Underhill Farms. (See Town Board April 7, 2026) In response to comments about the status of the Underhill Avenue improvements and continued traffic safety concerns, Supervisor Lachterman noted that new temporary striping had been applied and that the final striping would be done when the remaining work is completed, which he said should be by Memorial Day. He noted that some COs had been issued for the development.
When a resident noted during Public Comment that according to the Planning Board’s approval resolution, all road improvements had to be made before a CO was issued, Mr. Lachterman said that the road only had to be “functioning” and not that all the required improvements had to be made.
Although the Board has not yet voted on the new amendments to the Tempoary Certificate of Occupancy law, Councilwoman Siegel said that a TCO should not be issued until all the improvements were completed.
Pool openings. Supervisor Lachterman announced that the Shrub Oak pool will open June 20 and the Junior Lake pool over the Memorial Day weekend. The upgrade to the Shrub Oak pool should be completed later this month.
Meeting agendas. Several residents expressed frustration that the Board’s final agenda was not available until late in the afternoon. Supervisor Lachterman said he would try to make them available earlier. Councilmen Gilbert and Siegel, both former supervisors, noted that they had gotten their agendas out earlier.
485b Committee Guidelines. (See Town Board, April 28 2026) Listed on the agenda for the purpose of a “discussion,” Councilwoman Siegel read off the list of suggested guidelines she had shared with her colleagues several weeks ago. She suggested that the committee explore whether the incentive was still needed, and if so, should it be applied townwide or only to certain hamlets and whether it should be available to all commercial developments or only certain types, e.g., retail, office, warehouse, etc. She also suggested that the committee’s final report and recommendations be grounded on data it had collected and analyzed and not just opinions.
The rest of the Board appeared to agree with Ms. Siegel’s suggestions, although Councilman Esposito added that the committee should also consider some subjective issues and Supervisor Lachterman raised the issue how much money the town and school district gained from new development. (Ms. Siegel’s guidelines included a fiscal analysis of the impact of the existing 485b incentives.) Ms. Siegel also suggested setting a soft deadline for when the committee should submit its report.
As the Board took no action, it remained unclear if any guidelines, or a report deadline, would be given to the committee.
Proposed moratorium on multi family housing. In a discussion of the need for a moratorium, most Board members had no problem with the concept which they said would give the Board time to review the impact of already approved developments, especially on the town’s infrastructure. Councilwoman Siegel was the only one who saw no need for a moratorium – which she said was a total surprise to her as the idea had not been broached earlier. She noted that all new multi family developments were the result of rezonings – which the Town Board controlled – and if they thought that the existing infrastructure could not handle a new development, they didn’t even have to entertain the rezoning request.
Supervisor Lachterman said that he wanted any proposed moratorium to also include single family subdivisions of 6 or more units – again for the same infrastructure impact reasons. In response, Ms. Siegel said that if the parcel was already zoned for single family houses, the Planning Board through the SEQRA process, already had the tools to assess a development’s impact on existing infrastructure and if and when appropriate, require mitigation.
Ms. Siegel noted, and Councilman Esposito agreed, that any discussion of the pending Affordable Housing Set Aside Law (see below) was separate and distinct from the moratorium issue.
There was no discussion of a moratorium on commercial development.
Planning Director Steinberg advised the Board that the in-house committee reviewing the goals in the current Comprehensive Plan has been meeting about every two weeks. She said it was not uncommon for a town to adopt a moratorium when it was in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan.
No decision was made.
Granite Knolls. The Board voted 4-1 to hire Site Design Consultants to prepare the specs for the paving of the parking lot at a cost not to exceed $5,800. Explaining her no vote, Councilwoman Siegel said she supported paving the lot but believed that the Engineering Department should do the specs. She noted that when the Board added a second professional engineer to the department at a cost of about $200,000 (salary plus benefits) one of the reasons was that preparing design specs could be done in-house in order to save money. In response, Supervisor Lachterman said the Engineering Department was busy with other projects and that Site Design Consultants had done some preliminary work on the paving as part of the original Granite Knolls plan.
Ms. Siegel also noted that if the Board has pursued a solar canopy over the parking lot with a new vendor, the vendor would have paved the lot at its expense – and the solar would have generated revenue for the town. When she asked what the estimated cost of the paving would be, Supervisor Lachterman had no answer.
Cell Tower. (See Town Board April 28, 2026) In an item not on the agenda, the Board voted to refer out a proposed moratorium on telecommunications facilities. The issue was raised by Councilwoman Siegel at the end of the meeting during the new “Old/New Business” portion of the agenda.
During Public Comment, a resident asked that the Board take action to rescind the state’s alienation approval. Councilwoman Siegel was the only Board member who responded, saying she had not objection to rescinding the resolution which was based on the cell tower plan, adding that the Board could always consider a new aliention request if a future need arose that was considered to be in the public interest.
Public Hearing Notice. During the “Old/New Business” portion of the agenda, Councilwoman Siegel raised the issue of the need for more public notice when hearings are adjourned. Currently, because our law only requires that the date of the initial hearing be advertised, residents do not always know when a hearing is being reconvened.
The town attorney suggested that instead of amending the existing public notice law, it be left up to each board, e.g., Town, Planning and Zoning, to announce the date an adjourned hearing at the same time they vote to adjourn the hearing. The Board agreed with the suggestion.
Whitehill Road. Supervisor Lachterman said the town would be hiring an outside engineer to design the replacement of the existing culvert. The announcement follows Councilwoman Siegel calling attention to an email from Highway Superintendent Paganelli at the April 7 meeting about the need to replace culvert repairs on four roads before they collapse and the road/s had to be closed.
While Ms. Siegel supported moving ahead with the design plans, she repeated that she felt the design work could be done in-house.
Affordable Housing Set Aside Law. (See Town Board, April 14, 2026) During the “Old/New Business” portion of the agenda, Councilwoman Siegel, noting that all referral comments on the law were due May 6, requested that the Board set a June date for a hearing on the law. The Board declined to take action until after the May 6 deadline.
For a video of the meeting, click yorktownny.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=2108