Town Board, 5/8/2012

Town Attorney Koster presented a draft local law to add recycling as a main use in an I-1 (light industrial) district. She said the draft was written by the attorney Al Capellini whose client wants to open such a facility at the Oseola Industrial Park.Ms. Koster pointed out that the I-1 section of the zoning code was in dire need of revision and was concerned that some sections dealing with the minimum size of the lots appeared to be contradictory. Planning Director Tegeder explained that while there was a 10 acre minimum for a development plan, once the plan was approved and the site subdivided into individual lots, the lots could be smaller.

Both Ms. Koster and Mr. Tegedernoted that there might be issues having a recycling facility at the site that also housed a day care facility andthe new Navajo athletic fields.Mr. Tegeder suggested that there needs to be a look at the other operations in the industrial park and what traffic is generated by them.

Acknowledging that changes in the I-1 section of the zoning code might be needed, Supervisor Grace said, “let’s get this moving” and the board voted to refer out the draft text as is for review and comment and let people have their say.

Zoning Code revisions (general)

Town Board, 5/8/2012

As an outgrowth of a discussion about the need to revise the I-1 (light industrial) district language in the zoning code, Super visor Grace noted the work that former Planning Director Ray Arnold had done to highlight sections of the code that needed to be revised. He said that former Building Inspector Bill Gregory might be a good person to work on such a review.

Indoor Recreation by special permit

Town Board, 5/8/2012

Without any discussion, the board agreed to advertise a proposed local law permitting indoor recreation by special permit in a I-1 (light industrial zone) . The change would permit a dome to be constructed on the site of the batting cage facility on Lexington Ave and Route 202.

Best Value local law 

Town Board, 5/8/2012

Without any discussion, the board agreed to advertise a proposed local law that would change how and when the board purchasedgoods and services

Supervisor Grace explained that the purpose of the proposed local law was to extend the period of time for a temporary certification of occupancy (TCO) from the current 90 days to 180 days.

Susan Siegel (the person writing these notes) spoke in opposition to the proposal law and expressed concern that 180 days, plus a 90 day extension, plus the possibility of indefinite extensions, gave the property owner legal cover to indefinitely postpone making site plan improvements that might compromise public safety issues.She said the proposed law had no criteria or standards for judging what constituted “good cause” for the town approving the issuance of a TCO.

Supervisor Grace said that in this difficult economy, a one to three month delay in a business being able to open could mean the difference between success and failure and that the town had to do something to help fill up the town’s empty stores. He said that the town would not compromise on safety issues and that the decision to issue a TCO would be made on a case by case basis making sure that all safeguards were in place.He said that in some instances more time was needed to deal with site plan issues. He cited the example of a business that has been trying to get a CO for four months for a planned change of use for an existing commercial space but was having difficulty because of a parking issue. The business is paying out rent but not getting income, he said.The longer period for a TCO would, he said, give the town another “tool in its arsenal” and allow the town to be a partner with business instead of an adversary. The town could always put conditions on the TCO or shorten the period of time, he added.

Speaking in favor of the proposed change, Councilman Paganelli said that public safety would be a primary concern and Councilman Murphy said that delays in opening were another obstacle for businesses.

Councilman Bianco said he thought a 90 day TCO was sufficient and agreed with some of the public safety concerns raised by Ms. Siegel. He wanted to add language to the law about public safety concerns but Supervisor Grace said that the proposed language about showing “good cause” was sufficient. Councilman Bianco also expressed concern that giving the board discretion to approve the TCOs could lead to decisions being made for political reasons instead of public safety, a point rejected by Councilman Paganelli.

Councilman Biancosaid that what was needed to help business were changes in the Building Department and the inability of property owners to sometimes get straight answers from the department.

In response to question from Ed Ciffone about the taxes paid by the Winery at St. George which recently was granted a TCO, Supervisor Grace said that a property’s assessment was changed when a CO for the property is issued.

The board voted 4-1, with Councilman Bianco voting no, to approve the proposed new law.

IBM Helistop/Changes in Approval Authority

Town Board, 5/15/2012

Reconvened hearing on helistop and changes in approval authority for the OB zone.

Supervisor Grace said that the helistop provisions had been redrafted and separated out into a separate local law that would be re-advertised.

On the approval authority issue, he thanked those who attended the May `1^st hearing and said their comments were “instructive” and “enlightening.” Going forward, he said the board will consider approving a resolution that will mandate the Planning Board to refer certain development applications to the Town Board.When Councilman Bianco said that the Town Board already has the ability to do that, Supervisor Grace said that a resolution would make it clearer.

Based on the above discussion, the board voted unanimously to close the public hearing and reject the proposed local law.

