Documents › Planning Board, 2026-09-22

minutes 3 pages Scanned/OCR — text may contain errors

The draft September 8, 2026 Planning Board minutes describe discussion and suggested revisions to proposed Local Law Introductory No. 13 on site-development review. They also record postponement of the 66 Emerson Avenue accessory-dwelling application and approval of amended July 28 minutes; this attachment retains its draft label.

DRAFT Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 8, 2026 8:00 p.m. PRESENT: Rob Luntz, Chairperson John Ghegan Geoffrey Haynes Seyed Hosseini Steve Krisky ALSO PRESENT: Vincent Salanitro, P.E., Village Engineer Jeannette Koster, Village Attorney Len Simon, Village Board Trustee & Planning Board Liaison Stacey Nachtaler, Village Board Trustee & Planning Board Liaison Bill Brady, Principal Planner, Nelson Pope Voorhis ABSENT: Stacey Nachtaler, Village Board Trustee & Planning Board Liaison 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luntz called the Planning Board meeting of September 8, 2026, to order at 8:00 p.m. 2. NEW BUSINESS a) Morales, Alex & Dorothy — Application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit — 66 Emerson Ave. (79.5-4-60) Chairman Luntz advised the audience that this application for an accessory dwelling unit has been postponed and would not be heard by the Planning Board this evening. b) Referral from Village Board of Trustees to review Local Law Introductory No. 13 of 2026, the CAF and EAF to amend Chapter 230, Zoning, of the Village Code to provide clarification in the review of site development plans by the Planning Board. Chairman Luntz began by stating that he appreciated the way the local law was marked up and the thorough review from Nelson Pope Voorhis. Bill Brady stated that New York State recently changed requirements for housing development proposals and now new housing developments up to 100 units are exempt from SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) reviews. Bill Brady said that this change was part of the 2026-2027 Enacted State Budget. The Village’s Local Law Introductory No 13 of 2026 is meant to enable Village Boards to continue reviewing impacts of new developments on the environment, traffic, community services, etc. in the Village, puts checklists in place, and slides some SEQR requirements into the Village Code. Jeannette Koster said that with this proposed law, consistency with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan is codified. The Planning Board thought that in Section 230-70 (B)(1) The word “Conformance” should be changed to “Consistency.” And that Section 230-70(B)(2) should say “Consistency with the Complete Streets Policy.” Geoffrey Haynes inquired about Section 230-68 of the Village Code which states “Prior to the submission of a formal site development, the applicant should meet in person with the Planning Board and/or its designated representative to discuss the proposed site development plan so that the necessary subsequent steps may be undertaken with a clear understanding of the Board's attitude and requirements 1 in matters relating to site development,” and Vincent Salanitro said that this pre-submission meeting is typically with the Village Engineer, but offered that if a representative of the Planning Board would like to attend, they could try to work that out. Chairman Luntz said that the Engineering Office has generally handled the pre-submission meeting and Chairman Luntz said he would leave this up to the discretion of the Engineering Office. Vincent Salanitro said that he would reach out accordingly. Steve Krisky asked if the Village Manager was involved in these meetings and the Village Engineer said that he was not. When asked if members of the Board of Trustees or the Village Manager participated in initial meetings for larger or controversial projects, Len Simon thought that over the years, there might have been a courtesy meeting at the very early stages of a potential project, but when it got down to the submission level, in terms of documents, to Len Simon’s understanding, it was always at the Engineering Department level. Geoffrey Haynes wondered how this law affects current projects and is it retroactive and it was stated that the new SEQR law took effect immediately when it was filed with the office of the Secretary of State. Regarding the application for a new multi-family building on South Riverside Avenue, it was determined that the application was submitted after the law was changed, and therefore, Bill Brady said that application would be exempt from SEQR. Steve Krisky asked Bill Brady for clarification as to which section of the draft local law addresses analysis of taxes on a new development and how that relates to the finances of the Village to possibly increase infrastructure or police and fire department coverage. Bill Brady mentioned Section 230-70 (B) 10 as referring to “Whether adequate public-school facilities and other public services exist or can be created....,” and also Section 230-70 (B) 12 which refers to requesting a traffic study. Geoffrey Haynes followed up on Steve Krisky’s point by saying that the recent application for South Riverside Avenue not only presented how many new students they expected to have, but also how much it would cost to educate each student. Geoffrey Haynes thought that the table presented by this applicant was very helpful and moving forward, would like other applicants to present similar information about new students and police and fire services. Bill Brady said that it is written in the proposed new local law that the Planning Board can request a fiscal school/student projection analysis and public service impact analysis. Jeannette Koster suggested that Section 230-70(B)(10) could be changed to “Adequacy of public-school facilities and other public services, such as fire, police and emergency services, exist or can be created to serve the needs of the proposed site development. The Planning Board may request a fiscal analysis of public services to evaluate the needs and impacts of the proposed site development.” Steve Krisky asked about a hypothetical situation if an applicant came in proposing a 10-story building and the Village had to build a larger set of water pipes and electricity. How, Steve Krisky asked, would the Village protect against the infrastructure costs that could overwhelm the tax benefits that would come with the new development? Bill Brady said that this would be covered in Sections 230-70(B)(8) & 230- 70(B)(9) that both mention adequacy of water supply, sewage disposal facilities, and utilities to support energy demand. Jeannette Koster said that Section 230-70(B)(10) could also cover this. Steve Krisky asked about steep slopes and Jeannette Koster said that was covered in Section 230-69(4) (K) and Section 230-69(3)(C). Bill Brady said they also cross reference steep slope protections in other sections of the code. Steve Krisky asked about FAR (floor area ratio) and Bill Brady said that it was built into the building code and bulk requirements and these are not being edited. Lastly, regarding character of neighborhood, Steve Krisky said that he knows the Zoning Board looks at five criteria and one of them is about the character of a neighborhood. Steve Krisky thinks that the 2 Planning Board should be able to talk about character as well and it was noted that this was mentioned in the code in Section 230-70(B)(3). Geoffrey Haynes wants to make sure that when a fiscal analysis is requested, the Planning Board has the ability to ask the applicant, based on the applicant’s projected tax rate, how much money do you expect to generate for the Village in taxes for the school, Village and Town of Cortlandt so that they can determine if it will generate enough to fund, for example, one additional policeman. Bill Brady said that he would look into language as to how to write this, and it was determined that in Section 230-70(B)(10) it says, “...... The Planning Board may request a fiscal analysis of public services to evaluate the needs and impacts of the proposed site development.” 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Draft Minutes 7/28/2026 Steve Krisky made a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of July 28, 2026, as amended, seconded by Geoffrey Haynes, and carried, 5 — 0. 2. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Stapleton, Secretary to the Planning Board 3