The Planning Board approved two accessory cottages Tuesday night, and in both cases struck the village's $12,000 parkland fee from the approvals — a charge board members say offers them no middle ground between the full fee and nothing at all. Under Section 230-73 of the village code, the board can require a payment in lieu of parkland from new dwelling units, on the finding that they contribute to population growth. Members have chafed at the fixed amount each time an accessory-cottage application has come up, and Tuesday's meeting gave them two more chances to say so. The first application came from Roseanne MacDonald, who is replacing a cottage at 43 Riverview Trail that, she said, "hasn't been used in thirty years" Read 6:26▶. Dean Borelli of Westchester Modular Homes told the board the new 750-square-foot unit follows variances already granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals — allowing the cottage to sit closer to the street than the main house, a height variance of three feet, three inches, and a front door facing the street. The modular building will be set in place by crane in two sections, is all-electric, and will use existing water and sewer connections, with a new gravel parking area alongside. Land disturbance stays under 5,000 square feet and no trees are being removed. MacDonald will remain in the primary house while her daughter moves in. "I live in the primary house. My daughter's gonna move in. Being that I am older, my daughter's a nurse." Read 5:50▶ "If I should need the help, she'll be there." Read 5:50▶ Steve Krisky asked that the unit's exterior floodlights be shielded to throw light downward rather than scatter it outward. When the parkland fee condition came up, Geoffrey Haynes said the board was following "a precedent that we've set in these past accessory cottages, not apartments, accessory cottages" Read 16:40▶, noting that the new resident is simply a daughter joining her mother and that the fee would be a large share of a modular home's cost. "I don't necessarily agree, but I'm willing to go along with a herd on this one," Read 17:28▶ Krisky said, "particularly because we've done it in the past." Read 17:28▶ Krisky repeated a hope that the Board of Trustees will either give the Planning Board latitude or modify the fee themselves. Asked whether the board could simply set a lower amount, Village Engineer Vincent Salanitro said he would defer to the village attorney but did not believe it could. Borelli said that in Connecticut, where he builds the units, many municipalities charge nothing when an accessory unit houses a family member, on the theory that towns want to keep the taxpayers who built them rather than force them out; rental units, he said, are sometimes treated differently. Chairman Rob Luntz acknowledged the catch from the board's side: a unit presented for a family member can become a rental a month later — not because anyone misled the board, but because circumstances change, and the board does not regulate that. In Luntz's words, "a $12,000 fee on a small building like this seems to be onerous to past applicants, and they voiced their concerns about it." Read 20:30▶ Haynes moved to approve with the fee condition struck, Eva Thaddeus seconded, and the vote was 5-0. The approval carries a three-year clock — a building permit must be issued and work diligently pursued — and a transfer condition: a new owner who wants to keep the cottage must notify the building department within 90 days of a change in ownership, or the approval is revoked. The second application was a garage conversion at 284 Grand Street, where builder Bob Small is converting the existing structure for homeowner James Corbett's in-laws to use on summer visits. The footprint stays the same while the building is rebuilt to code; the unit is 499 square feet with one bedroom and a small office, finished to match the newly remodeled main house. Members found little to question. The fee question returned. Luntz said the board has already sent the Village Board a memo asking for some latitude, since village attorneys have advised the board that "It's either 0 or $12,000." Read 30:30▶ The village encourages these projects, Luntz said, and accessory apartments carved out of existing homes carry no parkland fee at all — a mismatch, in the board's view. Krisky said asking new residents to contribute to parkland is reasonable, but "the amount as it is now is onerous." Read 31:58▶ Small suggested a fee based on construction cost; Krisky said square footage might work — some criteria fairer than all-or-nothing. Krisky had made a direct request earlier in the evening, as the first application's fee discussion wound down. With more ADU applications expected, he said, "I would ask the building department to, nudge the board trustees to kinda at least review that for an answer as to whether we can have middle ground going forward." Read 19:04▶ John Ghegan moved to approve with the fee condition struck, Thaddeus seconded, and the vote was again 5-0, on the same three-year clock and ownership-notification condition. In old business, the board gave final signage approval, 5-0, to Mirage Mirror & Glass at 425 South Riverside Avenue. The item was housekeeping: a January 2025 change-of-use approval required the business to obtain Advisory Board of the Visual Environment review of its sign and then return to the Planning Board. The visual environment board reviewed the sign in February 2025 and Sign Permit #20250002 was issued, but the return trip was missed through an oversight — which is why the item resurfaced Tuesday. Two neighbors used the moment to ask about something bigger. Constancia Warren and Bruce Dollar of 1 Young Avenue, which overlooks the property, came to the microphone. Warren pointed to the resolution's environmental finding and asked, "Is that simply for the sign or does that cover any other environmental quality review?" Read 35:25▶ The answer, from board and staff: the sign only. Any redevelopment of the property would be a separate application with its own environmental review, mailed notice to neighbors about ten days in advance, and a public hearing. Warren said a development company has already spoken with adjoining property owners about plans for the site. The scale of what may be coming became clearer in an engineering update later in the meeting. Salanitro said the property owner is expected back before the board: "They're coming in with a 49 unit building, so that's gonna be a big application." Read 49:55▶ Later, Barry Donaldson of 14 King Street asked whether the village has a comprehensive master plan — one that establishes where commercial and residential growth should go, makes room for the natural landscape, and addresses "the crappy condition of Main Street" Read 44:35▶. Barry Donaldson said the village's comprehensive plan is on file with the engineering department and available online. Village Attorney Joshua Subin, who arrived late after having trouble joining by video, explained that public comment at planning meetings is tied to the agenda — public hearings and noticed items — rather than an open session. Salanitro also reported that the applicant for 1360 Albany Post Road confirmed having been in touch with the state Department of Transportation, which is expected to contact village engineers. And Krisky, the board's liaison to the Conservation Advisory Council, said the CAC has begun reviewing dark-sky codes from Yorktown, Cortlandt and other municipalities for a recommendation to the trustees. Both cottage approvals expire if permits are not issued and work started within three years. The parkland fee question, though, now sits with the trustees: whether the Planning Board keeps choosing between $12,000 and nothing, or finally gets an amount in between.