Helistop Special Permit

Town Attorney Koster explained that she had made revisions to the text to add helistops as a permitted special permit use in OB districts and that she had separated out the helistop text from the changes in approval authority for the OB district.The new version reduces the distance the helistop can be from a residence to 250 feet from 500 feet. She said that IBM wanted the ability to use the helistop at night and some language may have to be added. In Armonk, one night flight per month is allowed and no later than 9pm. The Somers facility does not allow night flights.Supervisor Grace said the use was benign and not an issue. Because the text of the local law has changed, it will be renoticed for a new public hearing.

Changes in Approval Authority

Supervisor Grace started the hearing by explaining that the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance had two distinct parts: A textual change that would establish a special permit to allow helistops in OB zones, and changes in the regulations governing OB zones in general that would shift approval authority for site plans in OB zones from the Planning Board to the Town Board. He explained that in 1994, the Town Board transferred approval authority for the OB zone, and other zones, from the Town Board to the Planning Board.

Explaining that the Board could adopt the proposed amendments as a whole, or as two separate amendments, he asked speakers at the hearing to address each part separately.

Helistop special permit

Supervisor Grace read a memo from the Planning Board that highlighted some technical corrections that had to be made in the text. A memo from IBM distinguished a helistop, which is for the purpose of people getting on and off the helicopter, and a heliport which includes fueling and maintenance of helicopters. Ray Arnold pointed out that while the text of the proposed amendments spoke about helistops, the definition of a helistop included heliport type functions.

Michael Byrnes who lives near the IBM facility expressed concern over the safety of the helistop and reminded the Board about the recent plan that landed on the IBM site.He also expressed concern about the noise from the rotors.John Schroeder said that the helistop was in conflict with the original design of the building.

Change in Approval authority

Most of the comments dealt with this proposed change. All the speakers were opposed to the change.

At different times during the hearing, and in part in response to questions raised by Evan Bray asking what was behind the Board’s desire to change the current practice, Supervisor Grace explained his reasoning behind the change. He said he believed that the Town Boards hould have the final say over “critical development parcels” because the Board was more responsive and accountable to the public than the Planning Board. It’s to be more responsive to your needs, he said.

In response to comments from Paul Moskowitz who was against the change, Councilman Murphy read from an undisclosed source that in 1994 Mr. Moskowitz objected to transferring the approval authority to the Planning Board because he felt that the Town Board was more accountable to the people. At the end of the hearing, Mr. Moskowitz spoke again saying that after 18 years he had changed his mind.

Supervisor Grace said that giving the Town Board approval authority did not mean that the Planning Board would be eliminated from the process. He said that both boards would work closely together.

He also said that the Town Board can do a better job of bargaining” with applicants to help pay for needed infrastructure improvements, a point Councilman Bianco disputed, saying that “we (the Town Board) never got a good bargain, which he said, was the reason the Town Board changed approval authority in 1994. (See Aaron Bock comments below.)

Former Town Supervisor Aaron Bock explained why, under his administration, the Town Board made the 1994 approval authority changes. It wasn’t, he said, to escape responsibility, but rather to leave planning decisions to the technical experts – the people who were best able to do the job, and also to avoid duplication with the work done by the Planning Board. He said the Town Board should focus on planning issues, not technical issues and that if they took on site plan approvals, they would lose time that should be devoted to policy issues which is where the Town Board was accountable.

Several additional speakers made the following l points:

• All expressed confidence that the Planning Board had been doing, and would continue doing a good job, and some said that they didn’t always trust the Town Board, although they did not cite any specific Town Board member or planning issue.
• That the Town Board didn’t know what it was getting into in terms of the time commitment associated with site plan review and that future Board meetings could last well into the night. “Be careful what you wish for,” one person said.
• Delegation of responsibility. Jennie Sunshine asked Councilman Paganelli , the owner of a restaurant, if he would tell his chef how to run his kitchen. The best management, she said, was when you know how to delegate and have the best people do the job.
• Patti Peckham expressed concern that granting the Town Board approval authority would set a precedent for additional similar changes.
• John Schroder and Olivia Buehl challenged Supervisor’s Grace “bargaining” argument . Mr. Schroeder said that in his 40 years of monitoring Town Board and Planning Board meetings, he felt that the Planning Board had done some good “bargaining.” Ms. Buehl noted that if an applicant wasn’t asking for anything special, there was nothing to bargain over. She also asked why, if the Town wanted to be developer friendly, the Town would want to throw road blocks in a developer’s way.
• Speaking of the need for stability and continuity in the planning process, several speakers noted that Town Board members have short “shelf lives” of two to four yearswhile Planning Board members serve five year terms. Planning Board member John Flynn said that many applications span many years so that new Town Board members may not be familiar with the past history of a project.
• Several speakers expressed concern over the duplication involved in having the Town Board review what had already been reviewed by the Planning Board. Former Planning Board and Town Board member Greg Bernard (who voted for the 1994 change) said that the potential duplication of effort ran counter to the Town’s goal of streamlining the approval process.
• Mr. Flynn addressed the issue of political responsiveness, noting that the Town Board decisions could be colored by upcoming elections. Public opinion, he said, could be erroneous.
• Mark Levine, explaining that he is a lawyer who does work for developers, said that his clients would love the new law.

