Field Home. Beardsley Architects & Engineers, the firm hired by the Town Board to prepare a conceptual plan for the adaptive reuse of the building for a boutique hotel and event space, made a preliminary presentation; a final report is expected in October. The Board’s decision to explore the hotel/event space option was based on the submissions to an earlier RFP and the Board’s decision that the hotel/event option appeared to be the most thought out and possible option to pursue.
Once the Board reviews the final plan, and if it decides to pursue the plan, the next step would be for the architect, working with his resort consultant, to market the conceptual plan to potential hotel operators.
The conceptual plan calls for the building to be converted into 21 guest rooms, a sit down restaurant with about 60 tables, and an event space in the building’s former chapel. There are also options to add 6-12 more rooms in a separate building with the goal making the potential project more desirable to potential hotel operators.
The October submission will also include a detailed report on the condition of the building structure and mechanical systems.
The main focus of the presentation was the need to adjust the preliminary lot line proposed by Toll Brothers so that the plan could include a driveway at the rear of the building. As explained by the architect, given existing fire code regulations, the rear driveway would be needed not only for the hotel use but also for other possible uses. (Note: see September 8 Planning Board meeting and Toll Brothers objection to this proposed lot line adjustment.)
See the video link below to view the architect’s slides.
Section 8. The crux of the discussion was whether the town should continue to have its own Section 8 program or eliminate the program and have its 134 Section 8 voucher allotment administered by an agency elsewhere in the county.
As explained by Sandine Nseng, the program’s director, and Comptroller Genelle MacNeil, the program currently has a roughly $60,000 deficit in its administrative budget for 2024 and 2025. While the Board agreed to use fund balance to cover those deficits, the issue left on the table was whether the town should absorb the estimated $30,000-$35,000 cost (needed to cover the director’s medical benefits) in its 2026 budget or eliminate the program; the initial decision will be up to the supervisor when he prepares his tentative 2026 budget that will be released at the end of October.
Ms. Nseng explained that 75 Yorktown residents have 62 of the 134 vouchers. In addition to making home visits to assist voucher holders, voucher holders also visit her office in the AACCC for assistance filling out paperwork and for help with other needs and Ms. Nseng keep in contract with voucher holder’s family as needed.
Cash for cans. (See Town Board, August 12, 2025.) The Board voted 4-1, with Councilman Esposito in dissent, to refer out a proposed law that would allow beverage only recycling locations in the C-4 zone that basically is limited to the Route 202 corridor. Councilman Esposito’s dissent was based on two issues: he didn’t think the use was appropriate for Route 202 and he was concerned that the proposed Quality Lawn Mower site could not safely handle the tractor trailer trucks that would be picking up the recycled items. Planning Director Tegeder explained, however, that truck access would be an issue for the Planning Board to consider as part of site plan review. He also suggested that the proposed site might have truck access from the rear of the property
RIC Battery Storage. (See Planning Board, September 8, 2025.) On a referral from the ZBA, and without any discussion, the Board unanimously voted to send a memo to the ZBA opposing the issuance of a use variance to allow a Tier 2 battery storage facility on Barger Street. (Note: the ZBA hearing is September 11.)
Recreation fee. Although not on the agenda, after a brief discussion, the Board voted 4-1 to refer out a draft recreation fee law, with Councilwoman Siegel the dissenting vote.
During the discussion Councilwoman Siegel cited a memo she had previously sent to the Board outlining a series of concerns she had with the draft law, including problems with some of the text, e.g., whether a recreation fee law could include requiring a developer to set aside land for undefined “ecological” uses and errors that resulted from a “cut and paste” process, as well as provisions she felt were needed but were missing, e.g., requiring plans to be referred to both the Recreation Commission and Town Board and not requiring a recreation fee is certain zones.
Planning Director Tegeder, who prepared the draft law, said he would edit some of the problematic text highlighted by Councilwoman Siegel but the Board felt that her other concerns did not warrant delaying the referral.
The Board deferred for a later date any discussion on the amount of the current recreation fee that is included in the Master Fee Schedule: $10,000/lot for single family houses and $4,000/unit for multi family developments.
A video of the meeting is available at
yorktownny.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=1998