Arrowhead Estates

Section 48.13 Block 1 Lot 6
Location: Underhill Avenue, Yorktown Heights
Contact: Al Capellini
Description: :A 5-lot subdivision considered under flexibility standards on 45 acres in the R1-200 zone, which was approved by Planning Board on October 15, 2007 and reapproved on October 6, 2008.

April 7, 2008
A request for 1st 90 Day Time Extension was granted.This subdivision was approved by Resolution #07-23 dated October 15, 2007 (expiring April 12, 2008)

August 18, 2008
Request 2nd 90 Day Time Extension & Request for Development Sign
Location: Underhill Avenue, Yorktown Heights
Contact: Al Capellini, Project Attorney
Description: 5-lot subdivision approved by Planning Board Resolution #07-23 dated October 15, 2007.

The Planning Board approved the sign for the development since it met all town sign regulations. The extension, necessitated by delays in dealing with NYCDEP and the County Health Department, was granted.

October 6, 2008
Request for reapproval: This reapproval, necessitated by delays in getting Board of Health approval, was granted. Currently the DEP is considering the stormwater and pollution control plan.

January 12, 2009 work session
The applicant is currently seeking DEP and DEC approval for his plans which he expects shortly. In the meantime, he advised the board that he has not been able to sell any potential lots for the subdivision.
Mindful of the current economy, his current plan, once he gets DEP and DEC approval, is to construct the road into the site and the drainage improvements in three phases and then try to sell individual lots. This could take a few years. He advised the board that his appearance that evening was to inform them of his plans which were permissible under town code. He was aware, though that he could not sell any individual lots until the board signed the final plat (map) for the subdivision. The preliminary plan approval included an approved wetlands permit.

Planning Director John Tegeder explained that from the town's perspective the key issue was that if the owner followed the plan he was outlining to the board, there would be no performance bond for the project which could create a problem in the future if the developer walked away from the project before it was completed. Normally, a performance bond would be put up after the project received final approval and began construction. He explained that the original rationale for the performance bond was to avoid a situation whereby the developer sold some houses but then walked away from the project before the roads and drainage were completed. While he added that that scenario was not likely to happen today, there were new environmental issues that made the need for a performance bond just, if not more, important.

The applicant stated that as he did not have a track record as a developer, the cost for a performance bond, assuming he could get one in the current credit market which he doubted,, would be astronomical. Instead, he said he was willing to put up a cash $20,000 erosion control bond. However, Mr. Flynn noted that $20,000 might not be sufficient to deal with potential site problems in the event the developer walked away from the project.

As a possible resolution of the problem that addressed the applicant's needs while protecting the town's interest, Mr. Tegeder suggested that the applicant work with his engineer to develop a more detailed phasing plan and that perhaps a bond could be posted for each phase; as the work was satisfactorily completed on each phase, the bond money would be applied to a bond for the next phase.

No decision was reached.

January 26, 2009, Special Session
Mr. O'Keefe asked the Planning Board to grant the necessary town wetland and excavation permits at this time, even though the project has not yet received its DEP permit.  Supposedly the DEP permit has been conceptually approved, but not actually received.   Mr. O'Keefe is in a position where he needs to be able to accept excavated material from another project on a moment's notice and therefore wants to expedite the permitting process.  The Planning Board was reluctant to grant town permits without knowing what the DEP permits will require, because often the DEP has different requirements that have to be subsumed into the town permits.  Mr. O'Keefe argued that the town had nothing to lose since he couldn't do anything without the DEP permit anyway.  The Planning Board agreed to give the town permits pending the DEP permits, but warned that whatever the DEP required could change the bonding requirements for the project.
 
On the topic of bonding, previous meeting's discussion was resumed.  Mr. O'Keefe submitted to the Planning Board and Engineering Department detailed plans for the sequencing of the project.  Based on this the Town Engineer decided a $20,000 bond was necessary for the erosion control portion of the project.  Mr. O'Keefe thought $20,000 was excessive.   Ms. Steinberg pointed out that the $20,000 figure put out by the town engineer covered only erosion control and additional amounts would be necessary to guarantee the wetland mitigation work.  Mr. O'Keefe argued that only phase I had any wetlands encroachment so the amount of the bond should be based only on that phase, not the cost of the whole project.  Also he maintained the bond should be returned after phase I was completed.  Mr. Klaus informed Mr. O'Keefe that wetland mitigation bonds are the town's standard operating procedure and are kept for several years to insure that the mitigation works as designed, is maintained and the new plants survive.  Finally, Ms. Steinberg suggested that Mr. O'Keefe submit cost estimates for each phase and that they meet to arrive at an appropriate bond amount.  Mr. O'Keefe was agreeable to that.

February 9, 2009
The board approved the request for both an excavation and wetlands permit after the developer worked out the details for both the erosion and wetlands bonds with the town engineer.

The erosion bond will be for phases. Phase I will consist of bringing in fill and creating the stormwater retention pond. The bond for the wetlands permit will cover $4,000 worth of new plantings and the labor to install them and will remain in force for three years, which, according to Mr. Klaus, was the typical period of time needed to establish the fact that at least 80% of the plantings have survived.

April 13, 2009
The Planning Board approved a request for the 1st 90 Day Time Extension for this 5-lot subdivision approved by Resolution 07-23 dated October 15, 2007 and reapproved by Resolution 08-22 dated October 6, 2008. Progress is expected on the site with the onset of warmer weather.
June 8, 2009
Request for 2nd 90 Day Time Extension. The applicant is continuing to make progress on road construction into the proposed subdivision.  The Planning Board granted the requested extension.
 
October 5, 2009
This is a request for reapproval.  The work on this site is continuing slowing.  Mr. Tegeder said he received frequent environmental reports, and there have been no problems/violations.   Mr. Capellini pointed out that this project is under the supervision of the DEC, DEP and Department of Health because it is on a steep slope, above a stream which empties into the Croton Reservoir.  He said that even in this very rainy summer, there have no erosion problems.  The Planning Board voted to reapprove the project.