The Board voted to adjoin the hearing.

Acting on a referral from the Town Board, the Planning Board discussed proposed legislation that would transfer approval authority for site plans in OB zones from the Planning Board to the Town Board. The proposed legislation would also establish a special permit for a helipad in the OB zone.

Councilman Dave Paganelli, the Town Board’s liaison to the Planning Board, attended the meeting and participated in the board’s discussion. Asked why the Town Board was considering the change, Mr. Paganellil said that some members of the board thought the change would provide some relief for developers of commercial projects and that these types of projects were important to provide tax relief to homeowners. He also talked about how the current board wants to counter the impression that Yorktown is not business friendly.He added that he has been advised by former Planning Board Chairman David Klaus who was a personal friend that the change would not speed up the approval process as the development plans would have to be referred to the Planning Board for review even if the Town Board has the final approval authority. He said that Mr. Klaus had also expressedconcern that the shift to the Town Board ran the risk of politicizing the approval process.

Referring to the perception that Yorktown has not been friendly to new business ventures, Mr. Paganelli told the board that after observing how the board had handled the applications earlier in the evening, he thought that the perception might not translate into reality. “You’ve been extremely accommodating and dilligent to their concerns,” he said.

Planning Board members appeared to be unanimously opposed to the change which they thought would politicize the approval process, a point Mr. Paganellil agreed was a potential issue. Mr. Flynn advised Mr. Paganelli to consider the case of the Wallauer project in Mohegan Lake and how it was the Town Board that obstructed the project, not the Planning Board.The Town Board, he suggested, might “put its finger to the wind” when considering a project.

Mr. Savoca expressed concern that the change for the OB district might set a precedent for subsequent requests for other zones. He added that while developers might lobby individual Town Board members, they did not approach Planning Board members individually on behalf of their projects.“We’re an independent body and an objective buffer,” he added.

Ms. Kutter pointed out that Planning Board members are required to attend special training classes and wondered if Town Board members would have the time to attend such classes.

Mr. Fon noted that the Planning Board’s job was to approve responsible development and that the board was not pro or anti business.He also expressed concern that the Town Board might not review a site plan as carefully as the Planning Board does.

The Planning Department will draft a response to the Town Board, but also, Mr. Fon will reach out to the Town Board to suggest that he attend a work session to discuss the issue further.

The board voted to refer proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance relating to the OB zone and a special permit for helipads in an OB zone to the appropriate agencies and boards for their review. For a copy of the proposed legislation, go to: http://www.yorktownny.org/townclerk/pending-legislation

The board briefly discussed a proposed draft of legislation that would establish a special permit for the construction of a helipad in an OB zone. The legislation would make the Town Board the approval authority for the permit and also change the existing law to give the Town Board the approval authority for all site plans in OB zones. Current site plan authority is with the Planning Board.

Planning Director Tegeder advised the board that there are currently only three OB zones in town: the IBM site, the old Mercy College site on Strang Blvd., and Contractor’s Register in Jefferson Valley. He added that his department has had ongoing discussions with the owners of the Mercy College site for the reuse of one of the buildings. Also, Contractor’s Register, which recently expanded its parking lot, has long range plans for additional development on its property.

Town Attorney Koster said that she had copied the technical aspects of the helipad special permit from codes in North Castle and Somers.

The board voted to refer the proposed local law to appropriate advisory boards and agencies. (It was not clear if the board also agreed to advertise the proposed law for a public hearing.)

Town Board, 2/14/2012

While not a specific item on the agenda, the discussion with IBM over two proposed projects on its current site, which is zoned OB1, led to a discussion of whether the authority for approving major projects should be taken away from the Planning Board and given to the Town Board.

Supervisor Grace said he favored giving the Town Board the authority for “critical” projects. Past boards, he said, gave up that responsibility because they didn’t want to deal with politically controversial projects. Councilman Paganelli expressed concern that moving approval authority to the Town Board would politicize the process. He feared that a Town Board might favor a project today but that two years from now a new board might quash a project. The Planning Board, he said, doesn’t have a political agenda.

All board members agreed to discuss the issue further when a full board was present.