town’s size requirements. But TJ Marx will be before the Zoning Board for a variance on the size of the sign it’s proposing on the building’s front façade.
Jacob Road Solar Farm: The applicant informed the Board that the solar moratorium notwithstanding, it plans to continue processing its special permit request for a 3.125 megawatt solar farm on a 53 acre site (zoned for single family development on 4 acres), that it is part of the larger Colangelo subdivision. In response to the Board’s earlier concerns about how the array would be screened from neighboring houses, the applicant explained that he had increased the buffer to 80 ft from 25 ft and that on at least one side of the array, he would install a double row of trees. He also showed some simulations from existing houses that appeared to indicate that the array would not be visible from the houses. Board members noted that there was no visual simulation of how the array would affect the new houses approved in the subdivision but not yet constructed.
Foothill Street Subdivision: In a creative interpretation of the town’s clustering law, the applicant tried to substitute a bedroom count for a dwelling unit count. The Board did not seem to ”buy” the interpretation. Under the town’s clustering law, the applicant is required to show the likely number of dwelling units that can be built on the site. Once that number is agreed to, the developer can “shrink” the size of the individual lots in order to preserve more open space. But the lot count cannot change. Due to wetlands, the 16.8 acre lot could result in 7 dwelling units – possibly each with 3 or 4 bedrooms. But the applicant wants to build a series of about 5 attached buildings, each with multiple units, far exceeding 7, explaining that the exact number of units would depend on whether they were one or two bedroom units.
Special Election. The Board set July 23 for a special election to fill the vacant councilman seat. The winner will serve the remaining 3.5 years of the term.
Ethics Law. The Board unanimously adopted a revised Ethics Law. The new law makes a few minor changes but doesn’t address many of the comments brought up at the March 19 public hearing, including some from the Ethics Board. The “discussion” lasted all of 4 minutes with most of the time devoted to the town attorney explaining the few changes that were being made, but adding that all the issues brought up at the March 19 public hearing had been discussed. (Later in the meeting, after the Town Clerk advised the Board that it hadn’t closed the March 19 public hearing, the Board voted to close the hearing.)
Disclaimer. I’ve been fighting for a stronger Ethics Law for years. In addition to sending a detailed critique of the first draft prior to the March 19 hearing, I sent a critique of draft 2 early Tuesday morning so that Board members could review my comments before the meeting. In my memo I outlined the following shortcomings in draft 2.
-
- Multiple inadequacies for when Town Board discloses Ethics Board findings.
-
- No provision if the Ethics Board investigates a complaint and finds that no violation has taken place.
-
- No provision dealing with consequences of failing to submit a satisfactory Disclosure Form.
-
- Nothing about the right of a complainant to appear before the Ethics Board and also to be kept abreast of its investigation.
-
- No time limits for the completion of an Ethics Board investigation
And I also wrote: “Before scheduling a public hearing on Draft #2, I ask that you either make some additional changes to the draft, or, at a minimum, explain, in public, why you are rejecting so many of the public’s suggested amendments.”
ATV Law. The revised draft 4, which now deals exclusively with ATVs, bans ATVs from all public property. The Board postponed voting on the draft pending a clarification on whether the penalty provision in the law should be changed to make a violation either a misdemeanor or a civil penalty, a change suggested by a resident and the town’s two trail groups. The revised penalty provisions would make it easier for the town to enforce the law when a police officer was not able to personally observe the violation taking place.
Navajo Fields development for 254 residential units: First (July, 2023), it was a request to rezone the 50 acres (off Route 6 and east of Mahopac Avenue) from single family houses on two acres to multi family. When it became apparent that the request wouldn’t work, Michael Grace, the developer’s attorney said that a totally new zone was needed (February, 2024). And now, Grace has a third approach. Last night, he announced that he has submitted an application to the town to extend the Osceola Overlay District, approved in 2021, to include the Navajo Fields property. The District currently runs along East Main Street (aka 6N) from Hill Boulevard to Mahopac Avenue.
The argument in support of the Overlay District was the same used for the first two iterations: the plan would bring sewers to the East Main Street corridor which would be the key for the revitalization of the corridor. But if sewers were part of the proposal for a new zone, why the new request for inclusion in the overlay district? Does the latter provide more benefits to the town – or developer – than rezoning the single parcel?
To be continued…
Open Meetings Law/Town Board and Traffic Safety Committee: In response to my question when did the Town Board discuss the resolution that earmarked $6 million from the fund balance (see below for a breakdown of the $6 million) for six different types of proposed projects/expenditures, Supervisor Lachterman explained his approach to how he handles at least some issues with his colleagues on the Town Board: He said he polled individual members by phone. While this is clearly legal, is it transparent?
In response to a question about whether meetings of the town’s Traffic Safety Committee were open to the public and/or televised, Town Clerk Quast and Highway Superintendent Paganelli explained that the committee is an in-house committee, composed of two police officers, the highway superintendent, a Town Board member and one resident with experience in traffic safety issues, and that like other meetings of in-house committees e.g., meetings of department heads, these are not televised nor are they covered by the Open Meetings Law.
Future use of fund balance: The following sums were earmarked for future projects; there was no authorization to spend the funds for specific projects.
Equipment & software $500,000
Streetscape infrastructure $2,000,000 *
Parks improvements $1,000,000
Contractual $1,000,000
Medical & retirement $750,000
Buildings $750,000
-
- A streetscape plan for the Yorktown Heights hamlet was first proposed in 2022 as one of the projects to be funded from the town’s $3.7 federal ARPA money. The minutes of the Town Board’s December 5, 2023 budget hearing, include the following statement from the town comptroller: “She said that the funds would have to be encumbered by the end of next year (2024) and be spent by 2026. If the money is not spent, it would be lost.” Before the money can be encumbered, the Board would need to select a design for a specific project, advertise bid specs, and award a bid.
Traffic issues
The Board held two public hearings on proposed amendments to the existing law. Much to my surprise, what on the surface looked like they would be short routine hearings turned into lengthy discussions. And, as summarized below, both hearings had to be closed without the Board taking action.
The parking area for the golf course that parallels Route 6
The amendment would ban the overnight parking of commercial vehicles. The issue was simple until it became clear that a resident had earlier submitted a suggested clarification to the town that had been overlooked by the supervisor and town attorney. While the Board had no problem with the suggested change, in order to comply with NYS law, the Board couldn’t vote on a revised version of the amended law that night. So the hearing was closed and a new hearing will be opened once copies of a revised law are made public.
And although not related to the commercial vehicle issue, several speakers at hearing were concerned about the need to provide access from Route 6 into the parking lot for fire and ambulance vehicles. When the blocked access issue was raised last summer after the golf course opened, town staff visited the site and recommended that the area be striped to prohibit parking. But no striping has been done and the Board said that because the parking area was state land, state permission would be needed to stripe the area. There was also some confusion over whether a “no parking” sign had been installed.
Reducing speed limit on certain streets
A second hearing would reduce the speed on five streets to 20 mph. The reduction was in response to a request by area residents and had the support of the town’s Traffic Safety Committee. But the Board couldn’t vote on the law after a local resident called the Board’s attention to a section of the state’s Vehicle & Traffic law he said prohibited towns from reducing the speed limit below 25mph except in school zones. Because the town attorney said he needed time to look into the matter, the hearing was closed.