Citizens for an Informed Yorktown

Planning Board, 4/17/2012

The discussion centered on the future ownership and use of the 32 ac. site that abuts the proposed new independent living units. Mr. Capellini said the Fieldhome preferred to retain ownership of the site and designate it as a conservation easement.

The Town holds a 20 year lease (which is approaching its end) on a 2.5 ac. soccer field within the 32 acres. The Planning Board, especially Mr. Fon and Mr. Kincart, emphasized what an important resource this field is for younger age group travelling teams in the Town’s three soccer clubs (AYSO, YAC, YYSC) and hoped the field would continue to be available and could be upgraded. There was discussion about exactly what is included in “upgrading”, because “improvements” are not allowed under the terms of the current lease. Mr. Ahearne, Fieldhome CEO, was concerned about the magnitude of upgrades proposed and potential negative impacts of soccer games on Fieldhome residents and neighbors on Glassbury Ct. According to Mr. Fon, the age group using the field is low-impact usage. The proposed upgrades include widening the field to regulation size, improving drainage, fencing to protect the field and parking. This seemed acceptable to Mr. Ahearne, especially parking spaces which would alleviate the congestion of cars parked on the road. He was specifically opposed to seating, lighting and bathrooms. The Planning Board assured him that none of these improvements were under consideration. Mr. Ahearne also wanted a definition of the hours the field would be in use. In general, the games will be on weekends between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm and practices will be during the week, Spring and Fall, but the Recreation Commission and soccer clubs will be consulted for specifics.

Mr. Flynn asked if the soccer field could be relocated to minimize its impact on the neighbors. Mr. Riina, project engineer, said it could, but would require much more land disturbance.

Ms. Kutter asked about the status of a forest management plan for the remainder of the conservation easement. This could be part of the language establishing the easement, according to Ms. Wagner.

Mr. Capellini asked about a model for the language of the conservation easement. Mr. Tegeder suggested using the Cappelli property on Barger St. Mr. Capellini will write a draft which the Planning Board will review before sending to the Town Attorney.

The board unanimously voted to declare itself lead agency for SEQRA and issued a negative declaration. It then proceeded to approve the site plan, tree, wetlands and stormwater permits.

The future legal status of the 32 acres that includes the soccer field and which will remain open space will be discussed at a subsequent work session that will involve the Town Board and the Recreation Commission.Options include deeding the land to the Town, having the Field Home deed only the future development rights to the Town, or putting a conservation easement on the land.

Mr. Flynn updated the board on a meeting of the Recreation Commission that he attended along with a representative of Yorktown Youth Soccer.At the meeting, the soccer group raised four issues regarding the field, only some of which involve the Planning Board

     1. the desire for an extension of the current lease from the Field Home

     2. concern over poor drainage at one end of the field

     3. the need to expand the size of the parking area

     4. the need to expand the size of the field by about 20’ in width and 10’ in length.

Joe Riina of Site Design Consultants, the engineers for the project, explained that the amount of runoff from the Field Home site onto the field will decrease after the construction as much of the current flow from the Field Home will be captured and channeled into the new project’s stormwater system and away from the soccer field.

As for the expansion of the field, Mr. Flynn noted that any expansion would likely need extensive grading, and Al Capellini, the project’s attorney, raised the issue of how the residents of both the Field Home and the Glassbury condominiums might perceive any expansion.

Planning Board, 3/26/2012

The board reviewed a draft of the decision statement which, with a few minor changes, will be voted on at the next meeting.One of the additions to the statement will be the condition that the Field Home maintain that portion of the original Field Home building that is shown on the site plan. The town’s desire to preserve a portion of the building was identified during initial discussions between the Planning Department and the applicant, with the latter having no problem accommodating the town’s goal.

In response to Ms. Kutter’s question regarding how the proposed independent living facility differed from Trump Park, attorney Al Capellini said that the latter was a condo that was built at the wrong economic time. Mr. Ahearne added that based on the home’s extensive market studies, the home was confident that there was a market for what it was proposing. “We have to succeed,” he said, as we’re a not-for-profit organization.

Mr. Capellini asked to board to give Mr. Ahearne some sense of assurance that if the project didn’t start construction within the required time frame, that the board will grant site plan extensions. Mr. Flynn responded that to the best of his knowledge the board has never refused any extension and that some projects have gotten three or four extensions. The Field Home still needs approval from several health oriented state agencies.

Once the Planning Board approves the site plan, the applicant will have to get DEP approval.The applicant has not had any substantive contact with DEP up to this point in time.

The board convened a public hearing on the project.

Consultants from the development team presented an overview of the project, including the new buildings, traffic, architecture, and drainage issues. John Ahearne, Fieldhome CEO explained that the proposed Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), which has been a work in progress for 2 ½ years, will be a win-win for the Fieldhome, assuring its future economic viability and also for the community by addressing a need for local residents. He noted that there are only two other CCRCs in Westchester and 11 in New York State.

The project includes 101 units of 1 and 2 bedroom independent living, a connected building with a dining room, fitness center and other amenities, a new nursing home building that will have only 96 beds compared to the current 202 beds (the old building will be demolished once the new facility is built and the old site converted to lawn) and a relocated day care center for the same number of children. A portion of the original Field Home Building, currently used for administrative offices, will be restored and retained.A second entrance to the site will be constructed north of the existing entrance. The site will have 278 parking space and 40 garage units. A rear service road will encircle all the buildings. A total of 284 new trees will be planted, plus additional landscaping. The existing old house along Catherine St will be demolished and not replaced.

Joe Riina of Site Design Consultants explained the variety of drainage measures that he said were above and beyond what was required and which would reduce any downstream flooding. The measures will include bio retention areas, an infiltration area, some porous pavement and a reconstructed retention pond.In response to questions from residents from Glasbury Court about what would happen if the retention pond overflowed, he explained that any overflow would be captured in a channel that would flow to the north of the property (away from Glasbury).

A 32 acre portion of the site will either be deeded to the town or a conservation easement placed on the site that will preclude any future development. A portion of the site includes a soccer field that the town has been using. The future legal status of this site and whether the town will want to take title to the property will require further discussion with the Town Board and Recreation Commission.Because some of the existing trees along the edge of the soccer field will have to be removed as part of the construction, the applicant will replant new trees or shrubs.

Phil Grealy, a traffic engineer with John Collins Engineers, reviewed the traffic impact from the proposed development along Catherine Street and eight affected intersections.He estimated that traffic would increase by about 30-50 trips during peak am and pm hours. As part of this report, he is recommending that the applicant work with the highway department on a combination of signage/road stripping/pruning improvements for the Old Crompond Rd and Catherine St and Old Crompond and Garden Lane intersections. In response to concerns from Glasbury residents about the narrow width of Catherine St, it was explained that the width varied from 19 feet to about 24 feet at different parts of the road and that it appeared that the road had been narrowed at its northern end, possibly in order to deter speeding. He also suggested that stripping along the curb would help. His report also included conceptual improvements to Garden Lane which is owned 1/3 by the town (southern end) and 2/3 by private owners. Any future improvements would require cooperation with the current owners, he said.

Concern was also expressed about the school buses to Panas HS that use Catherine St.The problem of parking along Catherine St when the soccer field is in use was also raised.

In response to Mr. Flynn’s questions about the availability of public transportation for the home’s workforce, Mr. Grealy said that there was public transportation along Route 202 but that he didn’t think there was sufficient usage to warrant public transportation along Catherine St. Also, there will likely be a decrease in thesize of the work force once the new smaller nursing home facility is built.

In terms of process and next steps, it was explained that the town engineer cannot finalize her comments regarding the project’s stormwater plan until the DEP has finished its review and that would not happen until the Planning Board issued a negative declaration.

The hearing was closed and the comment period left open until the board’s next meeting.

Planning Board, 2/13/2012

The applicant needs a setback variance on the north side for the site for garages and a building.The Planning Board has no objection to this and will indicate so in a letter to the Zoning Board.With respect to the SEQR classification, the Board determined the project is unlisted.

Planning Board, 1/23/2012

Since the previous appearance before the Planning Board, the applicant has reviewed the memo from staff, the Conservation Board, ABACA and has met with the Tree Conservation Advisory Commission.

According to the applicant, ABACA was okay with relocating the garages back to the original location but did request additional plantings, as well as additional plantings to act as a buffer to the abutting soccer field. The group also requested a change in the roof line.  The Tree Commission was also okay with the mitigation plan for the proposed tree removal as well as the plan for the additional plantings.

Planning Director John Tegeder advised the board that the following issues needed additional review and discussion:

1. A previous agreement with the neighboring 64-unit Glasbury condominium community over whether it had or should have any priority in purchasing the new units and access to the facilities at the Field Home. Mr. Tegeder noted that Glasbury was built under the same zoning  and as part of an earlier sharing agreement between the Field Home and the developer of Glasbury. That agreement may need to be changed now, he suggested, because of changing circumstances. John Ahearn, Field Home CEO, indicated that this would not be a problem.

2. Steep slopes. Mr. Tegeder wanted some clarification as to whether the disturbances to steep slopes was a result of creating new steep slopes or disturbing existing ones.

3. Emergency services. Mr. Tegeder wanted to know if the applicant had heard back from the police and fire departments. In response, the applicant stated that despite a letter and several phone calls, they had not heard from the Police Department and that the Fire Department had said it would be sending a letter but that none had been received to date.

4. Market study.  Citing the marketing problems of another “apartment like” building in another part of town that has not been able to sell its units, Mr. Tegeder asked for more information about the applicant’s market studies, especially whether potential buyers would be interested in apartment like living in an otherwise rural bucolic town. In response Mr. Ahearn noted that there was a difference between the service oriented building being proposed for Field home and the other apartment like senior building in Yorktown.

The applicant will return to the Planning Board after it has addressed all the comments from town staff and advisory boards.